NCD079044426_20110503_General Electric Co. Shepherd Farm_FRBCERCLA RA_Annual Groundwater Remedial Action Performance Monitoring Reports 20003 - 2011-OCR

Geosyntec C>
consultants
Mr. Michael Townsend
Remedial Project Manager
Superfund Remedial & Site Evaluation Branch
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4
Sam Nunn -Atlanta Federal Center
61 Forsyth Street, S.W.
Atlanta, GA 30303
Ceosyntec Consullants of NC, PC
1255 Roberts Boulevard, Suite 200
Kennesaw, Georgia 30144
1'!1678.202.9500
FAX [phone]
www.gcosynlcc.com
3 May 2011
Subject: Second Response to Comments Received 28 March 2011 from David Mattison,
NCDENR Superfund Section
Annual Groundwater Remedial Action
Performance Monitoring Report -2010
General Electric/Shepherd Farm NPL Site
East Flat Rock, Henderson County
Dear Mr. Townsend:
On behalf of GE Lighting Systems (GELS), Geosyntec Consultants of NC, PC (Geosyntcc) has
reviewed the regulatory comments on the Annual Groundwater Remedial Action Performance
Monitoring Report -2010 provided by David Mattison ofNCDENR Superfund dated 28 March
2011. Responses to these comments are provided in the text below with page changes/inserts
where appropriate.
Comment No. 1 -Section 2.5 Stream Flow:
In accordance with the revised Table 2-8 and_ the revised Table 2-9, please correct the
second sentence of the second paragraph of Section 2.5 to state " ... but then declined by
0.65 cfs at Spartanburg Highway ... "
Re,ponse:
As shown in the response lo Comment #3. the discharge al SW-4 is 0. 75 cfs and not 0.45
cf,. Thus, the statement above has been corrected to state that the decline is 0.35 cfs at
Spartanburg Highway. A corrected page 21 is enclosed.
GR4794/GAI 10167 RTC General Electric Shepherd Fann NPL Sitc_2_3Mayl l.docx
engineers I scientists I innovators
Mr. Michael Townsend
3 May201 l
Page 2
Comment No. 2 -Table 2-8 Stream Flow Measurements Recorded 21 September 2010:
The values given for Estimated Flow in the revised Table 2-8 do not agree with the
products of Average Velocity and Approximate Discharge Cross-Section. Please clarify
these discrepancies.
Response:
The purpose of the stream discharge measurements is to provide insights on gaining and
losing portions of Bat Fork Creek adjacent to the Shepherd Farm and GE Subsites. Prior
to 2007, creek discharge was computed as the product of the thalweg depth and stream
width. This method was slightly revised in 2007 when flow conditions revealed that the
use of a single creek depth oversimplified creek discharge. Since 2007, creek discharge
at each station has been calculated as the product of the average stage height
(determined from the height at both stream banks and the thalweg), the flow velocity
(measured with a current meter), and the active (flowing) channel width based on field
observations at the time of measurement. This modification does not alter the resulting
interpretations of gaining or losing stream reaches.
Table 2-8 has been revised to include the average stage, velocity, and channel width to
support the resultant discharge calculation. It also includes the average discharge cross-
section (thalweg depth times the flow velocity) and approximate channel cross-section for
continuity with previous Annual Reports as these measures provide insights on the
portion of the full channel actively discharging at the time of measurement.
Comment No.3 -Table 2-9 Summary of Stream Flow Measurements Since GRS Start-Up:
The revised Table 2-8 indicates that the approximate cross-section of stream flow
measurement point SW-1 is 1.92 square ft (ft2). However, the revised Table 2-9 indicates
that the approximate cross-section of stream flow measurement point SW-I is 1.19 ft2•
Please clarify this discrepancy.
The revised Table 2-8 indicates that the estimated flow at stream flow measurement point
SW-4 is 0.45 cubic feet per second (cfs). However, the revised Table 2-9 indicates that
the estimated flow at stream flow measurement point SW-4 is 0.75 cfs. Please clarify
this discrepancy.
GR4794/GA 110167 RTC General Electric Shepherd Farm NPL Sitc_2_3Mnyl l.docx
engineers I scientists I innovators
Mr. Michael Townsend
3 May 2011
Page 3
The values given for Estimated Flow in the revised Table 2-9 from 2007 through 20 IO do
not agree with the products of Average Velocity and Approximate Discharge Cross-
Section. Please clarify these discrepancies.
Response:
Table 2-8 has been revised to indicate 1.19 Ji2 for the cross-sectional area at SW-I and
0.75 cfsfor the discharge at SW-4.
As indicated in the response to Comment #2, the calculated discharge at each station
since 2006 is based on a modified approach which does not alter the resulting
interpretations of gaining/losing reaches in Bat Fork Creek. The purpose of Table 2-9 is
to provide a relative reference of discharge over the years of monitoring. For clarity, a
footnote has been added to Table 2-9. A revised Table 2-9 is enclosed.
Comment No. 4-Figure 1-2 Location of the GE Subsite Features:
Please correct the note for piezometers BAPZ-3, BAPZ-3S and BAPZ-3D in the revised
Figure 1-2 to state"( destroyed)".
Response
The correction has been made, and a corrected figure insert is enclosed.
Comment No. 5 -Figure 2-7 Location of Stream Flow Measurement Points:
Please remove abandoned stream flow measurement point SW-6 from Figure 2-7.
Response:
SW-6 has not been abandoned. This station has been used for historical water quality
monitoring purposes only (see Table 4-2 "Summary of Surface Water Results Since GRS
Startup") and not discharge measurements.
Sincerely,
~/~-
Todd K. Kalka
Senior Hydrogeologist
GR4794/GAI 10167 RTC General Electric Shepherd Farm NPL Site_2_3Mayl l.docx
engineers I scientists I innovators
Mr. Michael Townsend
3May2011
Page 4
Attachments
CC: Mr. Barry Hallock, GE Lighting
GR4794/GAI 10167 RTC General Electric Shepherd Fann NPL Site_2_3Mayl l.docx
engineers scientists innovators
(?. 1 Cdi:f? 1+tt1'-"-
R. Todd Hagemeyer, P.G.
Associate
ATTACHMENT 1
PAGES TO INSERT
2010 ANNUAL REPORT
Geosyntec0
consultants
The GE Subsite provides a large capture zone where recovery wells RW-1, RW-2, and
RW-6 merge upgradient into a single hydraulic containment zone; however, RW-7
formed a smaller individual capture zone due to its isolated location downgradient at the
Subsite. The capture zone at the SF Subsite similarly merge upgradient but still
encompass the majority of the SF Subsite.
Figure 2-5 reveals that the observed September 20 IO capture zones from the recovery
wells at the GE Subsite lie mostly within the modeled target containment zone. The
R W-6 capture zone extends further west from the modeled containment zone. The
downgradient portion of the modeled zone docs not match the observed conditions well
due in part to below average extraction resulting in lower drawdown at RW-7 and RW-
5. At the SF Subsite, the observed capture zones compared favorably with the modeled
containment zone (Figure 2-6).
2.5 Stream Flow
Stream flow (discharge) measurements were collected at the five established gauging
stations in Bat Fork Creek (Figure 2-7) on 21 September 2010. Velocity was measured
at each station using an in-stream velocity meter across a transect for which the cross-
sectional area was measured in the field at the time of measurement, resulting in an
estimated discharge per station.
The Bat Fork Creek discharge measurements from 21 September are presented in Table
2-8. Bat Fork Creek gained 1.08 cubic feet per second (cfs) across the SF Subsite from
SW-I to SW-2 but then declined by 0.35 cfs at Spartanburg Highway where there was
evidence of sediment deposits impeding the flow. Flow increased across the GE
Subsite from SW-4 at Spartanburg Highway to SW-3 at Tabor Road with a net gain of
0.13 cfs, indicating gaining conditions prevail at the GE Subsite.
Bat Fork Creek discharge measurements collected from December 200 I to September
20 IO are summarized in Table 2-9. The average discharge rates at each station reveal
the gaining tendency of the creek at progressively more downstream locations. Stream
discharges measured in 20 IO were less than the average of the recorded discharges at
each station since monitoring was initiated in 200 I.
GR4369/GA 100616_GELS 2010 Annmil Rcport_rcv25APR 11 21 05.03.J I
Table 2-8
Stream Flow Measurements Recorded 21 September 2010
GE Lighting Systems Annual Performance Monitoring
East Flat Rock, North Carolina
Active Estimated Stream Section Avg. Approximate
in downstream Measurement Velocity Avg. stage Channel Discharge Channel Cross-
order Date (ft/s) height (ft) width (ft) (cfs) section (sq. ft)
SW-I 09/21/10 0.04 0.16 2.8 0.02 35.33
SW-2 09/21/10 0.75 0.28 5.3 1.10 54.56
SW-4 09/21/10 0.45 0.41 4.1 0.75 22.10
SW-5 09/21/10 0.07 0.96 9.9 0.66 26.08
SW-3 09/21/10 0.42 0.26 7.9 0.88 71.11
Note:,:
cfs -cubic feet per second
Approximate
Discharge
Cross-section 1,,.. ft\
1.19
2.64
2.67
13.31
4.84
I. The flow at each station is the product of the velocity, average stage height, and active channel width. The approximate channel cross-section and
discharge cross-section are provided to demonstrate the portion of the full stream channel actively discharging on the date of measurement. The average
discharge cross-section is the product of the thalweg depth and channel width.
GA 100616\2-8 and 2-9 _StreamFlowMeasurements.xlsx Page I of I Geosyntee Consullano
Table 2-9
Summary of Stream Flow Measurements Since GRS Start-Up
GE Lighting Systems Annual Performance Monitoring
East Flat Rock, North Carolina
Stream Measurement Measurement Anrage Approximate F..stimated
Section Point Date Velocity (ft/s) Discharge Cross Discharge
section (sq. ft) (cfs)
SW-I Spring I lavcn 12/10/01 0.93 1.16 1.07
SW-I Spring I laven 03/11/02 1.50 1.14 1.70
SW-I Spring Haven 06/10/02 0.84 0.74 0.60 sw.1• Spring Haven 09/09/02 0.00 0.00 0.00
SW-I Spring Haven 12/09/02 2.69 1.43 3.85
SW-\ Spring Haven 3/10/2003 0.84 0.87 0.70
SW-\ Spring Haven 6/9/2003 1.35 1.43 1.93
SW-I Spring Haven 9/8/2003 1.08 0.69 0.74
SW-I Spring Haven 3/2/2004 0.87 1.12 0.97
SW-\ Spring Haven 9/16/2004 0.13 2.56 0.32
SW-I Spring J laven 6/28/2005 1.34 L14 1.53
SW-I Spring Haven 9/29/2005 0.59 0.61 0.36
SW-I Spring Haven 9/21/2006 0.23 2.45 0.56
SW-I Spring Haven 9/18/2007 0.13 2.24 0.19
SW-I Spring Haven 9/16/2008 0.12 3.27 0.34
SW-I Spring Haven 9/29/2009 0.58 2.66 0.63
SW-I Sprin~ Haven 9/21/2010 0.04 1.19 0.02
Avcraec 0.91
SW-2 RWSF-4 12/10/2001 1.56 0.73 1.14
SW-2 RWSF-4 3/11/2002 2.90 0.93 2.70
SW-2 RWSF-4 6/10/2002 2.64 0.54 1.40
SW-2 RWSF-4 9/9/2002 1.09 0.27 0.30
SW-2 RWSF-4 12/9/2002 2.57 1.60 4.11
SW-2 RWSF-4 3/10/2003 1.16 1.13 1.30
SW-2 RWSF-4 6/9/2003 1.50 1.94 2.92
SW-2 RWSF-4 9/8/2003 0.49 1.89 0.92
SW-2 RWSF-4 3/2/2004 2.68 0.74 1.98
SW-2 RWSF-4 9/16/2004 0.62 2.12 1.31
SW-2 RWSF-4 6/28/2005 4.55 3.79 5.87
SW-2 RWSF-4 9/29/2005 1.59 0.60 0.95
SW-2 RWSF-4 9/21/2006 0.22 4.72 1.04
SW-2 RWSF-4 9/18/2007 0.25 2.18 0.49
SW-2 RWSF-4 9/16/2008 0.36 2.03 0.54
SW-2 RWSF-4 9/29/2009 0.49 6.22 1.39
SW-2 RWSF-4 9/21/2010 0.75 2.64 1.10
Avcral!c 1.73
SW-4 Spartanburg Hwy 12/10/2001 1.63 1.06 1.73
SW-4 Spartanburg Hwy 3/11/2002 2.53 1.00 2.50
SW-4 Spartanburg Hwy 6/10/2002 2.48 0.61 1.50
SW-4 Spartanburg Hwy 9/9/2002 0.60 0.83 0.50
SW-4 Spartanburg Hwy 12/9/2002 4.37 I.II 4.83
SW-4 Spartanburg Hwy 3/10/2003 1.95 0.97 1.90
SW-4 Spartanburg Hwy 6/9/2003 1.65 2.54 4.17
SW-4 Spartanburg Hwy 9/8/2003 2.46 1.12 2.75
SW-4 Spartanburg Hwy 3/2/2004 1.93 1.21 2.34
SW-4 Spartanburg Hv.y 9/16/2004 0.70 2.08 1.46
SW-4 Spartanburg Hwy 6/28/2005 2.10 3.59 7.53
SW-4 Spartanburg Hwy 9/29/2005 2.12 0.74 1.57
SW-4 Spartanburg Hwy 9/21/2006 1.13 LOI 1.14
SW-4 Spartanburg Hwy 9/18/2007 0.37 0.01 0.01
SW-4 Spartanburg Hwy 9/16/2008 0.86 2.19 2.09
SW-4 Spartanburg Hwy 9/29/2009 1.29 1.87 1.58
SW-4 SnartanburP Hwv 9/21/2010 0.45 2.67 0.75
AvcruPc 2.26
GA 100616\2-8 and 2·'> _Slrcamflo,.Mcasurcmcnts.xl,~ Page I of2
Table 2-9
Summary of Stream Flow Measurements Since GRS Start-Up
GE Lighting Systems Annual Performance Monitoring
East Flat Rock, North Carolina
Stream Measurement Average Approximate Estimated Measurement Discharge Cross Discharge Section Point Date Velocity (ft/s) section (sq. ft) (cfs)
Weir GE Subsite 12/l0/2001 -0.80
Weir" GE Subsitc 3/11/2002 -1.20
Weir GE Subsite 6/10/2002 -0.80
Culvert b GE Subsite 6/10/2002 6.69 0.23 1.50
Culvert GE Subsite 9/9/2002 1.81 0.29 0.50
Culvert GE Subsite 12/9/2002 4.97 1.08 5.37
Culvert GE Subsite 3/10/2003 3.65 0.57 2.10
Culvert GE Subsite 6/9/2003 3.49 1.22 4.24
Culvert GE Subsite 9/8/2003 3.85 0.72 2.77
Culvert GE Subsitc 3/2/2004 3.65 0.84 3.07
Culvert GE Subsite 9/16/2004 1.27 1.25 1.58
Culvert GE Subsite 6/28/2005 2.72 2.72 2.72
Culvert GE Subsitc 9/29/2005 1.67 0.57 0.95
SW-5° GE Subsite 9/21/2006 0.94 1.58 1.49
sw-s0 GE Subsite 9/18/2007 0.33 2.27 0.21
SW+S'-' GE Subsitc 9/16/2008 0.36 7.09 2.71
SW-5"-d GE Subsite 9/29/2009 0.17 13.22 1.79
SW-5"-d GE Subsite 9/21/2010 0.07 13.31 0.66
Averae.e 1.91
SW-3 Tabor Road 12/10/2001 3.50 1.06 3.69
SW-3 Tabor Road 3/11/2002 7.70 0.73 5.60
SW-3 Tabor Road 6/10/2002 5.91 0.30 1.80
SW-3 Tabor Road 9/9/2002 2.01 0.33 0.70
SW-3 Tabor Road 12/9/2002 5.59 0.98 5.45
SW-3 Tabor Road 3/10/2003 2.94 0.86 2.50
SW-3 Tabor Road 6/9/2003 3.42 2.40 8.19
SW-3 Tabor Road 9/8/2003 3.38 0.90 3.04
SW-3 Tahor Road 3/2/2004 3.27 1.58 5.15
SW-3 Tabor Road 9/16/2004 1.20 1.35 1.62
SW-3 Tabor Road 6/28/2005 1.87 1.36 2.54
SW-3 Tabor Road 9/28/2005 2.34 0.71 0.66
SW-3 Tabor Road 9/21/2006 0.82 3.15 2.58
SW-3 Tabor Road 9/18/2007 0.19 3.79 0.37
SW-3 Tabor Road 9/16/2008 0.49 5.29 2.27
SW-3 Tahor Road 9/29/2009 1.31 5.15 2.93
SW-3 Tabor Road 9/2\/2010 0.42 4.84 0.88
AveraPe 2.94
Nr,tu:
dS • cubic feet per second
I. Since 2007. the discharge al each station hus been calcuatcJ as the produce of the velocity, a,erage stage height, and active
channel width (sec Table 2-8). However. the average discharge cross-section has still been calculated as the product of the
thalwcg depth anJ tlow velocity for compari,;on pmposes.
• No tlow was oh~crvcd in SW-I d11ring 1hc September 2002 Sampling Evcn1.
' Weir measurements arc suspected of being lt,w. An additional point 10 feet duwnstream un the weir (culven) has been
ado.led.
• Replacement m<>nitoring poin1.
'Taken apprnximately 20 fret downstream rmm culven where channel nam,ws.
J This monitoring location significantly affected by influence of beaver impoundmcnt.
GA 10()(, 16\2-8 and 2-'1 _StrcamFlowMcasurcmcnts.,I" Page 2 of2
R~e, ♦ ♦• RWSF.-4
♦
!
l,~_Q ----:------0 Be
• g wen • Bed,ock monitonn !_ logond O Reoo,e,y well ell 0
Staff gaoge • • eco,e,y w ~ ,7,, p·,ezometer yed/missing) + Inactive r .d ntial well •, ~ {destro Sampled resi e Piezometer d Bedrock l 0 Sapcolite/Frnctoce CJ Wetlands !l monitoring well ed Bedrock rte/Fractur I Sapro 1 _ ell (missing J o monitonng w i
p
p
-,,.--BAPZ-3D z 3 BAPZ-3v,,
BA ~ye'd)
C> Geosyntec
consultants
.
MW•
MW-13_ i.Mw!13
IJ
MW-30
CMW-30A
Kflnnes.aw' GA 28-SEPT-2010
WW-5
Large GE Wetjand
WW-73
+
0
GE Subsite Features of the Location -=•, Rock. NC East,
N
WW-34
+
Figure
1-2
j
MA
MCDIENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Waste Management
Beverly Eaves Perdue
Governor
Dexter R. Matthews
Director
Mr. Michael Townsend
Remedial Project Manager
Superfund Remedial & Site Evaluation Branch
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4
Sam Nunn -Atlanta Federal Center
61 Forsyth Street, S. W.
Atlanta, GA 30303
March 28, 20 t I
RE: Response to Comments -Annual Groundwater Remedial Action
Performance Monitoring Report -2010
General Electric/Shepherd Farm NPL Site
East Flat Rock, Henderson County
Dear Mr. Townsend:
Dee Freeman
Secretary
The North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NC DENR) Superfund
Section has received the Response to Comments -Annual Groundwater Remedial A cl ion
Performance Monitoring Report -20 IO for the General Electric/Shepherd Farm National
Priority List (NPL) Site. The NC DENR Superfund Section has reviewed this document and
offers the following attached comments.
The NC DENR Supcrfund Section appreciates the opportunity to comment on this document. If
you have any questions or comments, please feel free to contact me at [phone] or at
da vi d. m<ll t iso11@.ncck:n r. gov.
Attachment
1646 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1646
Sincerely,
David B. Mattison
Environmental Engineer
NC DENR Superfund Section
Phone: [phone] \ FAX: [phone] I Internet: http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/wm
,'..n Equal Oo:xir.unity I .A1f1rmative Aciion Employei
One NorthCarolina
;Vat11ral!y
Mr. Michael Townsend
General Electric/Shepherd Fann NPL Site
Response to Comments -Annual Ciroundwatcr Rc1rn.:dial Action Performance Monitoring Rcport -20 I 0
March 28, 20 I I
Page I
GENERAL ELECTRIC/SHEPHERD FARM NPL SITE
Response to Comments -Annual Groundwater Remedial Action Performance
Monitoring Report-2010
Section 2.5 Stream Flow
I. In accordance with the revised Table 2-8 and the revised Table 2-9, please correct the second
sentence of the second paragraph of Section 2.5 to state " ... but then declined by 0.65 cfs at
Spartanburg Highway ... "
Table 2-8 Stream Flow Measurements Recorded 21 September 2010
2. The values given for Estimated Flow in the revised Table 2-8 do not agree with the products of
Average Velocity and Approximate Discharge Cross-Section. Please clarify these discrepancies.
Table 2-9 Summary of Stream Flow Measurements Since GRS Start-Up
3. The revised Table 2-8 indicates that the approximate cross-section of stream flow measurement
point SW-I is 1.92 square ft ( ft2). However, the revised Table 2-9 indicates that the approximate
cross-section of stream flow measurement point SW-I is 1.19 ft2• Please clarify this
discrepancy.
4. The revised Table 2-8 indicates that the estimated flow at stream flow measurement point SW-4
is 0.45 cubic feet per second (cfs). However, the revised Table 2-9 indicates that the estimated
flow al stream flow measurement point SW-4 is 0.75 cfs. Please clarify this discrepancy.
5. The values given for Estimated Flow in the revised Table 2-9 from 2007 through 20 IO do not
agree with the products of Average Velocity and Approximate Discharge Cross-Section. Please
clarify these discrepancies.
Figure 1-2 Location of the GE Subsite Features
6. Please correct the note for piezometcrs BAPZ-3, BAPZ-3S and BAPZ-3D in the revised Figure
1-2 to state "(destroyed)".
Figure 2-7 Location of Stream Flow Measurement Points
7. Please remove abandoned stream flow measurement point SW-6 from Figure 2-7.
GeosyntecD
consultants
Mr. Michael Townsend
Remedial Project Manager
Superfund Remedial & Site Evaluation Branch
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4
Sam Nunn -Atlanta Federal Center
61 Forsyth Street, S.W.
Atlanta, GA 30303
1255 Roberts Boukvard, Suitt: 200
Kennesaw. Georgia JO 144
Pl I 678.202.9500
F,\\ 678.202.9501
\11111 .gi:osy111c:c.~1•111
24 March 2011
Subject: Response to Comments Received from David Mattison, NCDENR Superfund
Section
Annual Groundwater Remedial Action
Performance Monitoring Report -2010
General Electric/Shepherd Farm NPL Site
East Flat Rock, Henderson County
Dear Mr. Townsend:
On behalf of GE Lighting Systems (GELS), Geosyntec Consultants, Inc. (Geosyntec) has
reviewed the regulatory comments on the Annual Groundwater Remedial Action Performance
Monitoring Report-2010 provided by David Mattison ofNCDENR Superfund dated 31 January
20 I 0. We have provided the following responses to these comments in the text below and page
changes/inserts where appropriate. We regret the inadvertent omission of Tables 2-8 and 2-9 in
the final report documented submitted to EPA and NCDENR 31 January 2010; these tables arc
also enclosed as requested in Comments 13 and 14. In light of this, Geosyntec will utilize
alternative report quality control procedures in forthcoming submittals to prevent future
inadvertent omissions.
Comment No. I -Section 1.6.3 Monitoring Program Modifications:
Please revise the fourth proposed modification in the table included in Section 1.6.3 to
state "Removal of lead, manganese and nickel from all but one location and institute
passive diffusion sampling method for subsequent groundwater perfonnanee
monitoring."
Response:
The correction has been made. and a corrected page insert (page 14) is enclosed.
Mr. Michael Townsend
24 March 20 I I
Page 2
Comment No. 2 -Section 1.7 Reporting Requirements:
Please correct the last sentence of Section 1.7 to state " ... and survey data from staff
gauges in Appendix H."
Response:
The correction has been made, and a corrected page insert (page 16) is enclosed.
Comment No. 3 -Section 2.4 Hydraulic Containment:
As depicted in Figure 2-2, please correct the second sentence of the third paragraph of
Section 2.4 to state "One smaller area between the two Subsitcs also exhibits
"drawdown" ... "
Response:
The correction has been made, and a corrected page insert (page 20) is enclosed.
Comment No. 4 -Section 2.6 Ecological Data:
Please correct the last sentence of the first paragraph of Section 2.6 to state "As a result,
the 2010 monitoring event represents a new baseline for subsequent monitoring events."
Response:
The correction has been made. and a corrected page insert (page 22) is enclosed.
Comment No. 5 -Section 2.6. l Bunched Arrowhead Wetland:
Please de line the acronym "GPS" in the sixth sentence of the first paragraph of Section
2.6.1.
Response:
The correction has been made, and a corrected page insert (page 22) is enclosed.
Comment No. 6 -Section 2.6.2 Large GE Wetland:
Please revise the second sentence of Section 2.6.2 to state "In 2010, it was observed that
the Large GE Wetland continues to support a stable population of bunched arrowhead ... "
GR4794/CJJ\ 11011 O_RTC Gcm::rnl Electric Sher herd Farm Nl'L Site
t'.ngineers I scicnlists ! i111H1valors
Mr. M ichacl Townsend
24 March 20 I I
Page 3
Response:
The correction has been made, and a corrected page insert (page 23) is enclosed.
Comment No. 7 -Section 3.1.1 GE Subsite Results:
Please correct the fourth bullet item in Section 3.1.1 to state "I, 2-Dichloroethane (1,2
DCA) did not exceed its RG of 1.0 µg/L in the 14 performance monitoring well
locations."
Response:
The correction has been made, and a corrected page insert (page 26) is enclosed.
Comment No. 8 -Section 5.1.2 GRS Operation and Maintenance:
Please correct the second sentence of the second paragraph of Section 5.1.2 to state " ... at
which time critical electrical components were replaced with waterproof upgrades."
Re,ponse:
The correction has been made, and a corrected page insert (page 34) is enclosed.
Comment No. 9 -Section 5.2.1 Water:
Section 5.2.1 indicates that volatile organic compounds (VOCs) were not detected in the
effluent groundwater sample. However, the laboratory analytical results submitted as
Appendix A-Laboratory Results and Chain of Custody Forms indicates that the effluent
groundwater sample collected in September 20 IO contained 1.0 µg/L tetrachlorocthene.
Please clarity this discrepancy.
Response:
Geo.,yntec acknowledges this discrepancy in Section 5.2. I and has corrected the error on
page 35 (enclosed) and has corrected the corresponding PCE concentrations in Tables 5-
4 and 5-5 (replacements also enclosed). .
Comment No. 10 -Section 6 Summary and Conclusions, GRS Performance Summary:
The first bullet item of this section indicates that the hydraulic containment areas (or
capture zones) observed in September 20 IO were considerably larger than those observed
in 2009. However the capture zone observed at the General Electric (GE) Subsitc was
(;1{4794/(J/\l 101 IO_KTC General Electric Shepherd Farm Nl'l. Site
engirwcrs I ~cienlisls I innuvalurs
Mr. Michael Townsend
24 March 2011
Page 4
smaller than that predicted by the original numerically-modeled capture zone; a
consequence of under-performing recovery wells in this area. Please provide a rationale,
plan and schedule for increasing the hydraulic containment area at the GE Subsite to
more fully encompass and capture the groundwater contamination located at the GE
Suhsite.
Response:
In future annual reports, Geosyntec will eliminate the comparison of the observed
capture zone for the year with that from the previous year. Since the observed capture
zone at any snapshot in time is a fimction of numerous transient effects outside of GE's
control as well as GRS-related performance (e.g., pumping performance), there is little
meaning in comparing a given year ',1· capture zone with that from the previous year.
Instead, a more meaning(,,! comparison of GRS performance over time is total treated
discharge and mass removal -metrics that are included in the Section 5 discussion of
each annual report.
With respect to comparing the observed capture zone with the modeled capture zone, it is
important to recognize that the capture zone is directly influenced by the transient issues
noted above and that the modeled capture is also an estimation. As was noted on Figure
2-1 and 2-3, RW-5 was found to be off at the time ofsitewide water level measurements
and was down or under-performing over the preceding three months. These issues led to
a reduction in drmvdown at R W-5, resulting in a smaller capture zone at the time of
water level measurements. However, these conditions are considered anomalous since ii
was documented in Section 5 and Figure 5-1 (Extraction Histo,y of the GRS) that PY
2009-20 IO was the third highest recorded annual discharge since startup in 2000 and
R W-5 was pe1forming at or near its design flow rate Ji'om September 2009 to April 20 I 0.
It has been shown in previous annual reports (e.g., 2001, 2002, 2003, 2007, and 2008)
that when all the recovery wells are operating at or near design rates at the time of water
level measurements, that the observed capture zones at both Suhsites closely match the
modeled capture zones.
To eliminate this potential discrepancy in the fii111re, if a recovery well is found to he not
operating on the water level measurement dale, or if GRS performance has been
impaired immediately prior to the annual sampling event, then Geosyntec will postpone
the waler level measurement event until a later date when hydraulic conditions are
deemed more representative of pumping conditions. Geo.,yntec has been pe,forming the
GR4794/GAl 10l 10_RTC General Electric Shepherd Farm Nl'L Site
engineers l scicnrists I innovat(lrs
Mr. Michael Townsend
24 March 201 I
Page 5
third quarter O&M events (which typically include the annual inspection of all the
recovery well pumps) in August in an effort to have the GRS running optimally prior to
the September sampling event; unfortunately in 20 I 0, R W-5 still experienced a shutdown
sometime after the O&M event on 31 August 20 I 0.
Therefore, Geosyntec does not believe that additional modifications to the GRS to
improve groundwater capture at the GE Subsite are warranted at this lime since the 2010
capture zone can be explained by anomalous drawdown not indicative of performance
over the year.
Comment No. 11 -Section 7 Action Items and Recommendations:
The North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources Supcrfund
Section has reviewed the two recommendations for performance monitoring
modifications specified in Section 7 -Action Items and Recommendations of the Annual
Groundwater Remedial Action Performance Monitoring Report -20/0 and approves of
the recommendations, pending United States Environmental Protection Agency (US
EPA) approval. The State of North Carolina concurs with the proposed performance
monitoring modifications, subject to the following conditions.
a. State concurrence on the proposed performance monitoring modi ti cations is based
solely on the information contained in the subject Annual Groundwater Remedial
Action Performance Monitoring Report -2010. Should the State receive new or
additional information that significantly affects the conclusions contained in the
Annual Groundwater Remedial Action Pe,formance Monitoring Report -20 I 0, it
may modify or withdraw this concurrence with written notice to the US EPA
Region IV.
b. State concurrence on the proposed performance monitoring modifications in no
way binds the State to concur in future decisions or commits the State to
participate, financially or otherwise, in the cleanup of the site. The State reserves
the right to review, overview, comment, and make independent assessment of all
future work relating to this site.
c. If, after remediation is complete, the total residual risk level exceeds 10-6, the
State may require deed recordation/rcstriction to document the presence of
GR4794/GA I IO 110_ RTC (lencral Electric Shepherd Farm NPL Site
L~ngineers I scienlists I i1111ovalors
Mr. Michael Townsend
24 March 201 1
Page 6
residual contamination and possibly limit future use of the property as specified in
North Carolina General Statute (NCGS) l 30A-3 l 0.8.
Response:
The comment is acknowledged.
Comment No. 12 -Section 7 Action Items and Recommendations:
Please append the recommendations suggested in Section 7 with the additional
recommendation that the damaged groundwater monitoring wells and piezometers
located in and about the Bunched Arrowhead Wetland be properly abandoned in
accordance with Chapter 2C, Title 15A of the North Carolina Administrative Code ( 15A
NCAC 2C)-Well Construction Standards.
Response:
A third recommendation has been added to Section 7 to address abandonment of the
piezometers that can be located in the wetland in accordance with North Carolina
requirements. The text of this recommendation is provided below and a revised page 41
has been enclosed.
"The piezometers that remain in the BA wetland (e.g., IJAPZ-5, BAPZ-6, BAPZ-9, BAPZ-
7, and BAPZ-4 [if found}) will be abandoned in 201 I accordance with 15A NCAC .02C
(Well Construction Standard.,). The piezometer cluster at BAPZ-3 was documented
previously in the Annual Groundwater Remedial Action Performance Monitoring Report
-2008 as having been destroyed (pushed over) and removed from the original location,
which could not be located in the wetland. "
Comment No. 13-Table 2-8 Stream Flow Measurements Recorded 20 and 21 September
2010:
Table 2-8 was inadvertently omitted. Please correct this oversight.
Re, .. ;ponse:
Ceo.,yntec acknowledges the comment and has enclosed Table 2-8 for insertion into the
document.
c;R4794/GA 1101 IO_RTC General Electric Shepherd Fann Nl'L Site
Mr. Michael Townsend
24 March 201 I
Page 7
Comment No. 14 -Table 2-9 Summary of Stream Flow Measurements since GRS Start-Up:
Table 2-9 was inadvertently omitted. Please correct this oversight.
Response:
Geosyntec acknowledges the comment and has enclosed Table 2-9 for insertion into the
document.
Comment No. IS -Table 4-1 Surface Water Analytical Results for September 20IO:
Table 4-1 provides results of chloroform analyses performed on surface water samples
SW-I through SW-6. However, the actual laboratory reports for chloroform analyses
performed on surface water samples SW-I through SW-6 was inadvertently omitted from
Appendix A -laboratory Reports and Chain of Custody Forms. Please correct this
oversight.
Response:
Geosyntec acknowledges this discrepancy. Chlorofor111 was included in the original
laboratory data report dated October 5, 2010, however was inadvertently omilled in the
subsequent revised report reissued on November 16, 2010. The data report sheets/or the
surface water sa111plesfro111 the original report are enclosed for Appendix A.
Comment No. 16 -Table 4-2 Summary of Surface Water Results Since GRS Start Up:
Table 4-2 provides results of chloroform analyses performed on surface water samples
SW-I through SW-6 in September 2010. However, the actual laboratory reports for
chloroform analyses performed on surface water samples SW-I through SW-6 in
September 20 IO was inadvertently omitted from Appendix A -laboratmy Reports and
Chain of Custody For111s. Please correct this oversight.
Response:
Geosyntec acknowledges this discrepancy. Chloroform was included in the original
laborato1y data report dated October 5, 20 I 0, however was inadvertently omilled in the
subsequent revised report reissued on November 16, 20 I 0. The data report sheets ji,r the
surji,ce water sa111plesfro111 the original report are enclosed for Appendix A.
<3R4794/GA I !01 IO_RTC Gcncml Electric Shepherd Fann NPL Site
cngineL'rs I scientists ! i11novaturs
Mr. Michael Townsend
24 March 2011
Page 8
Comment No. 17 -Table 4-3 Sediment Analytical Results for September 2010:
Table 4-3 provides results of chloroform analyses performed on sediment samples SD-I
through SD-3. However, the actual laboratory reports for chloroform analyses performed
on sediment samples SD-I through SD-3 was inadvertently omitted l"rom Appendix A -
laboratory Reports and Chain of Custody Forms. Please correct this oversight.
Response:
Geosyntec acknowledges this discrepancy. Chloroform was included in the original
laboratory data report dated October 5, 20 I 0, however was inadvertently omitted in the
subsequent revised report reissued on November /6, 20/0. The data report sheets/or the
surface water samples Ji-om the original report are enclosed for Appendix A.
Comment No. 18 -Table 4-4 Summary of Sediment Results Since GRS Start Up:
Table 4-4 provides results of chloroform analyses performed on sediment samples SD-I
through SD-3 in September 2010. However, the actual laboratory reports for chloroform
analyses performed on sediment samples SD-I through SD-3 in September 20 IO was
inadvertently omitted from Appendix A -laboratory Reports and Chain of Custody
Forms. Please correct this oversight.
Response:
Geosyntec acknowledges this discrepancy. Chloroform was included in the original
laboratory data report dated October 5, 20 I 0, however was inadvertently omitted in the
subsequenl revised report reissued on November /6, 20/0. The data report sheetsfbr the
swface water samplesf,-om the original report are enclosed for Appendix A.
Comment No. 19 -Table 5-4 lnnucnt and Efnuent Groundwater Results for the 3rd
Quarter 20 IO:
Table 5-4 indicates that the efnuent groundwater sample contained no detectable
concentrations of tetrachlorocthene, subject to 1.0 micrograms per liter (µg/L) laboratory
detection limit. However, the laboratory analytical results submitted as Appendix A -
laboratory Reports and Chain of Custody Forms indicates that the erlluent groundwater
sample collected in September 2010 contained 1.0 µg/L tetrachloroethene. Please clarify
this discrepancy.
GR4794/Crt\ 11 O I lO_RTC (!cncral Electric Shcrhcrd Farm NPL Site
eng111eers I scic111is1s I in11ovaturs
Mr. Michael Townsend
24 March 20 I I
Page 10
Response:
Geosyntec acknowledges this discrepancy. Geosyntec has been unable to locate MW-
60A since our involvement in the project in 2006. Similarly. MW-23 could not be located
until 20/0jin· theflrst time. Figure 1-2 has been updated to include MW-23 as a current
monitoring well and MW-60A as missing; a revised copy of Figure 1-2 is enclosed.
Comment No. 23 -Appendix C Bunched Arrowhead Ecological Monitoring Report, Section
I Introduction:
The last sentence of the third paragraph or Section I indicates that the significant changes
to the ecological monitoring protocols were implemented with coordination with the U.S.
Fish & Wildlife Service's Asheville Field Office (US FWS). Please append the Bunched
Arrowhead Ecological Monitoring Report with copies of the correspondence with the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) and US FWS that led to and defined
the future or the ecological monitoring at the General Electric (GE)/Shepherd Farm
National Priorities List (NPL) Site.
Response:
The correspondence from the US FWS and USEPA is enclosed for insertion into the
Bunched Arrowhead Ecological Monitoring Report as Appendix A. The previous
Appendix A content (Vegetation Monitoring Data Forms) will become Appendix B (lead
page insert also enclosed). To reflect this change. revised page iii (List of Appendice.1).
pages 2, 5. and 18 are enclosed.
Comment No. 24 -Section 3.2 Hydrological Data:
Please revise the last sentence of the second paragraph or Section 3.2 to indicate the
location where the calculated drawdown ( compared to 200 I non-pumping conditions) is
0.14 feet. Figure 2-2 of the 20/0 Annual Groundwater Remedial Action Performance
Monitoring Report (Geosyntec, 20 I 0) indicates that there was 0.13 feet observed
drawdown at groundwater monitoring well MW-27 on September 20, 20 IO; but that there
was 0.03 feet and 0.04 feet observed excess or surplus water (i.e., artesian) al
groundwater monitoring wells MW-13 and MW-14, rcspcctivcly, on September 20, 20 I 0.
Please clarify these discrepancies.
(JR4794/GA 1 l O ! lO_RTC G.:rn:ral Electric Shepherd Farm Ni'L Site
engineer_-; I scientist-" I innovators
Mr. Michael Townsend
24 March 20 I I
Page 11
Response:
Geosyntec acknowledges this discrepancy. The calculated drawdown cited in Section 3.2
should have been 0. I 3 feet at MW-27. The correction has been made and a copy of the
revised page 14 is enclosed.
Comment No. 25 -Section 3.3.1 Bunched Arrowhead Seep Descriptions:
Please correct the third sentence of the second paragraph of Section 3.3.1 to state "Seep I
eventually takes a more easterly course before connecting to Bat Fork Creek."
Response:
This correction has been made and a revised page 15 is enclosed.
Comment No. 26-Table 6 Overall Risk Assessment Restricted to Pl, 1'2, P3, and P4 of the
Large GE Wetland:
Please correct Table 6 to indicate that the Muck Thickness is measured in inches.
Response:
This correction has been made and a revised copy of Table 6 is enclosed.
Comment No. 27 -Figure 5 Location of Monitoring Wells in Proximity to Large GE
Wetland:
Please revise Figure 5 to include the approximate location of the bunched arrowhead
occupied habitat.
Response:
This correction has been made and a revised copy of Figure 5 is enclosed.
Comment No. 28 -Figure 6 Water Levels at MW-13, MW-14, and MW-27:
To fully demonstrate the point being made in the second paragraph of Section 3.2, please
revise Figure 6 to include all of the groundwater monitoring data from September 2000 to
September 20 I 0.
Response:
This correction has been made and a revised copy of Figure 6 is enclosed.
GR4794/GA 110110 _RTC CJcncral Electric Shepherd Farm Nl'L Site
cngiru'.ers I scil'ntists I i111H1vat()rs
Mr. Michael Townsend
24 March 20 I I
Page 12
We appreciate DENR 's input on the 20 IO Annual Report. Should you have further questions or
concern, please feel free to contact us at 678.202.9500.
Attachment I: Pages to insert -2010 Annual Report
Sincerely,
--· _// /JMY / J#Z--
. /
Todd K. Kafka
Senior Hydrogeologist
/? -r-;_i.:cf !/"7~"''7°'"·"--
R. Todd Hagemeyer, P.G.
Associate
Copies to: Mr. Michael Townsend, USEPA Region IV
Mr. Barry Hallock, GE Corporate and Infrastructure
GH.4794/GAI 101 !O_RTC General Electric Shepherd Farm N\'L Site
engineers I scienti~t~ I innovalors
ATTACHMENT 1
PAGES TO INSERT
2010 ANNUAL REPORT
GeosyntecD
consultants
documented in the memorandum and not repeated herein for simplification. However, a
summary is provided below.
The first proposed modification entailed RTC rev1s1ons for analytical parameters in
groundwater, surface water, sediment, and GRS influent/effluent samples as
summarized in Table 1-4. On 28 August 2009, USEPA provided conditional approval
of this modification provided the removed RTCs were analyzed every filih year to
correspond with the five-year review cycle (USEPA, 2009). The other four proposed
modifications and the subsequent comment or response from USEPA on 28 August
2009 are outlined below.
Proposed Modification USEPA Response
Removal and abandonment of two monitoring Approved with the request that groundwater
wells (MW-3 and MW-15) from the grab samples be collected from the Bat Fork
monitoring network due to local flooding Creek hcd at five-year intervals to fill the
from beaver dams. potential groundwater quality data gap.
Removal of the GAC from the GRS treatment Approved
train and its associated vapor influent/effluent
sampling.
Elimination of ccological/wctlan<l monitoring Deferred until additional information can be
at the Bunched Arrowhead Wetland and evaluated. (Note: This information IS
modification of the monitoring program at the provided Ill Sections 2.6 and 2.7 and
Large GE Wetland for future events. Appendix C.)
Removal of lead, manganese and nickel from Approved, provided low-flow sampling
all but one location and institute passive techniques are employed every Ii Ith year to
diffusion sampling method for subsequent correspond with the five-year review cycle.
groundwater performance monitoring. Subsequent discussions with USEPA led to an
agreement to collect split samples from live
well locations in Scptcmht.:r 2009 using hoth
sampling techniques, the results or which
demonstrated that the USC or PDBs were
reliable for perfomiancc monitoring and met
the objectives or the RA program.
CiR4369/GAl00616_ (iE!.S 2010 ,\nnual lkpnn_n:\·22M,\R I I .doc, 14 03.22.11
Geosyntec<>
cunsulta11ts
• Section 7 -Action Items and Recommendations -This section summarized
progress made on regulatory action items identified during the second five-year
review.
• Section 8 -References
Supporting data is provided in the enclosed appendices, such as laboratory analytical
reports and supporting QA/QC material (Appendix A); groundwater hydrographs
(Appendix B); Annual Bunched Arrowhead Ecological Monitoring Report (Appendix
C); time-concentration plots and tables for performance monitoring wells (Appendices
D and E, respectively); groundwater sampling field forms (Appendix F); and non-
parametric trend analysis examples in Appendix G; and survey data from staff gauges
in Appendix H.
< JR4J69iGA I 00616 _ (IELS 20 \ 0 Annual Rcp,.,rt_ rc\"22M,\K 1 l .doc:,. ! 6 03.22.11
CeosyntecC>
consultants
Historic water level data collected at the piezometers, recovery wells, and monitoring
wells are listed in Tables 2-5, 2-6, and 2-7, respectively, and graphically displayed as
hydrographs in Appendix B, which depict generally lower elevations in 20 IO as
compared to 2009.
2.4 Hydraulic Containment
The influence of recovery well groundwater withdrawals on the groundwater flow
system can be assessed through the collection of groundwater elevations and depiction
of drawdown and capture zones, as described below.
Figure 2-2 depicts the calculated drawdown at both Subsites between the 20 September
2010 elevations and the 4 October 2001 baseline conditions (without pumping).
Although the groundwater elevations at each recovery well arc not necessarily the same
as that of the surrounding aquifer, the recovery well elevations were included in Figure
2-2 to best portray the cone of depression associated with each recovery well. Further,
it is recognized that some of the monitoring points distal from recovery wells that
appear to have drawdown may instead simply represent a groundwater elevation
difference that is due to natural seasonal variabilities or transient events such as a
rainfall.
A well-defined zone of influence is depicted in the area of the recovery wells at each
Subsite. One smaller area between the two Subsites also exhibits "drawdown" although
this change is likely related to natural variability in groundwater elevations rather than
pumping effects. The highest drawdown observed in September 20 IO was 11.68 fl at
RWSF-2. At the GE Subsite, a broader but overall lower magnitude cone of depression
was present at RW-1 and RW-2 whereas a slightly steeper cone of depression was
present at RW-6.
Figure 2-3 and Figure 2-4 depict the observed hydraulic containment zones (e.g.,
capture zones) at the time of measurement at the GE and SF Subsitcs, respectively. The
capture zones were estimated by defining flow lines perpendicular to potentiometric
lines and determining the contribution of groundwater flow migrating towards each
recovery well. As a result of the increase in the extent and magnitude of sitewidc
drawdown for the reasons previously discussed, the capture zones are larger in 20 I 0
compared to 2009; note that the data from 2009 was influenced by a 100-year plus
rainfall event that occurred immediately prior to gauging the wells in September 2009.
GR4369/(iA I 00616 _ GELS 20 IO Annual Rcpon _rcv22MAR 11 20 03.22.11
Geosyntec e>
ct111sultai11s
2.6 Ecological Data
Ecological monitoring of the Large GE Wetland and the Bunched Arrowhead Wetland
occurred on 29 September and I October 20 I 0. In accordance with the RGYP, the
purpose of the ecological monitoring program is to identify negative impacts that may
occur to key biota, specifically the bunched arrowhead (Sagillaria fasciculata), due to
the RA. Ecological monitoring data and water level data can be compared to baseline
data to assess whether wetland and sensitive receptors are adversely impacted by
groundwater withdrawals. Wetland monitoring activities include observation and
documentation of a variety of ecological factors including groundcover, composition,
invasive species, canopy cover, and hydration. Designated photo points for wetland
monitoring arc shown on Figure 7, Figure 8, and Figures IO through 14 of the Bunched
Arrowhead Ecological Monitoring Report provided in Appendix C. As described
within this report, significant changes to the ecological monitoring were implemented
this year, which shifts the focus from the Bunched Arrowhead Wetland to the Large GE
Wetland. As a result, the 2010 monitoring event represents a new baseline for
subsequent monitoring events.
Based on the observations from the wetland monitoring activities, the GRS continues to
have little or no effect on the surticial wetland system. A brief summary of the specific
observations in each wetland are summarized below; details are provided in
Appendix C.
2.6.1 Hunched Arrowhead Wetland
As a consequence of the approved revisions to the ecological monitoring program
adopted in August 2009, limited data was obtained from the Bunched Arrowhead
Wetland in 20 I 0. However, qualitative observations indicated that the bunched
arrowhead population at this site remains stable, with similar population estimates as
those obtained in 2009. Geosyntec estimated 300 to 500 individuals within the total
seep reach. Quadrat I continues to be void of bunched arrowhead plants (consistent
with the 2007, 2008, and 2009 events). Observations within Quadrats 2, 3, and 4/5
revealed a relatively closed canopy (75-80 percent cover), but adequate hydration was
present (flowing water). Global Positioning System (GPS) locations of the population
limits within the seep were obtained at this site so that future monitoring events can
compare how this population is expanding spatially along the seep. According to the
GPS survey, the total length of occupied reach is I 05 feet.
GR4369/Gi\ I 00616_ GEJ.S 20 IO Annual Rcporl_rcv22MAR I l 22 03.22.11
Ceosyntec0
consultants
2.6.2 Large GE Wetland
A new monitoring protocol was implemented within this wetland in order to more
accurately evaluate each population annually. In 20 I 0, it was observed that the Large
GE Wetland continues to support a stable population of bunched arrowhead,
particularly Populations 2 and 4, which occupy portions of Seep 3. A new monitoring
protocol was implemented within this wetland in order to more accurately evaluate each
population annually. Of note, bunched arrowhead was not observed within Seep 2, at
the historical location of Population I. This absence is likely the result of dense canopy
cover and invasive species [namely multi flora rose (Rosa mullif/ora) and Chinese privet
(Ligus/rum sinense)J, as hydration and muck depths remain at suitable conditions for
bunched arrowhead habitat. Estimates of the number of plants observed within each of
the populations are 400 (Population 2), 17 (Population 3), and between 200 and 300
(Population 4 ). The highest density of plants was observed within Population 2. The
last occurrence of bunched arrowhead at Population 2 included only 5 rosettes, noted
during the 2009 monitoring event.
RA activities do not appear to have a discernible effect on the bunched arrowhead
populations or its habitat. As discussed in Appendix C, bunched arrowhead appears to
be most affected by naturally occurring events, such as canopy cover and invasive
species. Where there is an observed trend in increase of canopy cover, there is
generally a decrease in bunched arrowhead. Further, an increase in invasive species
also has shown a trend towards a decrease in bunched arrowhead (as demonstrated at
Population I).
GR4369/GA 1006!6 _ GELS 2010 Annual Report _rev22MAR 11 2J 03.22.11
GeosyntecD
ClHlSllltants
• Chloroform was detected above its RG of 1.0 µg/L at two of the 14 performance
well locations, MW-12 (and its duplicate) at 9.3 r1g/L and MW-12A at 9.2 µg/L.
• 1,2-Dichloroethane (1,2-DCA) did not exceed its RG of 1.0 µg/L in the 14
performance monitoring well locations.
• Cis-1,2-dichloroethene ( cDCE) was not detected above its RG of 70 r1g/L at any
of the 14 performance well locations.
• Vinyl chloride was not detected above its reporting limit (and remediation goal)
of I r1g/L at any of the performance well locations.
PCE serves as a useful indicator for remedial system performance since it is the primary
plume constituent and has historically been detected above the remediation goal at more
locations than any of the other RTCs. Figure 3-3 depicts a plan view of dissolved PCE
concentrations reported in September 20 IO at the GE Subsite.
The distribution of PCE along the primary west to cast groundwater flowpath at the GE
Subsite is shown in a vertical prolile shown in Figure 3-4. This figure reveals that
upward hydraulic gradients from the shallow bedrock to the saprolitc in the vicinity of
Bat Fork Creek at the MW-27/27A, MW-14/14A, and MW-16/16A well pairs
compared to downward vertical gradients farther away from the creek (e.g., MW-
12/12A/12B cluster). These hydraulics appear to influence PCE concentrations at the
downgradicnt end of the tlowpath where vertical flow appears to be stronger than
horizontal flow as evidenced by non-detects at MW-27/27A less than 200 feet from
elevated concentrations at MW-14/14A.
3.1.2 Shepherd Farm Subsite
The four performance monitoring wells were sampled at the SF Subsite on 21
September 20 I 0. The wells included two saprolite monitoring wells (MW-66 and MW-
64) near Bat Fork Creek, an active saprolite recovery well (RWSF-1) sampled as a
performance monitoring well, and one shallow bedrock monitoring well (MW-64A).
The analytical results are summarized in Table 3-3 and Figure 3-5, and the laboratory
analytical reports are included in Appendix A. The results reveal the following:
(iR4369/G,\ l 00616_ (iELS 2010 Annual Rcport_rcv22MAR l 1 26 03.22.11
Geosyntece>
c1msultants
than prior years due to electronic upgrades performed in PY 07-08 at which time critical
electrical components were replaced with waterproof upgrades. In addition, the
electrical components at all but two recovery wells were moved to above-grade, water-
tight boxes. As a result, fewer input cards and relays required replacement in PY 09-10
compared to previous years.
In general, the majority of the performance issues during PY 09-10 were associated
with pump problems at several recovery wells ( e.g., pump wear and tear that cannot be
readily diagnosed until the pump is pulled from the well) and modifications performed
on the discharge pump piping. In April 20 I 0, Geosyntec re-designed the piping layout
at the discharge pumps to improve access and reduce system strain. Not long after
completion of the project, frequent GRS shutdowns occurred due to flooding of the air
stripper sump. As shown in Table 5-3, numerous troubleshooting visits were
performed in May and June to determine the cause of the shutdowns. It was eventually
determined that the discharge pumps were binding from air (e.g., "vapor lock") that was
entering the system via new pipe unions on the suction line that were loosening due to
vibrations. Air relief valves were installed in late June as a temporary solution until
unions of a different design could be installed lo eliminate the air binding issues.
5.2 Treatment System Effluent Monitoring
Extracted groundwater is treated for VOCs using a four-tray air stripper, pumped to the
facility for re-use, and then discharged to the POTW. The groundwater upstream
(influent) and downstream (effluent) of the air stripper are sampled quarterly during
operations to evaluate the effectiveness of the air stripper. The air or vapor effluent
(exhaust) from the air stripper is directed through a granular activated carbon (GAC)
unit prior to discharge to the atmosphere. In August 2009, EPA and NCDENR agreed
that vapor treatment was no longer necessary, resulting in the tennination of vapor
treatment monitoring. However, the GAC system has not been taken oflline at this
time.
5.2.1 Water
Influent and effluent groundwater samples from the treatment system were collected on
22 September 2010 and analyzed for VOCs by USEPA Method 8260. The results arc
presented in Table 5-4, and the corresponding laboratory analytical reports are included
in Appendix A. Chloroform, 1,2-DCA, PCE, and TCE were detected in the influent
GR4369/CiA I 00616_ GELS 20!0 Annual Rcport_rcv22MJ\R 11 34 rn.22.11
GeosyntecD
consulta11ts
sample above their respective remediation goals. PCE was the only VOC detected in
the effluent sample, but at a concentration equal to its 1.0 rig/L reporting limit,
indicating effective groundwater treatment by the air stripper.
The historical GRS influent and effluent water analytical results between December
2000 and September 20 IO are shown in Table 5-5.
5.2.2 Mass Removal
Influent groundwater quality measurements (Table 5-6) are used in conjunction with
total GRS discharge rates (Table 5-2) to calculate the estimated mass removed from the
groundwater system due to operation of the GRS. Table 5-6 reveals that an estimated
mass of24.9 pounds (lbs) ofVOCs was removed during PY 09-10 compared to 22.5 lbs
removed during PY 08-09. The PCE contribution was 22.2 lbs of the total 24.9 lbs
removed.
Since the startup of the GRS, the cumulative total mass removal of VOCs is estimated
273.5 lbs. Of the VOCs, PCE has had the highest estimated mass removal, totaling
226.6 lbs followed by cis-1,2-DCE at 23.5 lbs.
Semi-annual VOC removal rates are plotted in Figure 5-3. On average, the GRS has
historically had mass removal rates of 13 lbs of total VOCs per six months. Compared
to this average, mass removal was slightly above average in the first half of PY 09-10
and slightly below average in the second half of PY 09-10.
GR4369/CiA 1006 l 6_ GELS 20 IO Annual Report_rev22MAR l I 03.22.11
Ceosyntece>
consultants
2. Geosyntec also recommends that lead, manganese, and nickel be
removed from the RTC list from the residential well network. While
these constituents do not necessarily meet the criterion in Section 2.4 of
the RGVP (four consecutive rounds below RGs), there is a higher level
of uncertainty regarding other potential sources of or influences on these
metals at the offsite properties. For instance, no information is available
regarding well age, well construction and composition or pump
composition (if present) each of which could influence metals'
concentrations (particularly lead). Furthermore, since the well annulus is
typically not accessible to Geosyntee during sampling (e.g., sampling
from spigots, hoses, or faucets), there is no ability to minimize sample
turbidity which greatly influences the total metals concentrations. As a
result, the metals results from the residential wells must be considered in
light of these influences and thus do not provide meaningful insights on
VOC plume migration.
3. The piezometers that remain in the BA wetland (e.g., BAPZ-5, BAPZ-6,
BAPZ-9, BAPZ-7, and BAPZ-4 [if found]) will be abandoned in 201 I
accordance with I SA NCAC .02C (Well Construction Standards). The
piezometer cluster at BAPZ-3 was documented previously in the Annual
Groundwater Remedial Action Performance Monitoring Report -2008
as having been destroyed (pushed over) and removed from the original
location, which could not be located in the wetland.
GR4369/GA 100616_ G!iLS 2010 Annual Repon_rcv22i\1AR ! 1 41 03.22.11
Stream Section in
downstream order
SW-I
SW-2
SW-4
SW-5
SW-3
Note.,;:
clS -cubic feet per second
Table 2-8
Stream Flow Measurements Recorded 21 September 2010
GE Lighting Systems Annual Performance Monitoring
East Flat Rock, North Carolina
Average Approximate Approximate
Measurement Velocity Channel Cross-Disch a rgc Cross
Date (ft/s) section (sq. ft) section (sq. ft)*
09/21/10 0.04 35.33 1.92
09/21/10 0.75 54.56 2.64
09/21/10 0.45 22.10 2.67
09/21/10 0.07 26.08 13.31
09/21/10 0.42 71.11 4.84
Estimated Flow
( cfs)
0.02 , Di?
1.10 /, ~f
0.45 I, io
0.66 ' 'i 3
0.88 Z.. D3
•Discharge calcuatcd as the product or the width of strc:un channel time the thalwcg. Because this calculation .issumcs a thalwcg depth across
the channel bottom, estimated flows were calculated by taking the average depth of the channel in contrnst to using only the thalwcg depth (this
method has remained consistent throughout the annual monitoring events).
GA 100616\2-R and 2-9 _StrcamFlow:-.kasurcrm:n1s.xlsx Page I of I (;cosynlcc Consullants
Table 2-9
Summary of Stream Flow Measurements Since GRS Start-Up
GE Lighting Systems Annual Performance Monitoring
East Flat Rock, North Carolina
Approximnle
Stream Measurement Measurement ,\\'Cr.Jj!C Cross-section Estimlllcd
Section Point Date Velocity (rt/s) (sq. rt) Flow (cfs)
SW-l Spring Haven 12/10/0) 0.93 1.16 1.07
SW-I Spring Haven 03/11/02 I.SO 1.14 1.70
SW-1 Spring Haven 06/10/02 0.84 0.74 0.60
sw-1• Spring Haven 09/09/02 0.00 0.00 (l.00
SW-1 Spring Haven 12/09/02 2.69 1.43 3.85
SW-I Spring Haven 3/10/2003 0.84 0.87 0.70
SW-I Spring Haven 6/9/2003 1.35 1.43 1.93
SW-! Spring !laven 9/8/2003 I.OR 0.69 0.74
SW-I Spring Haven 3/2/2004 0.87 1.12 0.97
SW-I Spring Haven 9/16/2004 0.l3 2.56 0.32
SW-1 Spring Haven 6/28/2005 1.34 1.14 1.53
SW-I Spring Haven 9/29/2005 0.59 0.6! 0.36
SW-I Spring I laven 9/21/2006 0.:23 2.45 0.56
SW-I Spring Haven 9/18/2007 0.13 2.24 0.19. l '1
SW-I Spring Haven 9/16/2008 0.12 3.27 0.34 , 3'l
SW-! Spring !laven [)/29/2009 0.58 cm) 0.63 /.Si
SW-! Spring Haven 9/21/2010 0.04 9 0.02 , 05
Averaee 0.91
SW-2 RWSF-4 12/10/2001 1.56 0.73 1.14
SW-2 RWSF-4 3/11/2002 2.90 0.93 2.70
SW-2 RWSF-4 6/10/2002 2.64 0.54 1.40
SW-2 RWSF-•I 9/9/2002 1.09 0.27 0.30
SW-2 RWSF-4 12/9/2002 2.57 1.60 4.1 I
SW-2 RWSF-4 3/10/2003 1.16 1.13 1.30
SW-2 RWSF-4 619/2003 1.50 1.94 2.92
SW-2 RWSF-4 9/8/2003 0.49 1.89 0.92
SW-2 RWSF-4 3/2/2004 2.68 0.74 1.98
SW-2 RWSF-4 9/16/2004 0.62 2.12 1.31
SW-2 RWSF-4 6/28/2005 4.55 3.79 5.87
SW-2 RWSF-4 9/2912005 1.59 0.60 0.95
SW"2 RWSF-4 9/21/2006 0.22 4.72 1.()4
SW-2 RWSF-4 9/18/2007 0.25 2.18 0.49, p.
SW-2 RWSF-4 9/16/2008 0.36 2.03 0.54. 1,
SW-2 RWSF-4 9/29/2009 0.49 6.22 1.J9 1.
SW-2 RWSF-4 9/21/2010 0.75 2.64 1.10/, 1
A,·enwe 1.73
SW-4 Spananburg llwy 12/10/200! 1.63 1.06 t.73
SW-4 Spartanburg flwy 3/11/2002 2.53 1.00 2.50
SW-4 Spananburg l lwy (,/] 0/2002 2.48 0.61 1.50
SW-4 Spananburg H"")· 9/9/2002 0.60 0.83 0.50
SW-4 Spananburg Hwy 12/9/2002 4.37 I.I l 4.83
SW-4 Spanm1burg Hwy 3/!0/2003 J.95 0.97 1.l)0
SW-4 Spananburg l\wy 6/9/2003 1.65 2.54 4.l7
SW-4 Spananburg Hwy 9/8/2003 2.46 1.12 2.75
SW-4 Spananburg Hwy 3n/2004 1.93 1.21 2.34
SW-4 Spananburg I !wy 9/16/2004 0.70 2.08 1..16
SW-4 Spananburg !lwy 6/28/2005 2.10 3.59 7.53
SW-4 Spananburg f!w) 9/29/2005 2.12 0.74 1.57
SW-4 Spananburg I lwy 9/21/200(, 1.13 1.01 1.14
SW-4 Spananburg JI\\)" 9/18/2007 0.37 0.01 0.01. o4-
SW-4 Span,mhurg, I Jwy 9/16/2008 0.86 2.19 ,.o, ,.n
SW-4 Spananhurg llwy 9/29/2009 1.29 1.87 Jfil.'11 SW-4 Spananburg I lwv 9/21/2010 OAS 2.67 ,.,..
Avcraf.!C 2.26
(;'"")D(<"t" Conrnhani,
Tahlc 2-9
Summary of Stream Flow Measurements Since GRS Start-Up
GE Lighting S.ystcms Annual Performance Monitoring
East Flat Rock, North Carolina
Approximate
Stream Measurement Measurement Avernge Cross-section Estimutcd
Section Point Date Velocity (ft/s) (sq. rt) Flow (cfs)
Weir GE Subsite 12/10/2001 0.80
Weir GE Subsitc 31! 1/2002 1.20
Weir (iE Subsitc 6/10/2002 -0.80
Culvert b GE Suhsite 6/10/2002 6.69 0.23 1.50
Culven GE Subsile 919/2002 I.RI 0.29 0.50
Culvert GE Subsite 12/9/2002 4.97 1.0R 5.37
Culvert GE Subsite 3/10/2003 3.65 0.57 2. lO
Culvert GE Subsite 6/9/2003 3.49 1.22 4.24
Culvert GE Subsitc 9/8/2003 3.85 0.72 2.77
Culvert GE Subsite 3/2/2004 3.65 0.84 3.07
Culvert GE Suhsitc 9/16/2004 1.27 1.25 !.58
Culvert GE Subsite 6/28/2005 2.72 2.72 2.72
Culvert GE Subsite 9/29/2005 1.67 0.57 0.95
SW-5' GE Subsite 9/21/2006 0.94 1.58 l.49
sw-5< GE Subsite 9/!8/2007 0.33 2.27 0.21
sw-s< GE Subsitc 9/16/2008 0.36 7.09 2.71
sw-s<.d GE Subsitc 9(29/2009 0.17 13.22 1.79
sW-s<.d GE Subsite 9(2)(20!0 O.G7 13.31 0.66
,\\'ernl.'e 1.91
SW-3 Tabor Road 12/10/2001 3.50 1.06 3.69
SW-3 Tabor Road 3/11/2002 7.70 0.73 5.60
SW-3 Tabor Road 6/10/2002 5.9! 0.30 1.80
SW-3 Tabor Road 9/9/2002 2.01 0.33 0.70
SW-3 Tabor Road 12/9/2002 5.59 0.98 5.45
SW-3 labor Road 3/10/2003 2.94 0.86 2.50
SW-3 Tabor Road 6/9/2003 3.42 2.40 8.l9
SW-3 Tabor Road 9/8/2003 3.38 0.90 3.04
SW-3 Tabor Road 3/2/2004 3.27 1.58 5.15
SW-3 Tabor Road 9/16/2004 1.20 l.35 1.62
SW-3 Tabor Road 6/28/2005 1.87 l.36 2.54
SW-3 Tabor Road 9/28/2005 2.34 0.71 0.66
SW-3 Tabor Road 9/21/2006 0.82 :us 2.58
SW-3 Tabor Road 9/18/2007 0.19 3.79 0.37
SW-3 Tubor Road 9/16/2008 0.49 5.29 2.27
SW-3 labor Road 9/29/2009 1.31 5. !5 2.93
SW-3 Tabor Road 9/21/2010 0.42 4.84 0.88
,\\'Cr.ll!C 2.94
cfs -cuhic feel per ,,,c"n<l
• :,lo flm, "a' ob5,:r,ed in SW-I during the September 2002 Sampling bcnl.
"Weir measurements an: ~usp,..-cled of being lo". An ad<litional point IO feet do"nstrcam on !he "cir (culHn) has t>ccn
added
• Rcplaccmcnl monil<>ring point
'Taken appro,imatc!y 20 feet <lo"nmeam from culvcn "here channel nam,ws
0 ·1 his ,mmitt>rir,g l"cmion sig11itic,mtly affected by inllucncc of heaver impoundmcnt.
CA I 00/,1 (,\2-X and 2-<J _Strc . .,nFlnwMcasurcmcm, ,lss
~"/
//Pace Analytical·
, www.pacelabs.com ,
Pace Analytical Services, lnc.
2225 Riverside Dr.
ANALYTICAL RESULTS
Ashevil!e, NC 28804
[phone]
Pace Analytical Services, Inc.
9800 Kincey Ave. Suite 100
Huntersville, NC 28078
[phone]
Project: GE Lighting Annual Monitoring
Pace Project No.: 9278105
Sample: SED-1-092010 Lab ID: 9278105023 Collected: 09/20/10 14:15 Received: 09/22110 15:10 Matrix: Solid
Results reported on a "dry-weight" basis
Parameters
8082 GCS PCB
PCB-1016 (Aroclor 1016)
PCB-1221 (Aroclor 1221)
PCB-1232 (Aroclor 1232)
PCB-1242 (Aroclor 1242)
PCB-1248 (Aroclor 1248)
PCB-1254 (Aroclor 1254)
PCB-1260 (Aroclor 1260)
Decachlorobiphenyl {S)
8260/5035A Volatile Organics
Chloroform
1,2-Dichloroethane
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene
Tetrachloroethene
Trichloroethene
Vinyl chloride
Oibromofluoromethane (S)
Toluene-dB (S)
4-Bromofluorobenzene (S)
1,2-Dichloroethane-d4 (S)
Percent Moisture
Percent Moisture
Date: 10/05/2010 03:39 PM
Results Units Report Limit DF Prepared
Analytical Method: EPA 8082 Preparation Method: EPA 3546
ND ug/kg 40.9 09129110 12:00
ND ug/kg 40.9 09129110 12:00
ND ug/kg 40.9 09129110 12:00
ND ug/kg 40.9 09129110 12:00
ND ug/kg 40.9 09129110 12:00
ND ug/kg 40.9 09129110 12:00
ND ug/kg 40.9 09/29/10 12:00
94 % 21-132 09129110 12:00
Analytical Method: EPA 8260
ND ug/kg 4.6
ND ug/kg 4.6
ND ug/kg 4.6
ND ug/kg 4.6
ND ug/kg 4.6
ND ug/kg 9.3
98 % 70-130
101% 70-130
90 % 70-130
95 % 70-132
Analytical Method: ASTM 02974-87
19.3 % 0.10
REPORT OF LABORATORY ANALYSIS
This report shall not be reproduced, except in full,
without the written consent of Pace Analytical SeNices, Inc ..
lii~~2\
Analyzed CAS No. Qual
09129110 21:08 12674-11-2
09/29/10 21:08 11104-28-2
09129110 21:08 11141-16-5
09129110 21 :OB 53469-21-9
09/29/1021 :08 12672-29-6
09/2911021:08 11097-69-1
09/29/10 21:08 11096-82-5
09129110 21:08 2051-24-3
10102110 09:09 67-66-3
10/02110 09:09 107-06-2
10102110 09:09 156-59-2
10102110 09:09 127-18-4
10/02/10 09:09 79-01-6
1010211 o 09:o9 75-01-4
10102110 09:09 1868-53-7
10/02/10 09:09 2037-26-5
10102110 09:09 460-00-4
10/02/10 09:09 17060-07-0
09129110 13:27
Page 27 of 58
~/)
(/Pace Analytical·
,. www.pacelabs.com
Pace Analytical Services, Inc.
2225 Riverside Or.
ANALYTICAL RESULTS
Asheville, NC 28804
[phone]
Pace Analytical Services, Inc.
9800 Kincey Ave. Suite 100
Huntersville, NC 28078
[phone]
Project: GE Lighting Annual Monitoring
Pace Project No.: 9278105
Sample: SEO-2--092110 Lab ID: 9278105024 Collected: 09/21/10 10:00 Received: 09/22/10 15:10 Matrix: Solid
Results reported on a "dry-weight" basis
Parameters
8082 GCS PCB
PCB-1016 {Aroclor 1016)
PCB-1221 (Aroclor 1221)
PCB-1232 (Aroclor 1232)
PCB-1242 (Aroclor 1242)
PCB-1248 (Aroclor 1248)
PCB-1254 (Aroclor 1254)
PCB-1260 (Aroclor 1260)
Decachlorobiphenyt {$)
8260/5035A Volatile Organics
Chloroform
1,2-Dichloroethane
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene
Tetrachloroethene
Trichloroethene
Vinyl chloride
Dibromofluoromethane {S)
Toluene-dB {S)
4-Bromofluorobenzene (S)
1,2-0ichloroethane-d4 (S)
Percent Moisture
Percent Moisture
Date: 10/05/2010 03:39 PM
Results Units Report Limit OF Prepared
Analytical Method: EPA 8082 Preparation Method: EPA 3546
ND ug/kg 44.2 09/29/10 12:00
ND ug/kg 44.2 09/29/10 12:00
ND ug/kg 44.2 09/29/10 12:00
NO ug/kg 44.2 09/29/10 12:00
59.0 ug/kg 44.2 09/29/10 12:00
NO ug/kg 44.2 09/29/10 12:00
ND ug/kg 44.2 09/29/10 12:00
82 % 21-132 09/29/10 12:00
Analytical Method: EPA 8260
ND ug/kg 5.1
ND ug/kg 5.1
NO ug/kg 5.1
ND ug/kg 5.1
ND ug/kg 5.1
ND ug/kg 10.3
98 % 70-130
101 % 70-130
89 % 70-130
95 % 70-132
Analytical Method; ASTM 02974-87
25.3 % 0.10
REPORT OF LABORATORY ANALYSIS
This report shall not be reproduced, except in full,
without the written consent of Pace Analytical Services, Inc.,
Analyzed CAS No. Qual
09/29/10 21:30 12674-11-2
09/29/10 21:30 11104-28-2
09/29/1021 :30 11141-16•5
09/29/10 21:30 53469-21·9
09/29/10 21:30 12672-29-6
09/29/10 21:30 11097·69·1
09/29/10 21:30 11096-82-5
09/29/10 21:30 2051·24·3
09/28/10 18:04 57.55.3
09/28/10 18:04 107-06-2
09/28/10 18:04 156-59·2
09/28/1018 04 127-18-4
09/28/10 18:04 79-01-6
09/28/10 18:04 75-01-4
09/28/10 18:04 1868-53-7
09/28/10 18:04 2037-26-5
09/28/10 18:04 460-00-4
09/28/10 18:04 17060-07-0
09/29/10 13:28
Page 28 of 58
Pace Analytical Services, Inc.
2225 Riverside Dr.
ANALYTICAL RESULTS
Asheville, NC 28804
[phone]
Pace Analytical Services, Inc.
9800 Kincey Ave. Suite 100
Huntersville, NC 28078
[phone]
Project· GE lighting Annual Monitoring
Pace Project No.: 9278105
Sample: SED-3--092111 Lab ID: 9278105025 Collected: 09/21/10 13:00 Received: 09/22/10 15:10 Matrix: Solid
Results reported on a "dry-weight" basis
Parameters
8082 GCS PCB
PCB-1016 (Aroclor 1016)
PCB-1221 (Aroclor 1221)
PCB-1232 (Aroclor 1232)
PCB-1242 (Aroctor 1242)
PCB-1248 (Aroclor 1248)
PCB-1254 (Aroclor 1254)
PCB-1260 (Aroclor 1260)
Decachlorobiphenyl {S)
826015035A Volatile Organics
Chloroform
1,2-Dichloroethane
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene
Tetrachloroethene
Trichloroethene
Vinyl chloride
Dibromofluoromethane (S)
Toluene-dB (S)
4-Bromofluorobenzene (S)
1,2-Dichloroethane-d4 (S)
Percent Moisture
Percent Moisture
Date: 10/05/2010 03:39 PM
Results Units Report limit DF Prepared
Analytical Method: EPA 8082 Preparation Method: EPA 3546
ND ug/kg 44.6 09129110 12:00
NO ug/kg 44.6 09/29/10 12:00
ND ug/kg 44.6 09129110 12:00
ND ug/kg 44.6 09129110 12:00
ND ug/kg 44.6 09129110 12:00
ND ug/kg 44.6 09/29/10 12:00
ND ug/kg 44.6 09/29110 12:00
82 % 21-132 09/29/10 12:00
Analytical Method: EPA 8260
ND ug/kg 5.3
ND ug/kg 5.3
ND ug/kg 5.3
ND ug/kg 5.3
ND ug/kg 5.3
ND uglkg 10.5
96 % 70-130
99 % 70-130
91 % 70-130
95 % 70-132
Analytical Method: ASTM 02974-87
26.0 % 0.10
REPORT OF LABORATORY ANALYSIS
This report shall not be reproduced, except in full,
without the written consent of Pace Analytical Services. Inc ..
Analyzed CAS No. Qual
09129110 21 :52 12674-11-2
09129110 21:52 11104-28-2
09129110 21 :52 11141-16-5
09129110 21 :52 53469-21-9
09129110 21:52 12672-29-6
09/29/1021 :52 11097-69-1
09129110 21 :52 11096-82-5
09/29/10 21:52 2051-24-3
09/28/10 16:31 67-66-3
09128110 16:31 107-06-2
09/28/10 16:31 156-59-2
09/28/10 16:31 127-18-4
09/28/10 16:31 79-01-6
09128110 16:31 75-01-4
09/28/10 16:31 1868-53-7
09128110 16:31 2037-26-5
09/28/10 16:31 460-00-4
09128110 16:31 17060-07-0
09129110 13:28
Page 29 of 58
;!;2e Analytical·
i www.pacelabs.com
Pace Analytical Services, Inc.
2225 Riverside Or
Asheville, NC 28804
[phone]
ANALYTICAL RESULTS
Pace Analytical Sorviccs, Inc.
9800 Kincey Ave. Suite 100
Huntersville, NC 28078
{704)875-9092
Project: GE Lighting Annual Monitoring
Pace Project No.: 9278105
Sample: SW-1-092010
Parameters
8260 MSV Low Level
Chloroform
1,2-Dichloroethane
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene
Tetrachloroethene
T richloroethene
Vinyl chloride
4-Bromofluorobenzene (S)
Dibromofluoromethane {S)
1,2-0ichloroethane-d4 (S)
Toluene-d8 (S)
Date: 10/05/2010 03:39 PM
Lab ID: 9278105026 Collected: 09120/10 14:15 Received:
Results Units Report Limit DF Prepared
Analytical Method: EPA 8260
ND ug/L 1.0
ND ug/L 1.0
ND ug/L 1.0
ND ug/L 1.0
ND ug/L 1.0
ND ug/L 1.0
96 % 70-130
109 % 70-130
115 % 70-130
103 % 70-130
REPORT OF LABORATORY ANALYSIS
This report shall not be reproduced, except in full.
without the written consent of Pace Analytical Services, Inc.
09/22/10 15:10 Matrix: Water
Analyzed CAS No. Qual
09/26/10 06:41 67-66-3
09/26/10 06:41 107-06-2
09/26/10 06:41 156-59-2
09/26/10 06:41 127-18-4
09/26/10 06:41 79-01-6
09/26/10 06:41 75-01-4
09/26/10 06:41 460-00-4
09/26/10 06:41 1868-53-7
09/26/10 06:41 17060-07-0
09/26/10 06:41 2037-26-5
Page 30 of 58
~/)
(,,,P5ce Analytical·
i www.pacelabs.com
Paco Analytical Services, Inc.
2225 Riverside Or.
ANALYTICAL RESULTS
Asheville, NC 28804
[phone]
Paco Analytical Services, Inc.
9800 Kincey Ave. Suite 100
Huntersville, NC 28078
[phone]
Project: GE Lighting Annual Monitoring
Pace Project No.: 9278105
Sample: SW-2-092110
Parameters
8260 MSV Low Level
Chloroform
1,2-Dichloroethane
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene
Tetrachloroethene
Trichloroethene
Vinyl chloride
4-Bromofluorobenzene (S)
Dibromofluoromethane (S)
1,2-Dichloroethane-d4 (S)
Toluene-dB (S)
Date: 10/05/2010 03:39 PM
Lab ID: 9278105027 Collected: 09/21/10 10:00 Received:
Results Units Report Limit DF Prepared
Analytical Method: EPA 8260
ND ug/L 1.0
ND ug/L 1.0
ND ug/L 1.0
ND ug/L 1.0
ND ug/L 1.0
ND ug/L 1.0
92 % 70-130
107 % 70-130
110 % 70-130
100 % 70-130
REPORT OF LABORATORY ANALYSIS
This report shall not be reproduced, except in full,
without the written consent of Pace Analytical Services, Inc ..
09122/10 15:10 Matrix: Water
Analyzed CAS No. Qual
09126110 07:58 67-66-3
09/26/10 07:58 107-06-2
09/26/10 07:58 156-59-2
09126110 07:58 127-18-4
09126110 07:58 79-01-6
09126110 07:58 75-01-4
09126110 07:58 460-00-4
09126110 07:58 1868-53-7
09126110 07:58 17060-07-0
09126110 07:58 2037-26-5
Page 31 of 58
~/) I /PaceAnalytica( I -i www.pacelabs.com
Paco Analytical Services, Inc.
2225 Riverside Dr
Asheville. NC 28804
[phone]
ANALYTICAL RESULTS
Paco Analytical Services, Inc.
9800 Kincey Ave. Suite 100
Huntersville. NC 28078
[phone]
Project: GE Lighting Annual Monitoring
Pace Project No.: 9278105
Sample: SW-3-092110
Parameters
8260 MSV Low Level
Chloroform
1,2-Oichloroethane
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene
Tetrachloroethene
Trichloroethene
Vinyl chloride
4-Bromofluorobenzene (S)
Dibromofluoromethane (S)
1,2-Dichloroethane-d4 (S)
Toluene-d8 (S)
Date: 10/05/2010 03:39 PM
Lab 10: 9278105028 Collected: 09121110 13:00 Received:
Results Units Report Limit OF Prepared
Analytical Method: EPA 8260
ND ug/L 1.0
ND ug/L 1.0
NO ug/L 1.0
ND ug/L 1.0
ND ug/L 1.0
ND ug/L 1.0
91 % 70-130
102 % 70-130
108 % 70-130
101 % 70-130
REPORT OF LABORATORY ANALYSIS
This report shall not be reproduced, except in full,
without the written consent of Pace Analytical Services, Inc ..
lH~~~;,
09122110 15:10 Matrix: Water
Analyzed GAS No. Oual
09126110 08:23 67-66-3
09/26/10 08:23 107-06-2
09/26110 08:23 156-59-2
09126110 08:23 127-18-4
09126110 08:23 79-01-6
09126110 08:23 75-01-4
09126110 08:23 460-00-4
09126110 08:23 1868-53-7
09/26110 08:23 17060-07-0
09126110 08:23 2037-26-5
Page 32 of 58
~/)
//Pace Analytical·
/ -www.pace/abs.com
Paco Analytical Services, Inc.
2225 Riverside Dr
Asheville, NC 28804
[phone]
ANALYTICAL RESULTS
Pace Analytical Services, Inc.
9800 Kincey Ave. Suite 100
Huntersville, NC 28078
[phone]
Project:
Pace Project No.:
GE Lighting Annual Monitoring
9278105
Sample: SW-4-092110
Parameters
8260 MSV Low Level
Chloroform
1,2-Dichloroethane
cis-1,2-0ichloroethene
Tetrachloroethene
Trichloroethene
Vinyl chloride
4-Bromofluorobenzene (S)
Dibromofluoromethane (S)
1,2-Dichloroethane-d4 (S)
Toluene-dB (S)
Date: 10/05/2010 03:39 PM
Lab ID: 9278105029 Collected: 09/21/10 10:40 Received:
Results Units Report Limit DF Prepared
Analytical Method: EPA 8260
1.0 ug/L 1.0
ND ug/L 1.0
ND ug/L 1.0
ND ug/L 1.0
ND ug/L 1.0
ND ug/L 1.0
93 % 70-130
103 % 70-130
111 % 70-130
101 % 70-130
REPORT OF LABORATORY ANALYSIS
This report shall not be reproduced, except in full,
without the written consent of Pace Analytical Services, !nc
09/22/10 15: 10 Matrix: Water
Analyzed CAS No. Qua\
09/26/10 08:49 67-66-3
09/26/10 08:49 107-06-2
09/26/10 08:49 156-59-2
09/26/10 08:49 127-18-4
09/26/10 08:49 79-01-6
09/26/10 08:49 75-01-4
09/26/10 08:49 460-00-4
09/26/10 08:49 1868-53-7
09/26/10 08:49 17060-07-0
09/26/10 08:49 2037-26-5
Page 33 of 58
,
~/)
//P5ce Analytical·
/ --wv,w,pace/ebs.com
Pace Analytical Services, Inc.
2225 Riverside Dr
Asheville, NC 28804
[phone]
ANALYTICAL RESULTS
Pace Analytical Services, Inc.
9800 Kincey Ave. Suite 100
Huntersville. NC 28078
(704}875-9092
Project: GE Lighting Annual Monitoring
Pace Project No.: 9278105
Sample: SW-6-092110
Parameters
8260 MSV Low Level
Chloroform
1,2-Dichloroethane
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene
Tetrachloroethene
Trichloroethene
Vinyl chloride
4-Bromofluorobenzene (S)
Dibromofluoromethane (S)
1,2-Dichloroethane-d4 (S)
Toluene-dB (S)
Date: 10/05/2010 03:39 PM
Lab ID: 9278105030 Collected: 09/21/10 12:30 Received:
Results Units Report Limit OF Prepared
Analytical Method: EPA 8260
ND ug/L 1.0
ND ug!L 1.0
ND ug/L 1.0
ND ug/L 1.0
ND ug/L 1.0
ND ug/L 1.0
95 % 70-130
112 % 70-130
114 % 70-130
103 % 70-130
REPORT OF LABORATORY ANALYSIS
This report shall not be reproduced, except in full.
without the written consent of Pace Analytical Services. Inc ..
,. •<000
/h~ijt;-,
09/22/10 15:10 Matrix: Water
Analyzed CAS No. Qual
09/26/10 16:53 67-66-3
09/26/10 16:53 107-06-2
09/26/10 16:53 156-59-2
09/26/10 16:53 127-18-4
09/26/10 16:53 79-01-6
09/26/10 16:53 75-01-4
09/26/10 16:53 460-00-4
09/26/10 16:53 1868-53-7
09/26/10 16:53 17060-07-0
09/26/10 16:53 2037-26-5
Page 34 of 58
Pace Analytical Services, Inc.
2225 Riverside Dr.
ANALYTICAL RESULTS
Asheville, NC 28804
[phone]
Pace Analytical Services, Inc.
9800 Kincey Ave. Suite 100
Huntersville, NC 28078
[phone]
Project GE Lighting Annual Monitoring
Pace Project No.: 9278105
Sample: SW-5-092110
Parameters
8260 MSV Low Level
Chloroform
1,2-Dichloroethane
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene
Tetrach!oroethene
Trichloroethene
Vinyl chloride
4-Bromofluorobenzene (S)
Dibromofluoromethane (S)
1,2-Dichloroethane-d4 (S)
Toluene-dB (S)
Date: 10/05/2010 03:39 PM
Lab ID: 9278105031 Collected: 09/21/10 11:30 Received:
Results Units Report Limit OF Prepared
Analytical Method: EPA 8260
ND ug/L 1.0
NO ug/L 1.0
ND ug/L 1.0
2.1 ug/L 1.0
ND ug/L 1.0
ND ug/L 1.0
93 % 70-130
110 % 70-130
116 % 70-130
103 % 70-130
REPORT OF LABORATORY ANALYSIS
This report shall not be reproduced. except in full,
without the written consent of Pace Analytical Services, Inc ..
09122/10 1510 Matrix: Water
Analyzed CAS No. Qual
0912511 a 11: 19 67-66-3
09126/10 17:19 107-06-2
09/26/10 17:19 156-59-2
09126/10 17:19 127-18-4
09/26/10 17:19 79-01-6
09/26/10 17:19 75-01-4
09/26/10 17:19 460-00-4
09126/10 17:19 1868-53-7
09/26/10 17:19 17060-07-0
09/26/10 17:19 2037-26-5
Page 35 of 58
Table 5-4
Influent and Effluent Groundwater Results for the 3rd Quarter 20 I 0
GE Lighting Systems Annual Performance Monitoring
East Flat Rock, North Carolina
Remediation Target 22-Scp-lO
Remediation Goal (ug/L) Influent Efllucnt 1
Compounds (ue/Ll (ue/Ll
Volatile Or1:anic Comµouml~
Benzene I ND ( 1.0) ND (1.0)
Chloroform I 1.6 ND (I.OJ
1,2 Dichloroethanc I I ND (I.OJ
cis-1,2 Dichlorocthene 70 8 ND ( 1.0)
trans-1,2 Dichlorocthcnc 70 ND ( I.OJ ND (1.0)
Tctrachlorocthcne I 185 I
Trichlorocthene 2.8 10.5 ND (1.0)
Vinvl Chloride I ND ( 1.0) ND ( 1.0)
Note.v:
µg/L -micrograms per liter
1 Etllucnt samples collected after air stripper for VOCs and metals since metals pretreatment no longer performed by GE.
RTCs not detected arc shown as less than reporting limit {i.e.,< I)
[loldcd values indicatc detected conccntr;itions greater than remediation goal.
•National Secondary Drinking Water Regulation criterion based on aesthetic cfl"ccts only.
J -Estimated value between reporting limit and method detection limit
GA 1 0061 6/5-4 sept IO Ci \V inf'.-dT results.xlsx Page I of I (;cosyntcc Consultants
1!.,medlar1<1a Ta,i<1 Compo11ad,
Bcnzen<
Chlo,ofom,
1.2 o;ohloroctlun<
ci,-U O<ehlomothcn<
,nns.1,2 Oichkl<O<thrn•
T<tr;ohlor<><thene
Tr,chlor<><thm•
v,n) I Chlotide
Harium
IB<r}'ilium ...
\langan,,..
'kl.ol
Benzcnc:
Chlo<Ofom,
1,2 D"hloroc,han,
ds·l.2 Dichlor<><thcn<
tnns-1,2 Dichlot<><1h<n<
T,,r:,.:hloroc:<h<n<
TrkhlorooU>on,
\'inyl Chloride
\'t..,/-J '.doJ!/t 0'1/HIC Compo~nd.•
l'-nrob<n,on<
\feldh 1 ~--Be')lhum
GA 100616,5•~ hi,l (111' IS"F·EFF.,I"
Rtmed,.tioa
Go•l(uf!L)
"
'"
11.c:mediation
Goal (uf!L)
" '
'"
""' ' " '" ,oo
Table 5-S
Summary of Groundwater Influent and Effiuenl Rernlls Since GRS Start-up
GE Lighting S~·stems Annual Performance Monitoring
f.ast F'lat Rock, l','orth Carolina
lltJ/2000 Jl!S/2001 ti/1,/1001 9'51!001 lll/1812001 1!111/laGI 3/IJl?OOl i/1112001 912S/lll0l 12/111/2002
lnnu.at Emnnt' lnnneal 1:muea1 lnnuut 1:m11,nt 1nnu,nt Emu,nt lnnu,nr t:mu,01 lnnu,nt Emuent' rnnuut Emu,nt rnnu<nl Emu,nt Jonuot Emu,n1 lnnu,n< Emu,nt'
u IL u·'L '" 11. u-'l,' u 11.· 'u-11.· •u-'L' 'u •L' u ,1,1 u•ll,1 <u•ILI '" 11,1 lu•ILI <u•ILI lu•IL" '• II, ·u-11,· u •1.· 'u •L' 'r•L
9.7
SD(II
61.lJ
22 U
2.2 U
'"' ,ou
SD(l)
'" 22 L'
uu
l4L'
.80U
Jll-1'20GJ
95.IJ
0.63L'
3.9U
"' 12.JJ
ND(l)
"' 0.HU
l.6U
JU
l.6U
i/12120,03
'' ,.u •. ,
61.l
"' "' ll.8 , ..
0.94ll
O.llU
1.2U
2.8B
0.800
91912II03
SD(l)
SlJ(l)
SD{IOJ
SD[IOJ
29 l
~D[IOI
171
ND(II
som
ND(2J
ND(2f
N0(2)
ND(ll
NDC2f
ND(IJ
ND(ll
SD(l.0)
ND(IO)
NDIIO)
JJ.7
r-.'0(10)
"'
SD(l)
206 II.Ii 90,;; !57J 71.4J
l.l U 0.22 U 0.37 U OJ6 U 0.22 U
96 UL' 1.9/ JO l8U
lHOJ JOSJ 1090 l4lU 6C18J
J:.lJ )OJ 17.2J 38.JJ 10.lJ
SO(I)
SD(2)
SD(l)
SD(l)
SD(2)
SO(l)
SD(2J
ND(I)
NO(Sl
"' o.~2 u
25.9
28 2J
"'
l!/11,/l(IO.-I
lnnu.nr Effiu<nt lnnuut t'.fflu,01 lnnu<nt Effiuonl ' Lonu,nt [ffiu,nt'
9/16/200.I
lnnuen1 Effiutnl'
fuv/l.l lu•'U
lnnuent Effiuc:nl
u II. u-'L u •!. 'L' '-,-11.' I\.' ••,-/\.' '·••IL'
SD(I OJ
l.1J
" " 2.4 , ..
18.i
"
NA
543)
0 26 U
J_Jj ~· 15.IJ
:-.lJ (1.0) ND(} 0) ND 11.01
:-.D(2.0) SD(10.0) ND(20f
ND(20) H ND(l.01
SD(l.0) :-1-1 ND(201
ND(l.0) SD(IOOJ NDi201
Sl}(20) ll& 0.51 J
SD(l.O) 1._9 :-.0(201
SD(l.01 SD(S.OJ ND(l.01
S,\
ND(SO) SDil.0)
SD(IO.O) 1'0120)
'"' l-1.l
ND IS 0)
ND 12 01
NDllOJ
ND 12,0/
SD(l.OJ
SOU.Of
ND{I OJ
0.-19l' 6SJJ s.7J bO•J l.8J
Ol~L' 026U 026L' 0,2(,U 026U
l.ll' 1.2U 12U 1.9U l.2U
4lJ IOJO 151 9.'l JI
I.IL' 185J 22J 148J I.IU
SD(S.O)
NO(IO.OJ
ND(IO.OJ
" ND{IOOJ
"' lS.3
NDil,01
70.l J
.JO L'
' 1290
106 J
SOIi.OJ
SD(Z.O}
NDl2.0J
SD(2.0)
sn12.01
ND<l.Ol
SD(2.0)
ND(l.0)
1'D(l.0)
1.9)
2.7
IU
SD(20)
187
ll.9
0.6-IJ
ND(I.OJ
l'->D(2.Q)
ND(l.O)
ND(l.0)
ND(2.0)
SD(2.0)
ND(i.O)
SD(I.O)
ND{SO> SD(!.l)
1.9J 71.•B l.lB
Q,JOU 0.JOU o:iou
l.6U !.~L• UU
21.1 1-160 64,6
:!.IJ IUB 8B
(o I. rlL'
NDll.0) ,.. ,,
" so1201 ,., , .•
SA
72.)/
I.SJ ,.,
lll0
,u
NO(I 0)
SD(l.0)
NDilO)
ND\~0)
ND(20J
NO(:!.O)
ND(:!0)
ND(l.0)
I.I!.!
.!U
2.9l'
12 ~ J
I.I)
i'.D (5 OJ SD 11 OJ SD (l.O)
UJ -.;O[lO> SD(lO.O)
J.7J so12.01 ;,.2J
J9 9 SD [?.0) n.7
ND\10.0) NOilO) ND(IOOJ
308 SD (2.0f l6l
19.i SD[l.OJ 21.5
KD (l.OJ SD 11 01 KO (5 0)
NA
ND(l.0)
ND(2.0)
ND(20)
:--0(2.0)
ND(2.0)
SD(20)
ND(l.Q)
ND(I.OJ
ND(lO)
SD\100)
SD(IO.OJ
27.1
SD(I0.01
m
Z0.7
ND(l.O)
ND(l.01
SD(2.0)
SD(2 OJ
SD(l OJ
S0(2.0i
SD(2.0J
SD(l.Of
SlJ(I OJ
UJ
:-.o(,.O>
SD(!0.0)
J.JJ
, ..
20.0
ND(S.O)
SD(l.0)
SD(l.OJ
ND(lO)
ND(20)
ND(l.OJ
SD(lOJ
:SO(lOJ
SD(I 0)
132)
0.62)
l.5J "~ 20,4)
BJ 8-IJ 0.49U 8--19) 0.49U 592J l7.4J
0.22U 0.26U Ol6U O.l6U O.l6U Ol6U 026U
l6J 2.8J 1.lU 3.lU 24U l.lU UV
47.6 952 Ill 89'6 1l.9J l1l J.l!J
12.71 16.4) LIU 16.SJ l.8J HJ I.Ill
J/29/lOOS 9/'lll20,05 121'1/lOOS J/2411006.
lonu,01 t:mu,nt
u ,1,, rt\,'
SD{LOJ , .• ,, ..
:-.D(I 0)
'" B
SD(l.0)
SA
NA
SA
4.0B
1690
~9.5 B
ND[l.01
SD(l.01
ND (1.01
NDil OJ
ND (1.01
.SD(I.O)
SD (1.0)
ND{l.0)
lnfiuont Efflu,nt
•-IL' '•-11,
SD(l.0) ,., ,.,
15.7
"' ·~ s.1
KD{I.O)
NA
.SA
'"' 1580
Jll B
SO(! 0)
SD(I.O) :---ou 0)
ND(1.0J
NO(I 0)
SD(l 0)
SD(l.0)
"-D(l.0)
NA
" " l 2U ,,,
IAB
Inn ... , t:mun, lnnunt t:mu,01
u-11.• • JL' 'u 'L' 'u-1\.'
NDtl OJ
ND(I.OJ
.so 11.0)
2.7
ND (I.OJ
33.l
"·' SD(l.0)
.SDil.0)
SlJll OJ
SOIi 0)
SD(! 0)
NP(I.OJ
ND[l.0)
NPII OJ
ND/1.0)
SD(I 0) , ..
'" "" "' 11.J
SD(IO)
NA SA i'sA
SA SA :-.A
15 20B I.HI
l48U J-11 J-130
l0.-1 B 35.7 B 21.8 B
SO() OJ
SD(I OJ
:--Do 0)
!'--0(1.0)
S'D(I 0)
SDOO)
SD(I 01
SD(l 0)
SA
" S",
l.2L'
31.J
4.8 B
Not~,:
~&/l • mo<rog<1ms per lo!e<
B-const,tuent OerKtoa ;n
blan<. t.su~ .st,ma!KI
J -mdoca,.-s 1n ostLmate<I value
£1oklod v•l~.s ,nd.:ato
aetect«t ccnc..,u1t,ons
g,eater than ,omed,at1on goal
NA-Not •'-'Iv led; conmt~ont
,emo,od from moMoring
orogram
U,ND md1catfi non-<1<1«:<aDlo
le,•ls The numDe, ond,cated ,n
paro,n\he<1< is \he rePoct•nt
hm.t
l. Ulluont samplo cotle;:tea
aH.er a,ro,r,ppor for voc, and
svoc ....a ah, met•I•
pretreatment in the GE Plant
!otmetals.
l. P,.,.-10 Aul"" 2006, metals
effluent ,ampl., we,<
(otlectO<l aH.et u,.. •• p,oc.s,
water ,n <M GE l'lant 1nd •H.or
metals pretreatment;
therelote, GE metal< effluent
ccncenHation< ao no< d,rec,ly
co,r.sporld to GRS ,.,.,.,,
,nfluent concentrations
S,nce Augu<t 1006. mf[als
pretru,ment cl<"-• ,111uent
~a< not Deen coMuctod
• S;ompt.s ccll<"Cted on
8/28/06 due to metalS ottluent
••mP~"ll loc•UOt< De,n,
una,a,la~e ,n Juno 2006
komodlat>on T,,.., 1·ompouDd1
Voialil< Otta11k Co-~ib
Benzene
Chloroform
U Didllo,o,llune
<LS•l ,2 Dichlorue!hene
tnn•· 1.1 Dichlorocth<n,
1 etrachloroethene
Trkhloroethcnc
Vin)I Chloride
~•,ni-l'oia//t, u,zanl~ C"""'°"""'
~1trobc:nzene
\l,ttill'
jBuium
!B«}lhum
~
\1anganese
klol
Rtm<dia1lon l ar,:<1 Cumpuond,
Vdat/1, Orza,ri<: C""V""'"<li
ll<nun<
Chlorofo,m
U 01chlor<><<h•n<
ciH.1 D1chloronhc1><
1111ns-l.J D1Chloroelh<n<
l <trachlo,oethen,
T nchlor0<tl><n<
l'rn)I \hlonJe
~,,nl-l'o/a1//r OrgMnic Coltt{'Owml,
1s,11obornzc1><
Urta/,1
~•••m
liiorylljom
G-\10061!>'5-l h,sl GW ISf.Ef'F.,I"
komodlation
Goal(udL>
,.
Rtmt<lla1kto
Coal(uc/L)
'" '" ' " '
'"
312412006 6/l712006·
lanu .. , rmuoac I lafluo•• [ffiuoat
u ,1, u-'L' 'u-il: 'u II.'
SDll.0) SD(l.0) SD1l.0)
1.9 SD(I.O) 2.8
l~ SD(l 0) 4.J
194 SD(IO) W
0.6) KD(l.O) SD(l.OJ
17? :--D(IO) 105
27.3 KD(l.O) M
SO(l.0) '>D(l.0) SD(S.0)
SA NA NA
SA
'>A
1.7B
1430
21.s a
:,.CA
NA uu ,u
m J09n
ND(I.OJ
ND(I.O)
ND(l.0)
ND[l.0)
1'Dil.Of
ND(l.0)
1'D ii.OJ
ND(I 0>
SA
SA
SA
37.l ~,
.18.7D
Tablt 5-5
Summai:· of Ground .... aler Influent and Effiurnt Results Since GRS Star1-up
GE Lighting Systems Annual Perrorm11ncc Monitoring
9121121)(16
lanueat [ffi0<at
'u IL' u-11,
SD(l.0) , .• ,.,
"" 06QJ
'"
SD(!.OJ
SD(l.0)
ND(I 0)
0,34J u
ND(l.OJ ,.,
ND(I.OJ
:0-D(l.OJ
'" 9.l B
East Flat Rock, North Carolinu
3/!'112007
l■nu,at [ffiuat
u-11, 'rll,'
SD(l 0)
'
:-A
SA
SD(lll
M
:SD(l.0)
ND(l.0)
:-:D(1.0)
ND(I.O)
/\D(l.0)
:-:D(l.0)
' SD(l.0)
" SA
SD()>)
M
61!Yl007 911912007
1anu11 rm ... , 1anut1tt Lm ... ,
Ou l\,l loPll,\ t■pi\,l 'a '\.l
:0-D(I.O)
ND(l.0)
ND(2 OJ
1;1
ll.O
1'D(l.OJ
:SA
SA
NA
ND(I OJ
SD(l.0)
SD(l.0)
SD(l.0)
SD(2.0)
t-D(~.OJ
SD{l.0)
SD(2 OJ
SD(l.0)
NA
:-A
SA
' "'
SD(l.OJ
" SD(I OJ
"'
SO(l.OJ
:,:D(I.O)
ND(l.0)
ND (1.0)
ND(l.0)
ND(l.0)
NO{l.0)
ND(l.0)
1'0(1.0)
NA NA
NA SA
NDml ND(IS)
4~00 ~--
ll//1112007
lanuut rmuu11
!a IL a 1L
" :SD(I 0)
'" "
NA
" SA
ND(IS)
3,700
:0-0\1.0)
SD(I.OJ
Nl>il.OJ
:-:D{I.O)
ND(I.OJ
SD(I.OJ
.'-D(I.OJ
SD\I.OJ
ND(IOO) NO(IOOI "' " ND (S OJ SD ( 1001 ND (1001 :SD (1001
NA
SA
l'-D(ll)
S,N
SD\1001
J/1311001
la flu...,, rmu,nt
• ,1, ••IL
ND(t 0)
" ND(l.0) u,
" SO(]OJ
NA
" :-A
N0(15l , ....
SD!IOO)
SD(I.O)
SD(l.0)
ND(I.O)
J,.D(I.OJ
ND(l.0)
SO(l.0)
r-:D(l.0)
SO(l.0)
NA
" :SA
ND(IS) , ....
SDUOOl
6/l412008
lanu,nt 1:muon1
0-n. a•"•
028J
e.14 J
' " 0 29J
'" ,.
ND(I.Ol
/,;D(I.OJ
1'D(IO)
NO(I OJ
SD!l.Ol
ND(I OJ
" 0.67 J
ND{I OJ
NA :SA
SA SA
SD(lll ND(ll)
l,MIO U.00
.SD(IOOl SDflOO)
7/l?/08
lnflu,01 [ffiuonr '
'•1/I, f\,'
SD(!.0)
' ' " SDll-0)
"' • SOil.0)
:SA
ND(l.0)
SD(l.01
ND(l.01
SD{l.0>
SD(l.01
:SD\1.0)
S0\1.0)
Nil (I 01
817/0-9115"8 Hill/OH JiH/09 1,/9/09 9/lHl'I 12/ll/09 3/J/1O <>121110 9122110
Ion•••' t:rnout I Joflu,n, Emo .. , 1 1anuoa1 Emuoat ' Influent t:ffi•••' ' lalluomt rm ... u 1 1onu<mt rmu,o, 1 lanuot f.m ... , ' Jon•on• Emu .. , 1 lona,ot f.ffi•••• 1 l•ll•••1 rm•••• '
1-/L 11.' , 11.' '·1 11.' '·1 ii• -,-11, '·1-'L' 11.' /1,l I.) 11.' , .. 11. ,., II, L ''"-IL '---11. "••/(. IL'
" ND(l.01
170
" Nll(I 01
SA
SA
SA
SA
SA
1'D(l.0) 026J
SD(l.O) l
SD(l 0)
S0(\.0) 12
SD(I 0) O.!QJ
SD(l 0) 170
SO(l.0) Ii
ND(l 0) SD(I.Ol
:,:A
s"'
SD(I OJ
:--D(I.OJ
SD(I OJ
ND(I.O)
SD(l.0)
SD(I.OJ
SD(l.0)
N'O(i.0)
rso110) ND(!O) SD(IO)
NO(l.0) ND(\.0) I.I
SDII 0) SD(l.0) 1.2
S.2 ND(l.0) JS
NO(I 0) SO(l.0) SD(L.0)
DO SD(l.0) Ill
U SO(l.0) &..l
ND(IO) ND(I.O) SD(l.0)
NA :-A SA NA
1''D(lli NO(IS) ND(ll) :-;Dill)
2,100 !,200 112 l~l
ND(IOO) NlJ(IOO\ SD/1001 ND(IOOI
SD{I 0)
ND(l.0)
:,.CD(I 0)
ND(I.O)
ND(I 0)
ND(I 0)
ND(I 0)
ND(I 0)
N'D(I 0) ,., , ..
" :SD(l.0)
"" "J
ND(l.0)
NO(I.O)
1'0(10)
SD(l.0)
NO(I OJ
SD()Ol
NO(I OJ
ND() OJ
SO(l.0)
SA
NA
SA
ND(lll
J,880
)0.4
?age 2 on
SA
NO(l.OJ
ND[l.0) , .•
SA
'" LIA
ND(l.0)
NA
:-:0;1.01
SO(l.01
ND(I 01
NA
ND(I 0)
SD(l.01
SD(I.OJ
NO{I 0)
i.5 , .• ,.,
ND(I 0)
"'
SD(I.O)
/SD(l.0)
ND(l.0)
ND(I.O)
:0-D(l.0)
SD(I 0)
ND(I.OJ
SD(l.0)
NO(I 0)
1.5 u .,
:-:O(I.O) , ..
10.7
SO(l.0)
NA
/SD(I 0)
rsD(I OJ
ND(l.0)
ND(I 0)
SD(l.0)
NO(lO)
1'D(l 0)
ND(l.O)
SA
1'A
SA
SA
SA
SD(lOI ,.,
u ..
SD{lOI
"' 10.1
SD(l 0)
NA
ND(l.01
ND(I OJ
1'D(I.OJ
SD(I 0)
ND(l.0)
ND(l.0)
:-:D(I OJ
SD(l.0)
SA
/SO(l.0) '. ... • NO(l.0)
"' 10.~
ND!l.0)
SA
SA
SA
s"' " SA
SD(I Ol
.'-D(l.01
:-.D(l.0)
SD(I Ol
:-.D(l.01
SD(I.Ol
1'D(I.Ol
!"Ott<
u&fl. """'ograms -t,t.,-
8-<eonim~ent dete<led ,n bl•nk,
J. md.cate< an r<t;mated •~lue
Bold<"CI valu..,. l<ldute dete<te<I
concent,atJon> greater than
,eme<r,atoongoal
N.0.-NO< ar,aty,e<r, con•t~,,,...,\
remo,e<J r,om monit0""1 p,01ram
V,ND ind!Ca!e< """'-de1ec!1ble
1..,.-el, Th• numbo><ir>Oica!td it,
~••nt~e,a is the ,epcn,n1 litM
1. [fflvent ,an,ple rolle<ted after
1~,1npper ,.,, voe, ar>O svoc 1r>0
1fter met•I< pretr•a<men, ,n tn,
GE Plant Jo, metals
2. P,ior t0.0.~gu>1 2006, me,als
etfl~en\ sam?I.., were <ollt<te~
ah...-~ff as P«><•" wate< "',t>r G[
p,euenme<1I; the<etore, GE metal,
effluem roncentrat,ons 00 I\Ot
d,recti,,, corrr<pond 10 GftS me\11•
in~uenl <<>'<enirat,on,
Smee A.ugust 1006, me,als
,,,.,, • .,,,,.,.,,., ot tne eWuen! ""'
not been condu<IM
• S..mples collected on snB/06 du~
to metal, etfl~ent sarnplins l<>cat,on
t,,.,ng inac,..,,ible ,n June !006
Mr. Michael Townsend
24 March 2011
Page 9
Re:,,ponse:
Geosyntec acknowledges this discrepancy. A corrected copy of Tahle 5-4 documenting
the I. 0 pg/L detection is enclosed.
Comment No. 20 -Table 5-5 Summary of Groundwater Influent and Effluent Results Since
GRS Start Up:
Table 5-5 indicates that the effluent groundwater sample collected in September 20 I 0
contained no detectable concentrations of tetrachloroethene, subject to 1.0 ftg/L
laboratory detection limit. However, the laboratory analytical results submitted as
Appendix A -Laboratory Reports and Chain of Custody Forms indicates that the
effluent groundwater sample collected in September 20 IO contained 1.0 ftg/L
tetrachloroethene. Please clarify this discrepancy.
Response:
Geosyntec acknowledges this discrepancy. A corrected copy of Table 5-5 documenting
the 1.0 pg/L detection is enclosed.
Comment No. 21 -Figure 1-2 Location of the GE Subsite Features:
The locations of piezometers BAPZ-3, BAPZ-3S, BAPZ-3D and BAPZ-4 were
inadvertently omitted from Figure 1-2. Please correct this oversight.
Response:
Geosyntec acknowledges this discrepancy. As documented previously in the Annual
Groundwater Remedial Action Performance Monitoring Report -2008, the piezometers
cited above could not be lucated (BAPZ-4) or were found to be destroyed (BAPZ-3
cluste1). Geo.1yntec has been unable to locale BA PZ-4 ever since our involvement on the
project in 2006. In 2008. the aboveground piezometer casings at the BAPZ-3 cluster
were found to have been removed from the ground and lying randomly in the wetland.
Geosyntec was unable to abandon the piezometers as the borings or stubs of PVC could
not he located in the wetland. Figure 1-2 has been updated to show the above locations
as either abandoned or missing. and a revised copy is enclosed.
Comment No. 22 -Figure 1-2 Location of the GE Suhsite Features:
The locations of groundwater monitoring wells MW-23 and MW-60A were inadvertently
omitted from Figure 1-2. Please correct this oversight.
GR.4794/GAI 101 lO_RTC General Electric Shepherd Fam1 Nl'L Site
l!nginccrs 1 scit'll!isls I innt1v~1t11rs
·-
R~6...._ ♦ ♦a RWSF.-4
♦
Legend
• Staff gauge
·d P1ezometer distroyed/missing)
,~ Piezometer ( d Bedrock Saprolite/Fracture
monito_r ing well d Bedrock
Sapro 1
• well (missing I le/Fracture I
o monitoring
0
•
\WW-82
<l'..o
""S'-? ~ %-, ~
'
monitoring well Bed roe
Recovery well ell
covary w Inactive re "dential well
D
Sampled res
Wetlands
Main
Plant
A. MW-26 %, ,__
~
~
D Geosyntec
cc,n~ult;u\ls
0
MW-30
il MW-30A
Kennesaw, GA 2S-SEPT-2010
I(
WW-5
c [/"
WW-73
0
b Ile Featuros . fthoGESu 5 Location o ~,m Rod, NC East r
N
WW-34
Figure
1-2
APPENDIX C INSERTS
Figure 8:
Figure 9:
Figure 10:
Figure 11:
Figure 12:
Figure 13:
Figure 14:
GeosyntecD
c1msultants
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Representative Photographs Showing View of Wetland from Previously
Established Photo Point -West and North
Large GE Wetland Bunched Arrowhead Populations
Representative Photographs -Large GE Wetland Seeps
Representative Photographs -Large GE Wetland Seeps
Bunched Arrowhead Wetland Population Limits
Representative Photographs -Bunched Arrowhead Individuals
Representative Photographs -Bunched Arrowhead Wetland
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix A: Agency Coordination Regarding Monitoring Protocol Modifications
Appendix 13: Vegetation Monitoring Data Fom1s
GR4369/CiA I 0070 I _BA Report 201 0 _ 2XFchl l_A W,<lnc.x iii 03.22.11
Geosyntec0
COJJSU!tants
and 2003 (BRA, 2003). Ecological Solutions, Inc. (ESI) conducted the surveys in 2004,
2005 and 2006 (ESI, 2006). Geosyntec was contracted to perform the surveys in 2007
(Geosyntec, 2007), 2008 (Geosyntec, 2008), 2009 (Geosyntec, 2009) and again in 20 I 0
reported herein. As mentioned above, Geosyntcc implemented a revised monitoring
plan for this year's event based upon a variety of factors and recommendations
discussed in the 2009 report. A copy of correspondence between Gcosyntec and
USFWS is provided in Appendix A.
GR4369/GA l 00701 _I\A_ Report _FINAi._ rv22marl l .docx 2 0~.22.! 1
GeosyntecD
consultants
c. Digital photographs of the quadrat,
d. Percent of bunched arrowhead individuals that show evidence of
herbi vory /predation;
e. Percent of individuals that are juveniles (generally defined by a
3-inch diameter or smaller rosette) and adults; and
f. Percent of individuals in nower/fruiting.
9) Score each population using similar scoring methods and definitions
presented in the Bunched Arrowhead Wetland monitoring protocol, as
last presented in Gcosyntec (2009); however, parameters are limited to
the following factors (refer to Section 2.1 below and Appendix B for
additional details):
a. Vegetation
1. Absolute Cover -where a higher percent cover of
bunched arrowhead within each quadrat receives a higher
score. An average of all three quadrats (where applicable)
will be obtained to assign a final score.
11. Composition -where a higher score 1s received for
percent cover of herbaceous species (within each quadrat)
that arc assigned "Facultative Wet" (FACW) or wetter
species indicator status. An average of all three quadrats
(where applicable) will be obtained to assign a final score.
111. Invasive Species (observations limited to the quadrats) -
where a higher percent cover of invasive species receives
a lower score.
1v. Shrubs (observations include a 0.01 acre radius plot at
center quadrat, up-gradient quadrat, and down-gradient
quadrat) -where a higher score is received for percent
cover of shrubs/midstory species that are assigned a
FACW or wetter indicator status. For purposes of this
(il{4369/(iA I 007U! _IIA_Rcport_l,.INAL_rv22marl l .docx 5 03.22.11
Geosyntec0
co11sulta11t.s
stations collectively was 57.95 inches, which is 12.92 inches above the average of 45.03
inches for the same three stations during the previous August 2008 through August
2009 period (Gcosyntec, 2009).
3.2 Hydrological Data
HSI GeoTrans (2000b) compared prec1p1tation fluctuations with water levels at
piezometer locations and the data demonstrated that low ground water levels generally
coincided with periods of decreased precipitation, and that water levels could increase
rapidly following major rainfall events.
As the focus of interest has shifted towards the Large GE Wetland, this year's
groundwater elevation data were obtained from MW-13, 14, and 27 (Figure 5). MW-
13 is located approximately 250 feet north/northwest of the bunched arrowhead seeps.
MW-14 is located approximately 150 feet southwest of the seeps, while MW-27 is
located approximately 50 feet east/southeast of Seep 2. These monitoring wells have
had water levels recorded since September 2000. Water level elevations collected
March 2002 to September 2010 from the three locations are shown on Figure 6.
Similar to previous monitoring events at other wells, the groundwater elevations tend to
coincide with precipitation. The calculated drawdown (compared to 2001 non-pumping
conditions) was 0.13 feet at MW-27, but groundwater elevations were negligibly higher
at MW-13 (-0.03 feet) and MW-14 (-0.04 feet) [Figure 2-2 in the 2010 Annual
Groundwater Remedial Action Perforrnanee Monitoring Report (Geosyntec, 20 IO)].
During ti.iture monitoring events, Geosyntec will further evaluate whether groundwater
in these wells fluctuate in relation to ambient precipitation.
3.3 Large GE Wetland
The Large GE Wetland system remains well-vegetated within the herhaceous, shrub,
and canopy strata (Figures 7 and 8). Topographic characteristics include gently
sloping floodplains with seepages at their upland edge and a minor depositional berm
with breaks directly adjacent to the stream. This wetland is likely inundated across the
entire system only when 13at Fork Creek is flooded. The majority of this wetland
contained saturated soils; however. with the exception of the seeps, no surface water
was observed within the Large GE Wetland. These seeps were reported present during
the April 2000 monitoring, but not during September monitoring in 2002. All seeps
GR4369/GA 10070 I _I\A_Rcrort_FINAL_rv22mar11.d(1cx 14 03.22.11
GeosyntecD
consultants
were reported flowing in September 2006; however, in September 2007 and 2008 the
seeps were saturated but not flowing. In 2009 and 20 I 0, the seeps reverted back to
flowing conditions.
3.3.1 Bunched Arrowhead Seep Descriptions
Within the 2008 monitoring report, Geosyntec identi tied four separate seeps, with three
of the four seeps supporting bunched arrowhead populations. However, further
inspection during the 2009 event contirrned that although four seeps/channels exist
within the Large GE Wetland, only two of the seeps contain populations of bunched
arrowhead. During the recent drought years, two of the seeps were less defined along
and within the windrow between the easement and the forested wetland and were thus
believed to be separate systems. Additional detailed studies in 2010 included a GPS
location of the seep pathways; this allowed for a better understanding of the
morphology of these linear seeps. As a result, the "finger" seeps originating in the
casement converge to forrn one seep near the easement edge. At this location, which is
occupied by a windrow of vegetative debris, the seep splits again -eventually forming
Seep 2 and Seep 3. This finding is important in that there is hydrologic connectivity
between all populations (current and historic) within the Large GE Wetland. Figure 9
depicts the location of the seeps containing current or historical populations of bunched
arrowhead.
The first seep (Ditch/Seep I) is located closest to the woods road and flows
east/northeast from the woods road to Bat Fork Creek. As shown in Figure 9, Seep I
begins at the road and flows northeast until converging with Seep 2. After its
confluence with Seep 2, Seep I eventually takes a more easterly course before
connecting to Bat Fork Creek. As was reported in previous years, no populations of
bunched arrowhead were observed in this system in 20 I 0. Seep I contains flowing
water in the channel and the substrate consists of sandy clay loam and organic muck.
This seep contains defined banks (averaging 2 feet high), thus restricting flows to a
confined channel.
Along the previously established transect, Seep 2 is located approximately 30 feet north
of Seep I. As discussed above, Seep 2 originates from the easement and then flows east
through the forested wetland, eventually converging with Seep I. Seep 2 contains
minor surface flow, and the substrate consists of a sand/organics. The muck depth ( 13
to 25 inches) continues to remain favorable for bunched arrowhead; however, no
GH.4369/(;A ! 0070 I _BA_ Rcport_FINAL_rv22marl I .docx 15 03.22.11
GeosyntecD
c1msultants
Geosyntec estimates that between 200 and 400 individuals occupy this reach. The
occupied habitat encompasses approximately 54 linear feet of seep within the right-of-
way. Adequate hydration (soils are saturated at the surface) and a habitat lacking a tree
canopy (0 percent canopy cover) were noted. Geosyntec did not observe evidence of
herbivory/predation on Population 4 and approximately 20 percent of the population
were juveniles. No evidence of recent reproduction was observed. The locations of
bunched arrowhead populations in the Large GE Wetland arc shown in Figure 9.
Additional photographs of bunched arrowhead within the Large GE Wetland arc
provided on Figures 10 and 11. Appendix B provides the Vegetation Monitoring Data
forms for the September 20 IO monitoring event at the Large GE Wetland.
Locations of populations that were observed in prior years and no longer present will be
revisited each year to determine if recruitment back into these locations is occurring.
Currently, the habitat surrounding these historic populations is shaded by a dense
canopy (over 85 percent) and a dense shrub layer (80 percent cover ofpossumhaw).
In accordance with the previously established evaluation protocol, more detailed
information pertaining to ecological and other important features of the bunched
arrowhead seeps within the Large GE Wetland arc provided in the following
subsections.
3.3.3 Extent of Habitat
Table 2 summarizes the measured habitat extent, substrate, and hydrological parameters
for the populated areas assessed. A total of 88 linear feet of seep habitat is occupied by
bunched arrowhead within the Large GE Wetland. Muck depth varied widely from
I 0.5 inches to 38.0 inches, with the deepest muck layer being found at Population 3.
All seeps within the Large GE Wetland had either !lowing water or soils that were
saturated at the surface.
3.3.4 Density and Location of Bunched Arrowhead Plants
Figure 9 depicts the location of reaches occupied by bunched arrowhead within the
Large GE Wetland. Future monitoring reports will show the extent of occupied reaches
compared to this baseline event. An estimated 600 to 800 individuals exist within the
Large GE Wetland based on the 2010 survey.
CiR4369/CiA l 00701 _BA_Rcport_FINAL_rv22marl l .docx " 03.22.l 1
Table 6. Overall risk assessment restricted to P1, P2, P3, and P4 of the Large GE Wetland
Evaluation m Terms of Table
Measurement Observed Condition 5
Rainfall at Hendersonville Airport (in) 62.39 Baseline
Drawdown at piezometer MW-28 (ft) 0.14 Baseline
Hydration length of seeps (ft) 349.5 Baseline
Muck thickness (in) From 9.0 to 38.0 Moderate Risk to Baseline
Stagnation No Flow-Flow Baseline
Overgrowth of invasive species (percent cover) 11% Baseline
Number of plants (total number within all 8 quad rats) 156 Baseline
Total Length of occupied habitat (ft) 88 Baseline
Note:
Drawdown information comes from 2010 Annual Report
e
TABOR RD
MAIN PLANT
Legend
• Site monitoring well
Recovery well
Wetlands
GeosyntecD
consultants
Kennesaw, GA 1-OCT-2010
MW•13
/ 2121.11 •
Approx1mate ~1?cat1on of Bunched
Arrowhe\\ Populat,on ~
~./\ ~ \I \I \\ MWH •'
/213352 •
300 150 0
Location of GE Subsite Monitoring Wells Close lo
GE Wetland
East Flat Rock, NC
TABOR RO
300 Feet
Figure
5
N
i
-. -. . -•_, -------.
2138.00
2136.00
2134.00
• > w --" ro 2132.00 w <I)
w > 0 n ro w 2130.00 w ~
C ~ • 2128.00 > • w • > w --" 2126.00 " .!i
--+-MW-13
• ~ ---MW-14
2124.00 · MW-27
2122.00 ·.
i
l
Water Levels at MW-13, MW-14 and MW-27
Ecology Monitoring
General Electric/Shepherd Farm Superfund Site
Geosyntec 0
const11lanrs
Project No. GR4369
November 2010
Figure
6
9 .-\tlanla, (in,rgia L._ ____________________________ _L ____ -'-.. __ j__ ______ L_ __ _J
APPENDIX A
AGENCY CORRESPONDENCE
REGARDING MONITORING
PROTOCOL MODIFICATIONS
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION 4
Todd K. Kafka
Geosyntec consultants
ATLANTA FEDERAL CENTER
61 FORSYTH STREET
ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303-8960
1255 Roberts Boulevard, Suite 200
Kennesaw, Georgia 30144
Subject: Proposed performance Monitoring Modifications
GE Lighting Systems /Shepherd Farm Superfund Site
East Flat Rock, North Carolina
Dear Mr. Kafka:
This letter is in response to the July 27th request for modification to the Annual Superfund
Performance Monitoring Program. I have reviewed the request for modifications to the
performance monitoring program and agree with the following modifications given a few
stipulations.
I.) We are in agreement with the first modification, reduction of the RTC list;
provided that in the fifth year corresponding to the Five year review, the analyses
of the samples taken include the RTCs that are being removed per the
Remediation Goal Verification Plan (RGVP) to assure that the levels remain at
the current levels.
2.) We are also in agreement with the second modification, revision to the monitoring
network. We agree that MW-3 and MW-15 should be abandoned in accordance
with North Carolina well regulations, given their current location in the flood
plain. However, I am concern that the absence of those two wells leaves a fairly
large gap in the well network. I believe we should take some steps to close that
gap. My first recommendation is to take groundwater samples from the creek bed
using the Henry tube samplers. This should be reasonably effective given
groundwater is discharging to the creek. The sampling of the creek bed can occur
in the 5th year corresponding to the five year review as well.
3.) The third modification, removal of granular activated carbon from the GRS
treatment train. We agree with the assessment of the vapor effluent from the air
stripper and ai,'l'ee with the proposed change to take the carbon unit off line.
4.) I am unable to make a decision on modification 4, modify ecological monitoring
program, without further investigation. I will make further inquires internally,
and get hack to you with regard to this modification.
Internet Address (URL) • http://www.epa.gov
Recyctedlfl•cycl~b1e • Pr1nt&d with Vl'.!gelablo OY Based Inks on Aecydod Papor (Minimum 30"/4 Poslconsum&r)
5.) We are also in agreement with modification 5, institution of passive diffusion
sampling technology. The stipulation with the approval of this modification is
similar to that of modification I. In the fifth year corresponding to the five year
review, samples should be taken using the methods that are currently being used.
If you arc in agreement with the stipulations associated with the proposed modification,
you can begin implementing the changes. If you need clarification on any of the
stipulation or have questions in general, or any further recommendations to add to
address the concerns that I have expressed, don't hesitate to contact me.
To a separate issue we spoke about briefly by phone. As a part of the five year review we
are required to show the plume maps superimposed on the plat maps to aid in addressing
any possible institutional control matters. The reports that I have don't include any maps
outlining the aerial extent of the plume. I am attempting to complete the five year review
next week, is it possible to provide maps of the plume from the existing data within that
time frame.
Again, if there are any questions or concerns don't hesitate to contact me.
Michael Townsend,
Remedial Project Manager
Cc: Mr. John Franklin, GELS
Mr. David Mattison, NCDENR
Todd Kafka
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
[e-mail]
Thursday, September 03, 2009 5:16 PM
Todd Kafka
RE: GE/Shepherd Farm Site
i have made some inquiries as to who has the authority to make changes,
and it may have to be fish and wildlife through me. I am still working
on it and will keep you updated
Todd Kafka
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
Todd and Tom,
[e-mail]
Saturday, August 07, 2010 1:32 PM
Todd Kafka
Tom_ [e-mail]
Re: Fw: GE Hendersonville
GE Lighting Sys 2009 annual report CLW comments.pd!
Thank you for the opportunity to review.
I have reviewed the report and generally agree with the finding that the groundwater extraction has had no discernable
affect upon hydrologic conditions at the Bunched Arrowhead wetland, and as such there is little justification for continuing
to require ecological monitoring at this site in conjuntion with the remediation activities.
In the interest of avoiding additional delays, I'm attaching a scanned version of the report with my comments; I've
indicated substantive comments using the comment tool in Acrobat. Other pen/ink notes in the margins should be
understood as minimal/unsubstantial.
Although beyond the scope of remediation activities, invasive exotic vegetation appears to present a real and immediate
threat to bunched arrowhead at all monitored locations. Yet the reports do not consistently distinguish invasive exotic
species from native, encroaching vegetation, and the report also appears to minimize the threat from invasive exotics. I
would like to request that a purposeful and prominent distinction (between invasive exotics and native en roaching
species) be made in future monitoring reports. Based upon the characterizations in the report, it appears appropriate for
the Service to begin working more aggressively on this issue.
The report concludes with a recommendation that future reports include management recommendations aimed at
maintaining/improving suitable habitat for bunched arrowhead. I wholeheartedly agree, and think it appropriate and
necessary that we pursue options for addressing the management issues identified in these monitoring reports.
Regardless of whose responsibility it ultimately becomes (for implementation), Geosyntec, as the eyes and ears on the
ground and the entity with the longest continuity on the project, will have valuable insight into the priorities and means of
addressing these threats. Toward this end, I'd like to propose either a conference call or a face-to-face meeting (I'd prefer
the latter, but accept it may be too costly) sometime this winter to discuss this issue further.
In recent years, bunched arrowhead has exhibited marked declines, with three of 8 subpopulations in NC possibly
extirpated -as determined by surveys conducted earlier this year. As the species' rangewide status continues to worsen,
the importance of each remaining site (however degraded) only increases. I appreciate your efforts with these
subpopulations of the species, and would appreciate opportunities to meet you out on site to discuss opportunities to work
with others to address threats such as invasive exotic vegetation and shading/encroachment from native woody species.
Thanks,
Carolyn
Carolyn L. Wells
Asheville Field Office
160 Zillicoa Street
Asheville, NC 28801
office: 828.258.3939 ext. 231
cell: 828.215.1744
fax: [phone]
Tom Augspurger/R4/FWS/DOI
08/03/2010 08·26 AM
FYI
Tom Augspurger, PhD
Ecologist, and Environmental Contaminants Specialist
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
551-F Pylon Drive
Raleigh NC 27606
919/856-4520 x21
tom_ augspu [e-mail]
To Carolyn Wells/R4/FWS/OOl@FWS
cc
Subject Fw: GE Hendersonville
-----Forwarded by Tom Augspurger/R41FWS/DOI on 08/03/2010 08:25 AM-----
<[e-mail]> To <[e-mail]>
cc
08/03/2010 08: 18 AM Subject RE: GE Hendersonville
Hi Tom,
Just checking in to sec if Carolyn Wells has indeed returned from gulf and would be able to send her
comments/input.
Regards,
Todd K. Kafka, PG
Senior l-lydrogcologist
Gcosyntec Consultants
1255 Roberts Blvtl, NW Ste 200
Kcnnc~.iw, GA 30144
678.202.9561 -direct
678.202.9501 -fax
404.797.8437 -cell
From: Tom_ Augspurgcr@t\vs.gov [ mailto:Tom_ [e-mail]]
Sent: Wednesday, July 14. 20 IO I :30 PM
To: To<l<l Kafka
Subject: Re: GE Hendersonville
Hello again,
Carolyn Wells is the botanist in our Asheville Field Office that reviewed the latest report. She has been
2
deployed for technical assistance on the gulf oil spill for nearly a month. She sent me note yesterday that she
reviewed the document and has notes in the margins that she can convey to you when she returns to her office
late this month (sounded like she was generally OK with re-direction of effort in monitoring but had some
substantive comments to provide when she gets the document back in her hands). 1 forwarded her your e-mail
address and said she could send comments directly to you.
Regards,
Tom
Tom Augspurger
Ecologist
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
551-F Pylon Drive
Raleigh NC 27606
919/856-4520 x2 I
<[e-mail]>
<[e-mail]>
06/26/20 IO I I :26 AM
Hi Tom,
~
<tom [e-mail]>
To
cc
~
GE l-lcndcrsonvillc
Subject
Can you give me an update on the review of the bunched arrowhead
report from January? GE is eager to find out about our proposed
reduction in monitoring and approach for the GE wetland.
Thanks
Sent from my iPhone
3
J
Geosyntec 0
consultants
assessment includes a search of nearby areas to identify any new patches of occupied
habitat.
During the survey, compet1t10n by other species is observed and evaluated.
Occurrences are recorded for each species as percentages of absolute and relative cover,
and a rank is assigned based on a three-or four-point scale. Particular attention is paid
to reported competitors: fowl mannagrass (Glyceria striata), woodvamp (Decumaria
barbara), roundfruit hedgehyssop (Gratia/a virginiana), greater bladder sedge (Carex
intumescens), and swamp dayflower (Murdannia keisak).
One photo point is located at the Large GE Wetland. During each annual monitoring
event, directional photographs (i.e., north, east, south, and west) are taken from the
photo point and included in the report. Photographs from the Large GE Wetland are
included in Figure 3 and Figure 4. Additional photographs were taken of the bunched
arrowhead population immediately north of the photo point (seep 2) and within seep 3,
near the northern terminus of transect (Figure 5).
Because the Bunched Arrowhead Wetland and the Large GE Wetland differ in both
character and concerns, the evaluation factors vary. For example, the initial assessment , of the Bunched Arrowhead Wetland (April 2000) indicated that 0.25 square meter (m)
plots established for evaluating plant density were too few in number and covered too
small of a portion of the site to adequately characterize the condition of the bunched
arrowhead or its competition. Thereafter, beginning in 2002, four monitoring areas in
the Bunched Arrowhead Wetland were established that more adequately address the
patchy distribution of bunched arrowhead at this site. Within each monitoring area or
"zone", the habitat is assessed holistically. The zones are based on physically
identifiable delineators (permanent stakes) and termed QI, Q2, Q3, and Q4-5 for the
permanent quadrats located within them. For consistency with pre-existing studies, the
number of plants in each of these plots is recorded. Photographs of the four monitoring
areas are presented in }'igure 6, Figure 7, and Figure 8. The substrate, density of
bunched arrowhead and extent of supporting habitat are evaluated and compared to
historical assessments. Please note that vandalism or other unauthorized activity
occurred between the 2008 and 2009 monitoring events. All of the monitoring
materials (iron rebar monument stakes, flagging, and guadrat PVC piping) were
'removed from the seep that contains Q2, Q3, and Q4-5. Geosyntec made every effort to
're-establish the stakes and quadrats as accurately as possible; however, some slight
variations in the locations of the upper limit stakes and quadrats may have occurred.
GR4369/BA Report 2009 _final.docx 4 December 09
Geosyntece>
consultants
The area occupied by bunched arrowhead plants, as well as the extent of suitable
occupied or unoccupied seepage area, is mapped at each area ( quadrat). Limits of
occupied and suitable habitat are measured relative to fixed marker stakes or
constraining environmental features (downed logs).
The length of occupied habitat is the linear distance along the seep and the location of
the occupied habitat relative to the stakes (Figure 9). The information recorded at each
quadrat includes the linear length of occupied habitat, location of start of occupied
habitat relative to the up-gradient stake, location of start of hydrated area relative to
stakes, and a map of occupied habitat. In addition, plant density was determined and
documented.
2.2 Holistic Assessment
T e "state of the s ste " at any point in time is assessed as the relative difference
between7 e sum of the ranked characteristics at the time of the monitoring event
divided by the sum of the ranked characteristics at the time of the baseline monitoring
(April 2000), multiplied by 100 (Table 4). The result is a percentage-based number that
can range from 0 (total or extremely severe change) to l 00 (no change).
Due to the differences in the physiognomy between the two wetland areas, the state of
the system at the Large GE Wetland was not assessed as a percentage-based numher;
rather, the different physiognomy and vegetation were ranked on a three-or four-point
scale as was applied for the Bunched Arrowhead Wetland. The point scale helped
summarize the different areas of the wetland qualitatively and how evaluated conditions
might affect the bunched arrowhead population. The following characteristics were
taken into consideration when assessing the Large GE Wetland:
• Vegetation
• Groundcover
• Composition
• Zonation
• Weediness
GR4369/BA Report 2009 _flnal.docx 5 December 09
Geosyntecl>
consultants
3.2 Hydrological Data
HSI Geo Trans (2000b) compared precipitation fluctuations with water levels at the
piezometer locations and demonstrated that low ground water levels generally coincided
with periods of decreased precipitation, and that water levels could increase rapidly
following major rainfall events.
Groundwater elevations are collected routinely to monitor the groundwater conditions
in the area of the Bunched Arrowhead Wetland. Elevation data is collected from
piezometer nest BAPZ-3, individual piezometers BAPZ-5 and BAPZ-8 located
upgradient of the Bunched Arrowhead Wetland, and M\Y.,2..8... installed in 1989) located tJ,.t
downgradient of the Bunched Arrowhead Wetlan '(Figure . Wetland piezometers ~<. -l-<> ~.,,,_ .. +<
have had water levels recorded since May 1999. Between 1999 and 200 I (inclusive), I, ~"'~ :11:"""J
water levels at the piezometers did not closely track deeper groundwater levels (HSI ~ . ' "·~
· · 0.\\ ?\Ltbr"U-'W ~. GeoTrans, 2000b). Geo Trans found that water levels at BAPZ-3, an mterrnediate-depth \
piezometer, coincided with rainfall, as well as shallow piezometer BAPZ-3S. Water
levels at deep piezometer BAPZ-3D had a different pattern until 2002, but have
fluctuated similarly to BAPZ-3 and BAPZ-3S since that time. Water level elevations
collected March 2002 to September 2007 from the three piezometers are shown on
Figure 12. Monitoring at the BAPZ-3S, BAPZ-3 and BAPZ3D cluster ended in 2008.
BAPZ-3S piezometer contained a fire ant mound that completely consumed the well;
therefore, monitoring at that station ceased in September 2005. The water elevations in
BAPZ-3 and BAPZ-D could not be measured during the 2008 sampling event as the
piezometers were unexplainably destroyed during the year. BAPZ-8 was found to be
broken at the ground surface in 2008 and was subsequently abandoned. Since the
groundwater elevation at MW-28 fluctuates similarly to BAPZ-3O, and is located in
proximity to the Bunched Arrowhead Wetland, MW-28 water levels were used for the
purpose of this analysis. The calculated drawdown ( compared to 200 I non-pumping
conditions) is 0.72 feet [Figure 2-2 in the 2009 Annual Groundwater Remedial Action
Performance Monitoring Report (Geosyntec, 2009)).
Overall, groundwater in the Bunched Arrowhead Wetland and the Large GE Wetland
appear to exhibit little groundwater fluctuation in relation to ambient precipitation. This
is consistent with persistence of the hydrated seeps and occupancy of those seeps by a
species (bunched arrowhead) that is apparently dependent on the occurrence of
suspended muck.
GR4369/BA Report 2009 _final.docx 9 December 09
Geosyntec0
consultants
3.3 Bunched Arrowhead Wetland
Appendix B provides the Vegetation Monitoring Data forms on which observations and
data for the September 2009 monitoring event are presented. As discussed previously,
Geosyntec discovered that survey monuments and quadrat materials had been removed
from the seep containing Q2, Q3, and Q4-5. Although no other significant disturbance
to the seep was apparent, the removal of the survey materials was unauthorized and
likely a result of trespass/vandalism. To correct this issue, Geosyntec re-established the
rebar stakes based on prior experience and a review of previous photographs. Please
note that although Geosyntec re-installed these monuments as accurately as possible, it
is expected that some slight variation in locations have occurred; especially with regard
to the quadrat location. In addition to the placement of rebar at the up-and down-
gradient limits, rebar was also established at each quadrat location and then overlaid
with a 0.25 m2 PVC-constructed quadrat.
3.3.l Extent of Habitat
Table 2 summarizes the measured habitat extent, substrate, and hydrological
parameters. According to ES! (2006), the overall length of the seep bottom occupied by
the bunched arrowhead has remained stable since September 1999. As in past years,
September 2003 coverage was less than June 2003 coverage. Ho;,,ever, in 2004 both
June and September coverage was less than in the comparable months of 2002; and the
appearance of the plants in September indicated that the period of active growth was
longer in 2003 than in 2002. In 2005, it appeared that the length of occupied habitat
had increased at almost all areas and had shifted somewhat compared to its location in
2004. The extent of habitat observed in 2009 is somewhat more restricted in width in
comparison to the area occupied during the 2006, 2007, 2008 monitoring events;
'however, plant density appears to have increased.
3.3.2 Substrate
Included in Table 2 are the substrate evaluations for each of the four monitoring areas
in the Bunched Arrowhead Wetland. Overall, the depth of muck appeared to be slightly
greater than that of the September 2008 monitoring period. All monitored areas in 2009
had muck that could be described, to at least some extent, as "suspended" and similar to
the muck condition as reported in 2000 and 2001. The muck was notably deeper in the
Q2, Q3 and Q4-5 areas than in the QI area. Muck depth for QI in September 2009
GR4369/BA Report 2009 _final.docx 10 December 09
Geosyntece>
consultants
ranged from 2.0 to approximately 32.5 inches. Muck depths ranged from 3.5 to 46.1
inches in Q2; 10.0 to 32.5 inches in Q3; and 9.0 to 30.25 inches in Q4-5.
3.3.3 Density and Location of Bnnched Arrowhead Plants
Included in Table 2 is the location summary information for the bunched arrowhead
plants. Based on the 2009 survey, the linear length of occupied habitat in the Bunched I ..lt
Arrowhead Wetland increased by approximately 4 feet and the bunched arrowhead /\
population increased in density in all quadrats where they occurred.
3.3J.J Quadrat 1
Similar to 2008, no individuals were observed at QI during the September 2009 survey.
The QI area seep has regained hydrology and the organic muck has become re-
suspended within the QI monitoring reach. These hydro logic improvements are likely
the result of increased rainfall over the last year.
3.3.3.2 Quadrat 2
Compared to 2008, the population of bunched arrowhead in Q2 increased during 2009,
nearly doubling the 2008 population. The population appeared to be approximately 400
--;.osettes (the terms "rosettes" and "individuals" are used interchangeably thought the
report). Although the number of individuals within the quadrat was 12 compared to 14
a year ago, plant density outside of the quadrat has substantially increased.
Approximately 50 percent of the remaining individuals in the Q2 reach revealed recent
evidence of fruiting. Very few (less than 5 percent) juveniles were observed, with the
remaining population in a vegetative state. Of note, absolute cover of competitive weed
species significantly decreased and this may be a result of an increase of hydrology.
Based on Geosyntec's last three years of monitoring, canopy cover/shading and
hydrology play a more important role in bunched arrowhead habitat suitability and
competitive weeds appear to be less of a factor ( especially evidenced in the Large GE
Wetland). The top elevation of the downed log, which has been used as a boundary
point between reaches Q2 and Q3, remains difficult to detect, and additional
stakes/flagging were once again placed at the location of the remnant logs in order for
future monitoring events to remain consistent with historical assessments.
GR4369/BA Repon 2009 _ final.docx II December 09
)
Geosyntec t>
consulrnnts
3.3.3.3 Quadrat 3
In contrast to last year, the compellllve weed: jewelwced (Impatiens capensis),
significantly decreased in percent cover within the Q3 reach. This change may be
correlated with an increase in hydrology throughout the reach. In addition, the numbers
of bunched arrowhead rosettes have doubled within the reach to approximately 20
rosettes. Please note that due to leaf fall, some individuals may have been missed. To
avoid disrupting the bunched arrowhead habitat (and possibly damaging individuals),
leaf litter was not removed from the reach when counting rosettes. This situation was
similar in all reaches, but most prevalent within this segment. Although no rosettes
were observed in the quadrat, an increase in total rosettes was noted, with the majority
being found near the up-gradient limits of this reach. The length of the occupied reach
remained at 24 feet. The dense canopy (85 percent canopy cover) may be the limiting
factor in bunched arrowhead populations within this reach.
3.3.3.4 Quadrat 4-5
The estimated number of rosettes in the Q4-5 reach increased from 600 in 2008 to
approximately 700 in 2009, as did the length of the reach from 44 feet to 48 feet,
respectively. Geosyntec observed 13 rosettes in Quadrat 4 which remained stable from
2008 and 22 individuals in Quadrat 5, which was a decrease from 32 in 2008. Although
a decrease in bunched arrowhead numbers was observed at Q5, there was an overall
increase in density throughout the reach. The bunched arrowhead population is more
abundant in the middle of the reach and further down-gradient. Increased hydrology
and a subsequent decrease in competitive weeds may be the contributing factor to the
increased number of bunched arrowhead within the reach. Similar to the other reaches,
the abundance of leaf litter from leaf fall may have resulted in a conservative bunched
arrowhead population estimate. However, removing of the leaf litter was deemed too
intrusive and therefore the population count was limited to those that were readily
observable.
3.3.3.5 Summary for Bunched Arrowhead Wetland
Species observed and the absolute percent cover for each species at the Bunched
Arrowhead Wetland survey quadrats during the September 2009 survey are summarized
in Table 3. The bunched arrowhead occurrence continues within its occupied habitat
except for in QI where no individuals have occurred since 2007. Estimates of the
GR4369/BA Rcpon 2009 _final.docx 12 December 09
)
Geosyntec C>
consultants
number of plants observed within each of the three remaining monitored areas are 400
(Q2), 20 (Q3), and-:--700 (Q4-5). The highest density of plants was observed within Q2
and the down-gradient portion of Q4/5. In September 2009, it was observed that plant
densities increased in Q2, Q3, and Q4-5, and remained the same (none present) in Q 1
relative to the 2008 monitoring event. At their last recorded occurrence in 2006, 19
bunched arrowhead plants were observed at QI.
An assessment of the Bunched Arrowhead Wetland characteristics and changes since
April 2000 is shown in Table 4. As presented, the percent relative change in measured
bunched arrowhead wetland characteristics relative to April 2000 is 46 percent4 (QI),
85 percent (Q2), 79 percent (Q3), and 96 percent (Q4-5). Thus, wetland seep conditions
reflect a trend towards more suitable habitat for the bunched arrowhead. Table 4 also
presents the change in bunched arrowhead characteristics relative to September .200'1.
Compared to 2008, significant increases in bunched arrowhead wetland characteristics
were observed in all quadrat reaches. Quadrat I reach revealed a 167 percent increase,
while Q2, Q3, and Q4 were 145 percent, 127 percent and 125 percent, respectively.
3.4 Large GE Wetland
The Large GE Wetland system remains well-vegetated by herbaceous species, despite
extreme drought conditions over the last two years (Figure 11 ). I opographic
characteristics include sloping floodplains with seepages at their upland edge and a
minor depositional berm with breaks directly adjacent to the stream. This wetland is
likely inundated across the entire system only when Bat Fork Creek is flooded, and
evidence of recent floodin (sediment deposits, debris lines) was noted during this
monitoring event due to significant rains dunng mt -eptem er. ou t e
,;;ported noted the presence of beaver dams along Bat Creek, none were noted within
the stream at the Large GE Wetland during the 2009 monitoring event. It appears that
the beavers have moved further upstream and re-established dams immediately east of
the settling pond. Therefore, the small seepages are the only features with regular and
periodic wetland hydrology in this area. Such seepages were reported present during
the April 2000 monitoring, but not during September monitoring in 2002. All seeps
were reported flowing in September 2006; however, in September 2007 and 2008 the
4l!I
4 That is, wetland characteristics supportive of bunched arrowhead in QI i5/ percent of the baseline
condition established in April 2000; and so on for the other reported quadrats.
GR4369/BA Report 2009 _final.docx 13 December 09
)
GeosyntecD
consultants
seeps were saturated but not flowing. During this year's monitoring event, all seeps
were once again flowing.
C>
Within the 2008 monitoring report, Geosyntec identified four separate seeps, wit~· ;;.-j. I "3 ~
of the four seeps supporting bunched arrowhead populations (Figure 13). However, f' d-t
further inspection during the 2009 event confirmed that although four seeps exist within ~CJ.:-IA.
the Large GE Wetland, only two of the seeps contain populations of bunched l.'4 :;..
arrowhead. During the recent drought years, the seeps were less defined along and s~e.r,-
within the windrow between the easement and the forested wetland and were thus S 2-+ S 3
believed to be separate systems. However, the seep within the easement eventually
connects to the third seep (Seep 3), which was more evident this year due to an i~e
in hydrology. l I\ &..Lftk , 'r-f'\~ ,.r Lo~~ )
The first seep (Seep I) is located closest to the woods road and flows east/northeast
from the utility easement to Bat Fork Creek. Seep I is located approximately 80 feet
north of the woods road. As was reported in 2008, no populations of bunched
arrowhead were observed in this system in 2009. Seep I contains flowing water in the
channel and the substrate consists of sandy clay loam and organic muck.
Seep 2 is located approximately 30 feet north of Seep 1. Seep 2 converges with Seep 1
before its confluence with Bat Fork Creek. Seep 2 contains minor surface flow, and the
substrate consists of a sand/organics shallow muck. Geosyntec observed a greater muck
depth at this reach this year, which is likely due to an increase in hydrology. A
population of bunched arrowhead (Population 1) is present along the reach at the
transect intersection. Population 1 occupies a reach approximately 10-feet long. Of
significant note, this population continues to decrease and only 5 rosettes were observed
this year. All 5 individuals were in vegetative state (no flowering). No significant
increase in competitive weeds was observed, and hydrology has improved. The only
factor that may have changed is the continual increase of shading/canopy cover
(approximately 90 percent).
Seep 3 is located approximately 60 feet north of Seep 2 and runs roughly parallel with
Seep 2. The 2008 monitoring event reported four separate populations (Populations 2
through 5) along this seep, with each population occupying different habitats. ~ \1'°()M I-{ il, ')__
However, only two populations (Population 2 and 5) were observed this year. J.csw.:11!.-
Population 2 is thriving and located near the middle section of this seep. The previous O~/
two years of monitoring reported an occupied habitat reach of approximately 40 feet. v~
[_, ~-
GR4369/BA Report 2009 _final docx 14 December 09 1"f ke..f,Jv-... }
)
GeosyntecD
consultants
Occupied habitat has now expanded up-gradient another 35 feet so that the total
population reach is approximately 75 feet. Similar to 2008, this population contains
approximately 1,000 individuals, with 20 percent of the bunched arrowhead showmg
s1gI1s of recent fruiting, and approximately 50 percent of the population appearing as
~es. Of note, this population is stable and thriving in spite of continued
encroachment by competitive weeds [namely jewelweed and rice cutgrass (Leersia ~l)."'i"o,
ory~oides)]._ Further, this population ~ontinues to expand out~ide of t~e defin~d seep t,_.CA~t . .l
hm1ts (caution should be exercised dunng future events to avoid trampling s~ --t>f ....{--. f:J
are outside of the typical seep limits). This population begins near the right-of-way I·" ·
clearing and contains less shade than other populations. Vegetation (herbaceous and
shrub layer) is dominated by greenbrier (Smilax laurifo/ia), alder (A/nus serru/ata), joe-
pye-weed (Eupatorium macu/atum}, Cinnamon fern (Osumunda cinnamomea),
possumhaw (Viburnum nudum),jewelweed and rice cutgrass.
Bunched arrowhead Population 3 is located further downgradient from Population 2 and
was previously found beneath a dense possumhaw shrub layer along the same seep. In
"2 2008, approximately 34 rosettes were observed. However, no individuals of Population
3 /were observed this year. Dense shading from the possumhaw mid-story canopy may
have caused this population to go dormant.
In 2008, another new population (Population 4) of bunched arrowhead was discovered.
This population was located outside of the established Seep 3 limits (approximately 15
feet north), but still within the larger wetland complex. Population 4 was located down-
gradient of Population 3, and slightly north of Seep 2. In 2008, 11 individuals were
observed in this location, and all were in their vegetative state. However, no bunched
arrowhead individuals were observed during the current year's monitoring event.
Similar to Population 3, dense canopy cover may be the contributing factor to the loss
of this population as no evidence of excessive weed competition, disturbance, or
diminished hydrology was observed. . .,.
~ ,._':),.;..-,"" o.-..si.!o,.~cl ~ ww,J. /...:>k..;c.'--1,MC..,(..v1'u, .
As described in 2008 and previous reports, Seep 4 was identified as being located ~-5 N-12{' 's d
within the right-of-way easement and just upgradient of a windrow of decaying trees. I'} IN-f'·d:~
As described above, this seep is actually a continuation of Seep 3 and not a distinct and ~ Ka \ 3
separate system. Prior disturbance and clearing from past casement activities likely 1~
,-caused a temporary disruption in ~ows, but due to a more typical hydro-period,
flows from the easement seep to $eep 2)rre continuous and uninterrupted. In 2009, a
significant increase in hydrology wit m the ease ent reach of Seep 3 was observed,
} L" f,\.QOJll'°"' i~ ,.,Q.I ~<'
GR4369/BA Report 2009 _final.docx J IS , I December 09 :5k .... lA. JJ,.,r
l,,t_, ~ ,,_ r 1 ~ c -~-n= ; >
Geosyntec<>
consultants
which revealed multiple "finger" seeps that define the origin of Seep 3. Population 5 is
located within the easement portion of Seep 3 and just upgradient of a windrow of
decaying trees. Tearthumb (Polygonum sp.), bulrush (Scirpus sp.), sedges (Carex ;p.),
and other herbaceous vegetation have recruited back from last year's herbicidal
1 treatment. However, in spite of a dense herbaceous layer (100% cover) of tearthumb,
/-l',e,' this population has significantly expanded. While last year's population totaled
c, .\/?~ approximately 24 rosettes, over 300 rosettes were observed in the easement this year. ;o/ Further, the occupied habitat has substantially lengthened to approximately 75 feet,
"\ along the three finger seeps. Adequate hydrology (flowmg water was observed) and
habitat lacking a tree canopy seem to have created an ideal situation for re-
establishment/recruitment of bunched arrowhead. Based on the substantial increase in
this population (both in number and area), bunched arrowhead may exhibit the ability to
go dormant during drier years and then re-establish once suitable conditions become
available. The locations of bunched arrowhead populations observed in the Large GE
Wetland are shown in Figure 13. s~~ '-\ is. ,.,il/-l a.k>~I~ {-~.
Appendix B provides the Vegetation Monitoring Data forms for the September 2008
monitoring event at the Large GE Wetland.
In accordance with the previously established evaluation protocol, more detailed
information pertaining to ecological and other important features of the Large GE
Wetland are provided in the following subsections.
3.4.1 Vegetation
3.4.1.1 Groundcover
Groundcover was less dominated by multiflora rose (Rosa multi.flora) than in previous
years and exhibited a greater diversity and distribution of herbaceous species.
,-¥'1, \\J.v\,iLli'.{~,
~: ~ "-rf'l;"
\M. 'ii<.11.f ' .
h /"'-"o.:.-
t, .{:o.~ C . ,:
3.4.1.2 Composition f\ll...(.d. .f-\1 ct.£~14\;h. l~v< -vJb·c:A. i.:. "'°'"""'d:{.-( -{.
<tce,o~ The groundcover species appear to be appropriate to the wetland type. Previous l
monitoring events observed multiflora rose as a dominant groundcover. Thi~s ? ?
now largely comprised of shrubs, and remains prolific in this system. Along the edg~ .
the survey transect, which was mowed four years ago, the vegetation continues to \'r\l.M<.4
increase in density and absolute cover. Many of the groundcover species arc somewhat ~Ml'NV~
weedy natives found in the open-canopy areas where the transect begins. )il'N).\\U
'5toM.:> ' ?
GR4369/BA Report 2009_ fiaaLdoc, L 6 D<ccmbc, 09 ~f«" syY"b V~
)
Geosyntect>
consultants
Representative species observed along the transect include royal fern ( Osmunda
regalis), catbrier (Smilax rotundifolia), yellow root (Xanthorhizza simplicissima),
cinnamon fern, joe-pye-weed, and jewelweed. Compared to 2008, a similar number of
herbaceous wetland species were observed in 2009.
The seeps in the Large GE Wetland have been periodically searched for bunched
arrowhead since April 2000. During the April 2000 survey, none were observed. In
September 2003, many small, bunched arrowhead plants were observed in a seep along
the survey transect. In September 2004, a seep 15-feet long by 4-feet wide located
northwest of the survey transect had been cleared of vegetation. Due to the open
canopy conditions created by the clearing, the seep contained a "mat" of bunched
arrowhead, comprising approximately 90 percent of the wetland cover, mixed with soft
rush (Juncus ejfusus) and various sedges when surveyed in 2005. However, during
2006 it was noted that other herbaceous species had out-competed the bunched
arrowhead in the previously cleared area, completely eliminating this population of
bunched arrowhead. During 2008, five populations of bunched arrowhead were newly
discovered (as noted above) within two of the seeps that traverse the wetland system.
We believe this is a notable observation given the drought conditions experienced in the
area at that time. As noted above, and consistent with prior monitoring events, two of
these populations were lost and likely affected by the continued increase in canopy
cover. However, Population 2 and Population 5 (the casement population) are thriving
and appear to be stable. 1
3.4.1.3 Zonation 0~ ~.
~>
No evidence ot:,i!inormal zonation was observed. The non-wetland multiflora rose that
was previotrsly growing only on slightly higher ground outside of the seepages is now
abundant throughout. This encroachment was likely due to drought conditions. The
increase in rainfall during 2008-2009 has caused the wetland to return to more saturated
conditions. As a result, the abundance and vigor of multi flora rose, particularly within
the herbaceous layer, has greatly diminished. This species now comprises more of the
shrub layer. An increase in wetland hydrology has allowed for a more even distribution
of more favorable wetland species such as royal fem, cinnamon fem, marsh fem
(Thelypteris sp.),joe-pye-weed, softrush, and sedges.
GR4369/BA Report 2009 _final.docx 17 December 09
Geosyntec0
consultants
3.4.1.4 Weediness
Less than 30 percent of groundcover species would be considered "weeds". Weedy
groundcover is dominated by jcwelweed and ultiflora rose Weed species also occur
near the cleared opening at the beginning of the survey tra ect and consist mostly of
native species that require substantial amounts of light.
3.4.2 <J
• ~;-_ I
~•'-3.4.2.J Composition ,,.1,..e. -:,
Shrub
Shrub cover along the immediat~as moderate and seemed to be recovering
from being mowed in 2004. Elsewhere, the most common shrub in this system remains
multiflora rose. As noted above, the increase in rainfall and subsequent hydrology
throughout the Large GE Wetland may be causing a decrease in this species'
abundance. In our experience, multiflora rose prefers historical wetland systems that
are undergoing a decrease in hydrology (usually through draining, incised streams, or
drought conditions). This species appears to have less tolerance for wetlands that arc
saturated throughout the entire growing season.
3.4.2.2 Zonation
Shrub zonation appears to be appropriate to the wetland. Multiflora rose remains the
most dominant species; however, alder, possumhaw, elderberry (Sambucus canadensis),
and Southern arrowwood (Viburnum dentatum) were observed in increased densities.
The occurrence of weedy shrubs, discussed below, has not affected the zonation, which
appears unchanged since April 2000.
3.4.2.3 Weediness
Weedy shrubs arc prevalent in this wetland. Most prevalent is multiflora rose, a species
with proven capability of invading otherwise undisturbed forests and developing a
dense shrub layer. This species is invasive and considered a threat to native habitats.
Whi!c not generally considered to be a wetland species, it is abundant on many stream
banks. Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinen e also ersists throu out t e wetland and
exhibits similar c aracteristics. As stated above, multiflora rose remains the dominant
shrub species, but its abundan'(5;_;e decreased in 2009.
GR4369/BA Report 2009 _final.docx 18 December 09
Geosyntec 0
consultants
3.4.3 Vines Zonation
Similar to 2008, vines such as laurel greenbrier (Smilax laurifo/ia) and catbrier were
observed along the transect during this monitoring event. Vines were observed in 2007;
however, they were not noted to have occurred previously. Both of these species are
known to occur in wetland systems and should not be considered a threat to bunched
arrowhead populations.
3.4.4 Tree
3.4.4.1 Composition ~-.,;,\....,,..-L..1.-:,o._.,,o.\.(--.... ,Z
Tree species composition~ained unchanged at this site, but canopy cover has /
increased to approximately 75 percent. Canopy species are appropriate to the wetland
type and consisted entirely of facultati ve (F AC) species, which are species of trees that
are commonly found in wetland areas, but may also persist in upland habitats. Red
maple (Acer rubrum) was the most dominant species, with blackgum (Nyssa sylvatica),
tuliptree (Liriodendron lulipifera), loblolly pine (Pinus /aeda), and sweetgum
(Liquidambar sytracijlua) also present along the transect.
3.4.4.2 Zonation
There was no evidence of shifts in tree species zonation. There has been no invasion of
this system by upland trees and no shift from trees growing on hammocks or higher
ground to trees growing at ground level or in the seeps. Most trees are found on the
slightly higher areas that have better drainage.
3.4.4.3 Canopy Stress
The canopy appeared to be relatively healthy with very little evidence of stress.
3.4.4.4 Soils
There was no observable soil loss in the area.
3.4.S Muck
In the seepages along the survey transect there was a sand/organic muck substrate.
Slightly higher elevations were not inundated, but were saturated at the surface.
GR4369/BA Report 2009 _ final.docx 19 December 09
GeosyntecD
consultants
4. EVALUATION OF FINDINGS
The paucity of research data available on bunched arrowhead limits interested parties !
from accurately determining/predicting the minimum number, density, or size of plants
required to maintain a viable population within its unique habitat. Site-specific studies
at the GE/Shepherd Farm Superfund Site indicate that significant fluctuations in species '--) . .
abundance have been observed in consecutive years, and it is difficult to predict l'Y\I.A"-' ",
population trends. Vegetative reproduction appears to be the principal form of ' ? · ro.-:.~'
reproduction for the plants at the GE/Shepherd Farm Superfund site; therefore, the
number of genetically distinct plants may be small. Based on ten years of annual
monitoring at the Large GE Wetland, populations may appear "lost" during unfavorable
conditions and then reappear during more suitable habitat conditions. Thus, this
species' preference for unique habitat requirements, which can change significantly in a
relatively short amount of time, may be overcome through its resilient ability to lay
dormant until more suitable conditions return.
Table S presents the risk assessment factors as identified in the preliminary monitoring
design (BRA, 2000) and following modifications to the monitoring protocol by BRA in
2002 (based on site conditions observed in April 2000 and September 200 J ). Table 6
provides an assessment of risk based on comparison of 2009 observations to the risk
assessment factors provided in Table 5. Similar to the 2008 comparison, the bunched
arrowhead appears to be relatively well protected from at least short-term climatic
fluctuations; however at "some risk" due to competitive species and below normal
rainfall. Persistent, multi-year droughts (like the ones observed in 2007-2008) increase
the risk of adverse impact and cause the species to become more sensitive to other
forms of disturbance.
Newberry (1991) reported that competition from other plant species was the factor most
commonly associated with decreases m bunched arrowhead plant numbers and cover m
plots monitored over a period of years. The primary species identified as compelltors
\vere fowl mannagrass, roundfruit hedgehyssop, and greater bladder sedge. Based on
site observations from April 2000 through September 2009, fowl mannagrass appears to
occupy the same microsites as bunched arrowhead. However, it does not appear to be
out-competing the bunched arrowhead; rather, during the 2009 monitoring event, this
species continues to decrease in percent cover relative to the bunched arrowhead
populations. Further, the relative abundance of bunched arrowhead increased in 2009.
GR4369/BA Report 2009 __ final.docx 21
Geosyntect>
consultants
while percent cover of jewelweed (also considered a competitive species to bunched /
arrowhead) has significantly decreased (by as much as 60 percent in Q3). :?
Y"I\A-0."'-'"'°1. i""-t"~.J.""""~. Previous monitoring reports have purported that obstructions in the seep stream play an
important role in the population ecology of the bunched arrowhead. In 200 I and 2002,
the densest areas of bunched arrowhead occurred in the Q3 area, which was bounded by
fallen trees, and dense groupings of the plant were found on the upstream sides of the
logs. In September 2004, bunched arrowhead appeared to have increased in density and
there was less apparent clumping of plants above logs. In September 2005, 2006, and
2007 the conditions were similar to the preceding years, with an increase in bunched
arrowhead density and healthy growing conditions (with the exception of QI, which
had experienced a substantial decrease in bunched arrowhead plants and was not
observed at all during the 2007 -2009 events). It should be noted that QI does not
contain any obstructions such as fallen logs that could impede water flow. During the
2008 survey, the fallen logs had decomposed and the population of bunched arrowhead
decreased in both Q2 and Q 3.
However, in 2009, remnant log debris had diminished in the seep and did not contribute
to significant obstruction of seep flows. Bunched arrowhead populations within Q3
were largely found on the downstream side of the up-gradient log (Q2/Q3 boundary)
and no individuals were observed above the down-gradient log (Q3/Q4-5 boundary).
These data reveal a potential conflict in the idea that seep obstructions influence
bunched arrowhead population dynamics. The majority of bunched arrowhead plants
were found in the middle section of the Q2 reach and the mid-and down-gradient
section of Q4-5. Overall, the plant size and abundance of bunched arrowhead in
September 2009 have responded well to improved hydrological conditions, and the
gradual decrease in seep obstructions does not appear to play as important a role in
population dynamics as previously thought. Geosyntec expects that as annual
precipitation returns to more typical conditions, bunched arrowhead populations will
remain stable in the Bunched Arrowhead Wetland.
Upon review of the 2009 and previous monitoring data, Geosyntec now concludes that
hydrology and tree canopy cover are the primary factors affecting bunched arrowhead.
(
Competitive weed species can contribute to temporary decline; however, the ability for
these weed species to out-compete bunched arrowhead is also dependent on less
saturated seep conditions. For instance, during the 2007 and 2008 monitoring events,
{cwelweed continued to increase in percent cover to the point that it had nearly > s._,_,-,,s '" °"',.1 .. ~ .. I Juc.i-,f · 1 ell4"-.--<J.b{-trs.-..._
GR4)69/BA Report 2009 ~fioal.doc, 22 °' cL ~ ~n..--t . Oecembe, 09
GeosyntecD
consultants
5. SUMMARY
Overall, the groundwater extraction system at the GE/Shepherd Farm Superfund site
appears to have had no discemable impact on the ecological conditions at the Bunched
Arrowhead Wetland or Large GE Wetland. Conditions suggest that overall vegetative
composition in these systems has remained relatively stable through a ten-year period
that has included years of both high and low rainfall periods. The continuous
ations o a e opulation of bunched arrowhead in the ditch seeps west of the
GE Plant (Bunched Arrowhead Wetland) and in the Large GE Wetland support the
hypothesis that groundwater extraction has had little or no significant adverse effect on
these surface wetland systems and the bunched arrowhead populations they support. It
appears that the most substantial threat to bunched arrowhead populations on the site is
a continuation of drought conditions, and/or "normal" ecological changes (e.g.,
tcreased shading, species competition, etc).
(j_J. ~ ... ¼-.... ¼. -Et"'-<. ...-e_ 4 i= r\O 1""'f"' ~~ -uu. .,~u:u(cu 1f SL.fr)
0..-v-O £..-Co..c. is. t1~ I~ "f"""'~ ,.,;__ I""\ 3 l.<.<..fS ~
f' u ;i;,,,sl '-i ~ c:, i s"h ) w I wl,\,IJ\,l. ~ ilit-
~ hc.u.v.J (f""'-y -.i.. ~ J..-~C,I...Q.ktl,,u.""".
GR4369/BA Report 2009 _final.docx 24 December 09
Geosyntec0
consultants
6. RECOMMENDATIONS
This 2009 annual monitoring report for the bunched arrowhead completes a 10-year
monitoring period, which was specified in the Remediation Goal Verification Plan
contained in the Final Design and Remedial Action Work Plan for Groundwater. The
last 10 years of monitoring have confirmed that groundwater extraction operations do
not appear to have an adverse effect on the Bunched Arrowhead Wetland population.
Based on these findings, Geosyntec recommends that the ecological monitoring within J
the Bunched Arrowhead Wetland conclude with this year's monitoring event. Aside
from environmental conditions that may threaten the bunched arrowhead, the greatest
threat to this species' population is the risk of disturbance via trespassers. The evidence
of vandalism to the Bunched Arrowhead Wetland monitoring system indicates that this
area is easily accessed by unauthorized individuals which may be causing more harm to
this population than any other factor. Unfortunately, theses incidences are outside of
GE Lighting Systems' control. As such, Geosyntec recommends the conclusion of
ecological monitoring of the Bunched Arrowhead Wetland associated with the above-
referenced plan.
With regard to the Large GE Wetland, Geosyntec recommends that ecological
monitoring continue. The Large GE Wetland lies within the GE Lighting Systems plant
property, which provides a more secure site that minimizes disturbance/access from
trespassers. In addition, this wetland is spatially in proximity to the groundwater
extraction operations. Because of the bunched arrowhead's status as an endangered
species and due to its unique habitat requirements, Geosyntec believes that annual
monitoring should continue within the Large GE Wetland. However, monitoring
protocol should be modified and streamlined to make the monitoring more efficient.
To streamline the annual monitoring, Geosyntec recommends the following changes:
I) Utilize a similar scoring procedure used currently for comparing annual data,
but with modified data parameters. Geosyntec recoR"mends that Population 2
be considered the reference population establishingfor baseline conditions for
future monitoring events. Located along the wetland transect and within Seep
3, this population appears healthy and thriving, consists of approximately
1,000 individuals or more, and continues to expand its limits spatially.
GR4369tBA Report 2009_final.docx 25 December 09
Geo syn tee t>
consultants
2) Establish one, permanent I-meter' quadrat within the approximate center of
each population reach of each seep that is currently occupied, or has been
previously occupied, by bunched arrowhead. At the up-and down-gradient
limits of each population, establish a temporary I-meter' quadrat during each
monitoring event. In populations where the length of reach is less than 3
meters (9.84 feet), only one quadrat is recommended (to prevent overlap of
monitoring data). Within each quadrat, the following data should be
obtained: 1 • 1 • .,, · _,,,,------"'"""/{\U""'-<,..q ~
a. Deterrnine absolute percent cover of herbaceous species within the o.J.l '>f<-UU ~ \
quadrat. Although more general percent cover data may be noteworthy
for describing the overall condition of the Large GE Wetland (as is
currently obtained), this inforrnation contributes little to the
understanding of the micro-habitats that exist along the seep reaches.
b. Score each population using similar scoring methods and definitions
presented in the Bunched Arrowhead Wetland monitoring protocol;
however, parameters should be limited to the following (and only scored
within the perrnanent, center quadrat):
1. Vegetation
I. Absolute Cover -f. <; _.c;'o..c.c. 'I"!. ll~.,. 8ff,: \.lnw ~l.J_ ,=:
3.Shrubs -wl-I,~ ~lf .... 1/~~ C..t .$1,;"-
4.Area Occupied Relative to 2010
11. Canopy Cover/Shading
u1. Hydration
GR4369/BA Report 200Q _frnal.docx
l. Muck Depth
2. Stagnation
26 December 09
GeosyntecD
consultants
3) Determine canopy cover at the up-gradient limit/quadrat, central quadrat, and
down-gradient limit/quadrat of the population. Canopy cover appears to be a
major contributor to species abundance and density, and percent canopy cover
data at the population limits may provide valuable information as to how the
population's range is affected by differing canopy conditions.
4)
5)
6)
GPS locate, using a sub-meter accurate unit, the up-gradient, down-gradient,
and center points of each bunched arrowhead population. Where populations
no longer exist, only GPS locate the approximate center location of where it
previously occupied the seep habitat. The GPS data will provide base
information that will allow Geosyntec to evaluate the linear spatial expansion
of each population over time. Data may be depicted on a map/drawing to
illustrate each subsequent year's growth habit and its potential to recruit
previously unoccupied habitats. Obtaining GPS-location data on the
population limits will provide a more permanent/stable model for subsequent
monitoring (as opposed to staking the limits) and will allow for easy location
of each population in the event that field biologists change over the years.
Determine the approximate number of individuals within each population, and
determine the percentage ~, vegetative, and flowering/reproductive.
~ -.i.,. c/..aC>t: ....,_ ~~u.h,d:Ll+ ,
Note observations of herbivory/predation. Recent monitoring events have
included observations of herbivory, which may have an effect on a
population's vigor.
7) Obtain digital photographs at each population, including one photograph at
each cardinal direction (North, East, South, West) to contribute to the
qualitative assessment of each population.
Annual monitoring reports should include a qualitative discussion on the overall
condition of the Large GE Wetland, noting any significant changes in hydrology,
invasive species, or disturbance. The report should also include climate/rainfall data
similar to how it is presented in the previous monitoring reports, as there appears to be a
strong correlation between annual rainfall and seep hydrology. The remaining sections
of the report should include (l) a comparison of scoring between the current year and
the baseline year, where 20 IO would become the baseline ~ and Population 2
would be determined as ideal bunched arrowhead wetland conditions (the highest
GR4369/BA Report 2009 _final.docx 27 December 09
j
Geosyntec 0
consultants
achievable score being 21 ), (2) a discussion of each scoring parameter/factor based on
· xisting conditions for that year's monitoring event, (3) a brief summary of existing
onditions and trends in terms of changes in bunched arrowhead populations, and (4)
anagement recommendations to improve/maintain suitable habitat for this species.
Additionally, the annual monitoring report should include a drawing that incorporates
the GPS data and depicts the populations graphically. Each year, this drawing can be
modified to show how the populations have expanded or contracted linearly in
comparison with the baseline (20 I 0) data.
?r(N ,· cL ,~l){-1-~~ h
u.sr=:uis. A$'kwi'He.-~o l~~ LuJ)
NC-, Iv ti'.f'
t-.C-fC?'
GR4369/0A Report 2009 _final.docx 28 December 09
APPENDIXB
VEGETATION MONITORING DATA
FORMS
JI;A
NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Waste Management
Beverly Eaves Perdue
Governor
Dexter R. Matthews
Director
Mr. Michael Townsend
Remedial Project Manager
Superfund Remedial & Site Evaluation Branch
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4
Sam Nunn -Atlanta Federal Center
61 Forsyth Street, S. W.
Atlanta, GA 30303
RE: Annual Groundwater Remedial Action
Performance Monitoring Report -20 I 0
General Electric/Shepherd Farm NPL Site
East Flat Rock, Henderson County
Dear Mr. Townsend:
January 31,201 I
Dee Freeman
Secretary
TI1e North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NC DENR) Superfund
Section has received the Annual Groundwater Remedial Action Performance Monitoring Report
-20/() for the General Electric/Shepherd Farm National Priority List (NPL) Site. The NC
DENR Superfund Section has reviewed this document and offers the following attached
comments.
The NC DENR Supertimd Section appreciates the opportunity to comment on this document. If
you have any questions or comments, please feel free to contact me at [phone] or at
da vi d. matt i.son(/l)ncdt.·11r. !.!<iv.
Attachment
1646 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1646
Sincerely,
David B. Mattison
Environmental Engineer
NC DENR Superfund Section
Phone: [phone] I FAX: [phone] I Internet http://portalncdenr.org/web/wm
An Equal Opportumty I Af11rma\1ve Ac1,or. Cinployer
Orn.: • NorthCaroltna .N11t11r11/ly
Mr. Michael Townsend
General Electric/Shepherd Fann NPL Site
Annual Groundwater Remedial Action Performance Monitoring Report -2010
January 31, 20 I I
Page I
GENERAL ELECTRIC/SHEPHERD FARM NPL SITE
Annual Groundwater Remedial Action Performance Monitoring Report-2010
Section 1.6.3 Monitoring Program Modifications
I. Please revise the fourth proposed modification in the table included in Section 1.6.3 lo state
"Removal of lead, manganese and nickel from all but one location and institute passive
diffusion sampling method for subsequent groundwater performance monitoring."
Section 1.7 Reporting Requirements
2. Please correct the last sentence of Section 1.7 to state " ... and survey data from staff gauges in
Appendix H."
Section 2.4 Hydraulic Containment
3. As depicted in Figure 2-2, please correct the second sentence of the third paragraph of Section
2.4 to state "One smaller area between the two Subsites also exhibits "drawdown" ... "
Section 2.6 Ecological Data
4. Please correct the last sentence of the first paragraph of Section 2.6 to state "As a result, the 20 I 0
monitoring event represents a new baseline for subsequent monitoring events."
Section 2.6.1 Bunched Arrowhead Wetland
5. Please define the acronym "GPS" in the sixth sentence of the first paragraph of Section 2.6.1.
Section 2.6.2 Large GE Wetland
6. Please revise the second sentence of Section 2.6.2 to state "In 20 I 0, it was observed that the
Large GE Wetland continues to support a stable population of bunched arrowhead ... "
Section 3.1.1 GE Subsite Results
7. Please correct the fourth bullet item in Section 3.1.1 to state" 1,2-Dichloroethane ( 1,2-DCA) did
not exceed its RG of 1.0 r1g/L in the 14 performance monitoring well locations."
Section 5.1.2 GRS Operation and Maintenance
8. Please correct the second sentence of the second paragraph of Section 5.1.2 to state " ... at which
time critical electrical components were replaced with waterproof upgrades."
Mr. Michael Townsend
General Electric/Shepherd Farm NPL Site
Annual Groundwater Remedial Action Performance Monitoring Report -2010
January 31, 2011
Page 2
Section 5.2.1 Water
9. Section 5.2.1 indicates that volatile organic compounds (VOCs) were not detected in the effluent
groundwater sample. However, the laboratory analytical results submitted as Appendix A -
Laboratory Results and Chain of Custody Forms indicates that the effluent groundwater sample
collected in September 20 IO contained 1.0 µg/L tetrachloroethene. Please clarify this
discrepancy.
Section 6 Summary and Conclusions
GRS Performance Summary
I 0. The first bullet item of this section indicates that the hydraulic containment areas ( or capture
zones) observed in September 20 IO were considerably larger than those observed in 2009.
However the capture zone observed at the General Electric (GE) Subsite was smaller than that
predicted by the original numerically-modeled capture zone; a consequence of under-performing
recovery wells in this area. Please provide a rationale, plan and schedule for increasing the
hydraulic containment area at the GE Subsite to more fully encompass and capture the
groundwater contamination located at the GE Subsite.
Section 7 Action Items and Recommendations
11. The North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources Superfund Section has
reviewed the two recommendations for performance monitoring modifications specified in
Section 7-Action Items and Recommendations of the Annual Groundwater Remedial Action
Perfr,rmance Monitoring Report-2010 and approves of the recommendations, pending United
States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) approval. The State of North Carolina
concurs with the proposed performance monitoring modifications, subject to the following
conditions.
a. State concurrence on the proposed performance monitoring modifications is based solely
on the information contained in the subject Annual Groundwater Remedial Action
Performance Monitoring Report -20 I 0. Should the State receive new or additional
information that significantly affects the conclusions contained in the Annual
Groundwater Remedial Action Performance Monitoring Report-2010, it may modify or
withdraw this concurrence with written notice to the US EPA Region IV.
b. State concurrence on the proposed performance monitoring modifications in no way
binds the State to concur in future decisions or commits the State to participate,
financially or otherwise, in the cleanup of the site. The State reserves the right to review,
overview, comment, and make independent assessment of all future work relating to this
site.
Mr. Michael Townsend
General Electric/Shepherd Farm NPL Site
Annual Groundwater Remedial Action PerfOrmance Monitoring Report -2010
January 31,201 I
Page 3
c. If'. alter remediation is complete, the total residual risk level exceeds I o·6, the State may
require deed recordation/restriction to document the presence of residual contamination
and possibly limit future use of the property as specified in North Carolina General
Statute (NCGS) I 30A-310.8.
12. Please append the recommendations suggested in Section 7 with the additional recommendation
that the damaged groundwater monitoring wells and piezometers located in and about the
Bunched Arrowhead Wetland be properly abandoned in accordance with Chapter 2C, Title 15A
of the North Carolina Administrative Code ( 15A NCAC 2C)-Well Construction Standards.
Table 2-8 Stream Flow Measurements Recorded 20 and 21 September 2010
13. Table 2-8 was inadvertently omitted. Please correct this oversight.
Table 2-9 Summary of Stream Flow Measurements Since GRS Start-Up
14. Table 2-9 was inadvertently omitted. Please correct this oversight.
Table 4-1 Surface Water Analytical Results for September 2010
15. Table 4-1 provides results of chloroform analyses performed on surface water samples SW-1
through S W-6. However, the actual laboratory reports for chloroform analyses performed on
surface water samples SW-I through SW-6 was inadvertently omitted from Appendix A -
Laboratory Reports and Chain of Custody Forms. Please correct this oversight.
Table 4-2 Summary of Surface Water Results Since GRS Start Up
16. Table 4-2 provides results of chloroform analyses performed on surface water samples SW-I
through SW-6 in September 2010. However, the actual laboratory reports for chloroform
analyses performed on surface water samples SW-I through SW-6 in September 2010 was
inadvertently omitted from Appendix A -Laboratory Reports and Chain of Custody Forms.
Please correct this oversight.
Table 4-3 Sediment Analytical Results for September 2010
17. Table 4-3 provides results of chloroform analyses performed on sediment samples SD-1 through
SD-3. However, the actual laboratory reports for chloroform analyses performed on sediment
samples SD-I through SD-3 was inadvertently omitted from Appendix A -Laboratory Reports
and Chain of Custody Forms. Please correct this oversight.
Mr. Michael Townsend
General Electric/Shepherd Farm NPL Site
Annual Groundwater Remedial Action Performance Monitoring Report -20 I 0
January 31.2011
Page 4
Table 4-4 Summary of Sediment Results Since GRS Start Up
18. Table 4-4 provides results of chloroform analyses perfonned on sediment samples SD-I through
SD-3 in September 20 I 0. However, the actual laboratory reports for chloroform analyses
performed on sediment samples SD-I through SD-3 in September 2010 was inadvertently
omitted from Appendix A-Laboratory Reports and Chain of Custody Forms. Please correct
this oversight.
Table 5-4 Influent and Effluent Groundwater Results for the 3'" Quarter 2010
19. Table 5-4 indicates that the effluent groundwater sample contained no detectable concentrations
oftetrachlorocthene, subject to 1.0 micrograms per liter (µg/L) laboratory detection limit.
However, the laboratory analytical results submitted as Appendix A -Laboratory Reports and
Chain of Custody Forms indicates that the effluent groundwater sample collected in September
2010 contained 1.0 µg/L tetrachloroethene. Please clarify this discrepancy.
Table 5-5 Summary of Groundwater Influent and Effluent Results Since GRS Start Up
20. Table 5-5 indicates that the effluent groundwater sample collected in September 20 IO contained
no detectable concentrations of tetrachloroethenc, subject to 1.0 µg/L laboratory detection limit.
However, the laboratory analytical results submitted as Appendix A -Laboratory Reports and
Chain of Custody Forms indicates that the effluent groundwater sample collected in September
20 IO contained 1.0 µg/L tetrachlorocthene. Please clarify this discrepancy.
Figure 1-2 Location of the GE Suhsite Features
21. The locations ofpiczometers BAPZ-3, BAPZ-3S, BAPZ-3D and BAPZ-4 were inadvertently
omitted from Figure 1-2. Please correct this oversight.
22. The locations of groundwater monitoring wells MW-23 and MW-60A were inadvertently
omitted from Figure 1-2. Please correct this oversight.
Appendix C Bunched Arrowhead Ecological Monitoring Report
Section I Introduction
23. The last sentence of the third paragraph of Section I indicates that the significant changes to the
ecological monitoring protocols were implemented with coordination with the U.S. Fish &
Wildlife Service's Asheville Field Office (US FWS). Please append the Bunched Arrowhead
Ecological Monitoring Report with copies of the correspondence with the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (US EPA) and US FWS that led to and defined the ti.tturc of the ecological
monitoring at the General Electric (GE)/Shepherd Farm National Priorities List (NPL) Site.
Mr. Michael Townsend
General Electric/Shepherd Fann NPL Site
Annual Groundv,1ater Remedial Action Performance Monitoring Rcport-2010
January 31, 20 I I
Page 5
Section 3.2 Hydrological Data
24. Please revise the last sentence of the second paragraph of Section 3.2 to indicate the location
where the calculated drawdown (compared to 2001 non-pumping conditions) is 0.14 feet. Figure
2-2 of the 2010 Annual Groundwater Remedial Action Performance Monitoring Report
(Geosyntec, 20 I 0) indicates that there was 0. I 3 feet observed drawdown at groundwater
monitoring well MW-27 on September 20, 2010; but that there was 0.03 feet and 0.04 feet
observed excess or surplus water (i.e., artesian) at groundwater monitoring wells MW-13 and
MW-14, respectively, on September 20, 2010. Please clarity these discrepancies.
Section 3.3.1 Bunched Arrowhead Seep Descriptions
25. Please correct the third sentence of the second paragraph of Section 3.3.1 to state" ... Seep I
eventually takes a more easterly course before connecting to Bat Fork Creek."
Table 6 Overall Risk Assessment Restricted to Pl, P2, P3, and P4 of the Large GE Wetland
26. Please correct Table 6 to indicate that the Muck Thickness is measured in inches.
Figure 5 Location of Monitoring Wells in Proximity to Large GE Wetland
27. Please revise Figure 5 to include the approximate location of the bunched arrowhead occupied
habitat.
Figure 6 Water Levels at MW-13, MW-14, and MW-27
28. To fully demonstrate the point being made in the second paragraph of Section 3.2, please revise
Figure 6 to include all of the groundwater monitoring data from September 2000 to September
2010.
Geosyntec 1>
consultants
Dr. Gary M. Hill
250 Old Ty Ty Road
Ti llon, GA 3 1793
1255 Roberts Huulcvard, Suite 200
Kcnm:saw, Cicorgia 30144
l'I I 67X.202.')5()0
F,\X 678.202.9501
7 January 20 I I
Reference: Annual Groundwater Remedial Action Performance Monitoring Report -2010
GE/Shepherd Farm Site, East Flat Rock, North Carolina
Dear Mr. Hill:
On behalf of General Electric Lighting Systems (GELS), Geosyntec Consultants, Inc. (Geosyntec) is
pleased to provide the above-referenced report on CD. The report contains the results of annual sampling
performed in September 2010, the quarterly monitoring results of the groundwater remediation system
(GRS) influent and effluent for the past year, and summarizes system performance for Pumping Year
2009-2010.
Please feel free lo call us at 678-202-9500 with any questions you have on the report.
Enclosure
Copies to: Mr. Michael Townsend (USEPA)
Mr. David Mattison (NCDENR)
Mr. Barry Hallock (GE Lighting)
GR4369/l)r l lill kttcr_7jan 11.docx
e11gi11eer,s I scicnti~(s I i11nov;_llors
Todd K. Kafka
Senior Hydrogeologist
R. Todd Hagemeyer
Associate
GeosyntecD
consultants
Ms. Carolyn Wells
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Asheville Field Office
160 Zillicoa Street
Asheville, NC 28801
1255 Rohcrts Boulevard. Suite 200
Kcnm:saw, Gcorgia 30144
l'I 1678.202.9500
F,\.\ 678.202.9501
7 January 20 I I
Reference: Annual Groundwater Remedial Action Performance Monitoring Report -2010
GE/Shepherd Farm Site, East Flat Rock, North Carolina
Dear Ms. Wells:
On behalf of General Electric Lighting Systems (GELS), Gcosyntec Consultants, Inc. (Geosyntcc) is
pleased to provide the above-referenced report on CD for your review. The report contains the results of
annual sampling performed in September 2010, the quarterly monitoring results of the groundwater
remediation system (ORS) influent and effluent for the past year, the Bunched Arrowhead Ecological
Monitoring Report (reflecting the modified assessment approach approved for the Large GE Wetland as
we previously discussed), and summarizes system performance for Pumping Y car 2009-2010. The
ecological monitoring report is provided in its entirety in Appendix C.
Upon your review of the document, we would like to invite you to join us at the site to observe the
bunched arrowhead populations that occupy portions of the Large GE Wetland. We also look forward to
discussing with you potential long-term management options of the bunched arrowhead, as well as
opportunities for public/private partnerships (e.g., Partners For Fish & Wildlife Program) to assist GE in
the ongoing protection of this sensitive species.
Please feel free to call us at 678-202-9500 with any questions you have on the report.
GR4369/CWclls Jetter_ 7jan 11.doo:
e11girn .. :.·crs I scierl\ i.s1s I innovators
J. Andrew Whorton
Project Ecologist
Todd Kafka
Senior Hydrogcologist
Ms. Carolyn Wells
7 January 2011
Page 2
Enclosure
Copies to: Mr. Michael Townsend (USEPA)
Mr. David Mattison (NCDENR)
Mr. Barry Hallock (GE Lighting)
GR4369/CWclls letter_ 7jan 11.dPcX
engineers I sciL'fllist:-,, l in11uv..tlors
Geosyntec C>
consultants
Mr. Michael Townsend
Remedial Project Manager
U.S. EPA Region 4
61 Forsyth Street
Atlanta, GA 30303-8960
1255 Robe11s Bouh.:varJ, Suite 200
Kennesaw, Gl:orgia 30144
Pll 678.202.9500
FAX [phone]
w,,·w.gcosyn1cc.com
24 March 20 I 0
Reference: Insert Pages for 2009 Annual Groundwater Remedial Action Performance
Monitoring Report
c•:/Shepherd Farm Site, East Flat Rock, North Carolina
Dear Mr. Townsend:
In response to comments on the 2009 Annual Groundwater Remedial Action Performance Monitoring
Report from Mr. David Mattison of NCDENR, Geosyntcc Consultants is providing the enclosed insert
pages. These include Table 3-7 which was inadvertently omitted from the final copy and Table 5-4
which had a typographical error.
Should you have any questions, please contact me at 678-202-9500.
Enclosure
Copies to: Mr. David Mattison (NCDENR)
Mr. John Franklin (GELS)
Mr. Barry Hallock (GE C&I)
Mr. Tom Augspurger (U.S. Fish and Wildlife)
GH4369/24man.:h IO _n:placcrncnt pages kttcr.docx
engineers scientists innovators
Sincerely,
Todd K. Kalka
Senior Hydrogeologist
i
SUPERFUND SECTION
• •
Table 3-7
Residential well analytical results for September 2009
GE Lighting Systems Annual Performance l\'lonitoring
East Flat Rock, North Carolina
Remediation WW-5 WW-28 WW-33 WW-34 WW-73 WW-82
Parameter Goal
voes (11g/L)
1.2-Dichloroethane ND(l.0) ND(l.0) ND (10) ND ( 1.0) ND ( 1.0) ND (10)
Benzene ND(I.OJ ND ( I.OJ ND (1.0) ND (1.0) ND(l.0) ND(l.OJ
Chloroform ND(l.0) ND{I.OJ ND (1.0) ND (I.OJ ND (1.0) ND(l.0)
Cis-1.2-Dichloroethcne 70 ND (I.OJ ND (1.0) ND (1.0) ND(I.OJ ND(l.0) ND(l.0)
Tetrachloroethenc ND (I.OJ ND (I.OJ NDll.0) ND ( I.OJ ND ( I.OJ ND(l.0)
Trans-1.2-Dichloroethene 70 ND(l.0) ND(!.O) ND (I.DI ND (I.OJ ND ( I.OJ ND (I.OJ
Trich!oroe1hene 2.8 ND(l.0) ND(I.OJ ND (I.OJ ND(l.0) ND(l.0) ND (1.0)
Vinyl Chloride ND ( I.OJ ND (I.OJ ND (1.0) ND (l.0) ND (1.0) ND (1.0)
METALS TOTAL (µg/L)
Lead 15 ND (5.0) ND(50) ND(5.0J ND(5.0) I I.I ND(5.0)
Manganese 50 54.0 32.7 ND (5.0) ND(5.0) i.5 10~0.0
Nickel 100 ND (5.0) ND(5.0) ND (5.0) ND (5.0) ND (5.0J 8.2
Notes:
U,ND • not detected Bo!ded values indicate concentrations greater than remediation goals.
J -detected, estimated result
UJ • not detected, Detection Limit approximate
B -VOC\SVOC-found in blank; Metal-estimated
R • rejected due to insificient matrix spike recoveries
NA -not analyzed
•
•
•
•
Ta hie S--1
Influent and Effluent Groundw:itcr 1-lcsults for the 3rd Quarter 2001)
GE Lighting Systems Annual Performance Monitoring
East Flat Rod,;, North Carolina
Remediation Target 24-Scp-09
Remediation Goal (ug/L) Influent Compounds
'""/L)
Volatile Organic Compouml.,·
Chloroform I ND (I.OJ
1.2 Dichloroethanc I ND(l.0)
cis-1,2 Dichloroethcnc 70 2.'!
Tetrachlorocthcne I Ill?
Trichlorocthcnc 2.8 11.4
Vinyl Chloride I ND ( 1.0)
Nott•.\·:
µg/L -micrograms per liter
Effluent 1
/up/L)
ND (1.0)
ND (1.0)
ND(I.O)
ND ( 1.0)
ND (I.OJ
ND (1.0)
1 Enlucnt sampks collected a!kr airstripper for VOCs and metals since metals pretreatment no longl.!r cond\11,.:tcd by GE
RTCs not detected are shown as kss than reporting limit (i.e.,< 1)
Holdcd values 111di<.:atl' detected concentrations greater than Tl'mcdia11on goal.
•National St·condary Drinking Water Regulation criterion h,1s..:d 011 acsthdic cffccb only
J -Estimated value Oct\\Cen reporting limit and method detection limit
GA090607/5-4 sept 09 GW inl~effrcsulls . .xls
RA
NCDEMR
North Carolina Department of Env.ironment and Natural Resources
Division of Waste Management
Beverly Eaves Perdue
Governor
Mr. Michael Townsend
Remedial Project Manager
Dexter R. Matthews
Director
February 16, 20 I 0
Superfund Remedial & Site Evaluation Branch
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4
Sam Nunn -Atlanta Federal Center
61 Forsyth Street, S.W.
Atlanta, GA 30303
RE: Annual Groundwater Remedial Action
Performance Monitoring Report -2009
General Electric/Shepherd Farm NPL Site
East Flat Rock, Henderson County
Dear Mr. Townsend:
Dee Freeman
Secretary
The North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NC DENR) Superfund
Section has received the Annual Groundwater Remedial Action Performance Monitoring Report
-2009 for the General Electric/Shepherd Farm National Priority List (NPL) Site. The NC
DENR Superfund Section has reviewed this document and offers the following attached
comments.
The NC DENR Superfund Section appreciates the opportunity to comment on this document. If
you have any comments or questions, please feel free to contact me at [phone] or at
[e-mail].
Attachment
1646 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1646
Phone: [phone] \ FAX: [phone] \ Internet: www.wastenotnc.org
An Equal Opportunity I Affirmative Action Employer
Sincerely,
David B. Mattison
Environmental Engineer
NC DENR Superfund Section
Ni~hCarolina
/'vatttrall!J
Mr. Michael Townsend
General Electric/Shepherd Farm NPL Site
Annual Groundwater Remedial Action Performance Monitoring Report -2009
February 16, 2010
Page I
GENERAL ELECTRIC/SHEPHERD FARM NPL SITE
Annual Groundwater Remedial Action Performance Monitoring Report -
2009
Table 3-7 Residential Well Analytical Results for September 2009
1. Table 3-7 was inadvertently omitted. Please correct this oversight.
Table 5-4 Influent and Effluent Groundwater Results for the 3rd Quarter 2008
2. Table 5-4 indicates that the influent groundwater sample collected 24 September 2009
contained 11 micrograms per liter (µg/L) trichloroethene. However, the laboratory
reports submitted as Appendix A indicate that the influent groundwater sample collected
24 September 2009 contained 11.4 µg/L trichloroethene. Please clarify this discrepancy.
' '
/)OJ)L RA
MCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Waste Management
Beverly Eaves Perdue
Governor
Dexter R. Matthews
Director
February 16, 2010
Mr. Michael Townsend
Remedial Project Manager
Superfund Remedial & Site Evaluation Branch
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4
Sam Nunn -Atlanta Federal Center
6 I Forsyth Street, S.W.
Atlanta, GA 30303
RE: Annual Groundwater Remedial Action
Performance Monitoring Report -2009
General Electric/Shepherd Farm NPL Site
East Flat Rock, Henderson County
Dear Mr. Townsend:
Dee Freeman
Secretary
The North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NC DENR) Superfund
Section has received the Annual Groundwater Remedial Action Performance Monitoring Report
-2009 for the General Electric/Shepherd Farm National Priority List (NPL) Site. The NC
DENR Superfund Section has reviewed this document and offers the following attached
comments.
The NC DENR Superfund Section appreciates the opportunity to comment on this document. If
you have any comments or questions, please feel free to contact me al [phone] or at
david. [e-mail].
Attachment
1646 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1646
Phone: [phone] I FAX: [phone] I Internet: www.wastenotnc.org
An Equal Opportunity\ Affirmative Action Employer
Sincerely,
David B. Mattison
Environmental Engineer
NC DENR Superfund Section
One . NorthCarolma ;Naturally
.., .
Mr. Michael Townsend
General Electric/Shepherd Farm NPL Site
Annual Groundwater Remedial Action Performance Monitoring Report -2009
February 16, 2010
Page I
GENERAL ELECTRIC/SHEPHERD FARM NPL SITE
Annual Groundwater Remedial Action Performance Monitoring Report-
2009
Table 3-7 Residential Well Analytical Results for September 2009
I. Table 3-7 was inadvertently omitted. Please correct this oversight.
Table 5-4 Influent and Effluent Groundwater Results for the 3rd Quarter 2008
2. Table 5-4 indicates that the influent groundwater sample collected 24 September 2009
contained 11 micrograms per liter (µg/L) trichloroethene. However, the laboratory
reports submitted as Appendix A indicate that the influent groundwater sample collected
24 September 2009 contained 11.4 µg/L trichloroethene. Please clarify this discrepancy.
Geosyntec 1> ~ c IC ,, ii I// IF' consultants 0
11
~ ll=c · c ~
JI MAY 2 9 2009 lW
Mr. Michael Townsend
Remedial Project Manager
U.S. EPA Region IV
6 I Forsyth Street
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960
SUPERFUNO SECTION
Subject: Response to NCDENR Comments on
1255 Roberts Boulevard NE, Suite 200
Kennesaw, GA 30744
I'll 678.202.9500
FAX [phone]
www.gcosy111cc.com
27 May 2009
2008 Annual Groundwater Remedial Action -Performance Monitoring Report
GE/Shepherd Farm Site
East Flat Rock, North Carolina
Dear Mr. Townsend:
On behalf or GE Lighting Systems (GELS), Geosyntec Consultants (Geosyntec) is providing the
attached responses to comments provided by Mr. David Mattison of North Carolina Department
of the Environment and Natural Resources' Supertimd Section on 1 April 2009. Due to the
minor nature overall of Mr. Maltison's comments, we have opted to include insertion pages al
this time in lieu of awaiting approval of our responses; Mr. Mattison concurred with this
approach during our on-site meeting on May 14, 2009 ..
Should you have any questions, please contact Todd Kalka or Todd Hagemeyer at 678-202-
9500.
Attachment Table 1 -Replacement page instmctions
Copies to: Mr. John Franklin (GE Lighting Systems)
Respectfully,
/4#/~
Todd Kafka
Project Manager
Todd Hagemeyer, P.O.
Associate
Mr. David Mattison (NC DENR Superfund Section)
GR4J69/2008 annual rpt_RTC.doc
engineers scientists innovators
Mr. M ichacl Townsend
27 May 2009
Page 2
GENERAL ELECTRIC/SHEPHERD FARM NPL SITE
Annual Groundwater Remedial Action Performance Monitoring Report -2008
Section 1.5 Performance Monitoring Objectives and Reporting
I. Please correct the last sentence of the third paragraph of Section 1.5 to state "GRS
operational data such as extraction well flow rates and total system flow rates arc
collected more frequently and reported to the USEPA and NCDENR annually ... "
Response: This correction has been 111ade.
Section 4.1 Surface Water Monitoring
2. Please correct the second bullet item in the third paragraph of Section 4.1 to state
"Lead and total PCBs were not detected above their respective reporting limits."
Response: This correction has been made.
Section 4.2 Sediment Monitoring
3. Please correct the second sentence of the second paragraph of Section 4.2 to state
"Only PCBs have relevant North Carolina sediment screening criteria ( e.g., 1,000
µg/kg total PCBs)."
Response: This correction has been made.
Section 5.2.3 Air
4. Please revise the last sentence of Section 5.2.3 to provide details of the ultimate
disposition of the spent granular activated carbon (GAC).
Response: The.following text will be inserted into the report:
On 12 March 2008, the spent GAC 1w1s removed .fi-om the tank and transported o/Fite by
Tetrasolv Filtration of Anderson. Indiana where it was stored until additional GAC was obtained
to provide a hulk ship111ent to a carbon regeneralionfi1cility (US Filter, Sewickley, PA).
Gl{4369/2008 llnnu:.il rpt_ RTC.drn;
engineers I scientists I innovators
Mr. Michael Townsend
27 May 2009
Page 3
Table 3-7
5.
Residential Well Analytical Results for September 2008
Table 3-7 was inadvertently omitted. Please correct this oversight.
Response: Table 3-7 has been provided as an insert page.
Table 5-4
6.
Influent and Effluent Groundwater Results for the 3rd Quarter 2008
Table 5-4 indicates that the influent groundwater sample collected 15 September
2008 contained 0.26 J micrograms per liter (µg/L) benzene. However, the
laboratory reports submitted as Appendix A indicate that the influent groundwater
sample collected 15 September 2008 contained 0.23 J µg/L benzene. Please
clarify this discrepancy.
Response: The typographical error in Table 5-4 has been corrected.
Appendix B Sitewidc Hydrographs
7. The title is truncated in the title blocks of Figures B-2, B-4, B-5, B-6, B-7, and B-
8. Please correct this oversight.
Response: These corrections have been made.
Appendix C Bunched Arrowhead Ecological Monitoring Report
Table of Contents
8. Please correct the List of Tables in the Table of Contents of the Bunched
Arrowhead Ecological Monitoring Report to indicate that the title of Figure 4 is
"Assessment of the Bunched Arrowhead Wetland characteristics and change since
April 2000."
Response: 711is correction has been made.
GR4369/2008 annual rpt_ RTC.doc
engineers scientists innovators
Table I -Replacement Page Instructions
Report section Action
Section 1.5 Replace page 5
Section 4.1 Replace page 20
Section 4.2 Replace page 21
Section 5.2.3 Replace pages 28 and 29
Table 3-7 Insert after Table 3-6
Table 5-4 Replace Table 5-4
Appendix 8 Replace Figures 8-2, 8-4, 8-5, 8-6, 8-7, and 13-8
Appendix C Replace page ii (List ofTables)
Appendix C Replace Figures 1-13
•
•
•
Geosyntect>
consultants
1.5 Performance Monitoring Objectives and Reporting
Data are collected routinely to monitor the performance of the groundwater RA.
Groundwater RA performance monitoring objectives include:
• To assess whether the ongoing RA is adequate in containing the extent of the
impacted groundwater.
• To measure progress in reduction of contaminant concentration and mass in
order to evaluate technical practicability of the remedy for attaining ROD
remediation goals.
• To assess whether the treatment system is operating as designed.
• To assess whether wetlands and sensitive receptors are adversely impacted by
groundwater withdrawals .
• To provide data, if necessary, to evaluate appropriate modifications to the RA.
Performance monitoring is conducted in accordance with the RGVP contained in the
Final Design and Remedial Action Work Plan for Groundwater (HS! Geo Trans, 2000a),
and subsequent modifications approved by the USEPA and NCDENR.
The performance monitoring schedule for the GE and SF Subsites is presented in Table
1-3. Quarterly influent and effluent water samples arc collected from the ORS in
December, March, June and September whereas semi-annual air influent and effluent
samples from the ORS are collected in March and September. With the exception of
the September results, the quarterly sampling results are provided to the USEPA and
NCDENR as separate monitoring reports. ORS operational data such as extraction well
flow rates and total system flow rates are collected more frequently and reported to the
USEPA and NCDENR annually in the Annual Groundwater Remedial Action
Performance Monitoring Report.
ln September of each year, a comprehensive sampling event is conducted at the GE and
SF Subsites. During this event, the following data are collected:
GA080668/GA0806&8 _ GELS 2008 Annual Rcport_rev0 1.ducx 5 5.27.2009
•
•
•
GeosyntecD
consultant,;
4. SURFACE WATER AND SEDIMENT QUALITY DATA
Six surface water locations and three sediment locations are sampled annually. Three
of the six surface water locations are sampled for VOCs only and three of the surface
water and the three sediment sample locations are sampled for VOCs and metals.
4.1 Surface Water Monitoring
Six surface water monitoring stations (SW-I through SW-6), shown in Figure 2-3, are
sampled and analyzed annually to assess surface water quality in Bat Fork Creek.
Background surface water quality in Bat Fork Creek is evaluated at SW-I due to its
location upstream of both the SF and GE Subsitcs. SW-2 is located between the SF and
GE Subsites. SW-3 lies immediately downstream of the GE Subsitc at the intersection
of Bat Fork Creek and Tabor Road and provides insights into creek water quality as it
exits the site.
Samples from SW-I, SW-2. and SW-3 are analyzed for the 11 RTCs (eight VOCs via
USEPA Method 8260B and three inorganics via USEPA Method 6020) and PCBs via
USEPA Method 8082. PCBs are analyzed in association with soil remediation that was
completed at the GE and SF Subsites. Three additional surface water locations (SW-4,
SW-5, and SW-6) in Bat Fork Creek at the GE Subsite are sampled for VOCs only to
increase the spatial resolution of VOCs.
The six surface water monitoring stations were sampled on I 6 September 2008. As
shown in Table 4-1, the results have been screened against the NCDENR's Division of
Water Quality Standards per 15A NCAC 02B (e.g., the "28 Standards). The results
reveal the following:
• PCE was detected in only one of six samples (SW-2) and was reported at a
concentration of 1.0 µg/L, which is below its 28 Standard of 3.3 µg/L.
• Lead and total PCBs were not detected above their respective reporting limits.
• Manganese was detected in two samples, however there is no 2B Standard for
this constituent.
GA080668/GA080668 _ GELS 2008 Annual Report_rev01.docx 20 5.27.2009
•
•
•
Geosyntece>
consultant,;
The laboratory analytical reports for these surface water sample analyses are included in
Appendix A.
Table 4-2 presents the surface water results September 2000 through September 2008
for evaluating long-term surface water quality. Although PCE has been the only
organic RTC detected historically in surface water samples, it has not been reported at
concentrations above its 2B Standard during any event. The 2008 results also provide
additional evidence that PCE discharge into Bat Fork Creek has been greatly reduced
since 2003 based on the reduction in the number of detections in creek water and the
related concentration declines. This trend is noteworthy in the context of persistent
drought conditions since 2003.
4.2 Sediment Monitoring
Three sediment sampling stations (SEO-I, SEO-2, and SEO-3) have been routinely
monitored in Bat Fork Creek to evaluate for the potential presence of contamination
within streambed sediment; these locations arc depicted in Figure 4-1 and coincide
with three of the surface water quality stations (SW-I, SW-2, and SW-3). The first
sediment location (SEO-I) serves as a background location as it is located in Bat Fork
Creek upstream of both the SF and GE Subsites. SEO-2 is located downgradient of the
SF Subsite, and SEO-3 is located immediately downgradient of the GE Subsite.
Sediment samples were collected from these three locations on 16 September 2008 and
were analyzed for the 11 RTCs (eight VOCs by USEPA Method 8260B and three
inorganics by USEPA Method 6020) and PCBs (USEPA Method 8082). Only PCBs
have relevant North Carolina sediment screening criteria (e.g., 1,000 µg/kg total PCBs).
The sediment sample results are shown in Table 4-3 and may be summarized as
follows:
• VOCs were not detected above reporting limits in any of the sediment samples.
• Total PCBs were detected at 53 µg/kg at both SEO-2 and SEO-3; however,
these concentrations are well below the North Carolina Sediment Standard of
1,000 µg/kg for total PCBs.
• Lead and manganese were detected at all three sample locations, although no
state standards currently exist for these constituents.
(iA080668/GA080608 _ GELS 2008 Annual Rqmrt_rcv01.doc:,; 2 I 5.27.2009
•
•
•
Geosyntec 0
consultant,;;
found to be 85% (96% for PCE). The VOC emission rates are orders of magnitude
below the North Carolina Air Emission Standards. Furthermore, air emissions from the
air stripper (e.g., the influent before the GAC treatment) from October 2000 to
September 2008 have been consistently orders of magnitude below the North Carolina
Air Emission Standards as shown in Table 5-8.
A VOC removal efficiency criterion of 80% was established for the GAC unit several
years ago. This criterion is simply a general operational guideline because there arc no
regulatory emission limits or equipment efficiency requirements. Carbon unit
performance, in the past, was shown to decline during winter months where water
accumulation in the carbon unit is prevalent. Steps taken to reduce water intake into the
carbon unit have included installation of a moisture separator, enclosure of the carbon
unit within a heated building, and installation of a duct heater between the moisture
separator and the carbon unit. These changes have drastically improved carbon unit
performance in the winter months and have significantly reduced water accumulation in
the carbon unit.
After an additional air influent and effluent sample was collected in December 2007,
the GAC was found to be spent. As discussed in the Fourth Quarter 2008 GRS Influent
and Efj/uent Sampling Results memorandum to NCDENR and USEPA on 18 January
08, a GAC sample was collected for analysis of VOCs by the Toxic Characteristic
Leaching Procedure (TCLP) and none of the regulated VOCs were present above
reporting limits, indicating the GAC was non-hazardous. On 12 March 2008, the spent
GAC was removed from the tank and transported offsite by Tetrasolv Filtration of
Anderson, Indiana where it was stored until additional GAC was obtained to provide a
bulk shipment to a carbon regeneration facility (US Filter, Sewickley, PA). The spent
GAC was replaced with virgin carbon.
5.3 Monitoring Well Maintenance
Geosyntec supervised the abandonment of two shallow (saprolite) monitoring wells
(MW-31 and MW-35) and one piezometer (BAPZ-8) and wellhead rehabilitation work
on 11 monitoring wells and two piezometers at the GE Subsite in September 2008.
MW-31 and MW-35 were identified for abandonment due to their poor condition and
concerns that they may have become compromised. Because the wells were only used
for annual groundwater elevation measurements and were in close proximity to other
Gr\080668/G,\080668_ GELS 2008 Annual Rcport_reY0l.doc:11; 28 5.27.2009
•
•
•
Geosyntecl>
consultants
wells installed at the same approximate depths, MW-31 and MW-35 were deemed
redundant in monitoring program. Geosyntec requested approval from NCDENR to
abandon these two wells on 20 August 2008; approval was granted on 25 August. As
previously discussed in Section 2.2, BAPZ-8 was found severed at the ground surface
with the remaining subgrade piezometer opening exposed during the sitewide water
level gauging event on 15 September; therefore, it was added to the abandonment task
as a conservative measure. The two wells and one piezometer were abandoned in
accordance with 15A NCAC 02C using a North Carolina certified well driller on 16
September 2008. The well abandonment records and a copy of the abandonment
request are provided in Appendix H.
The repair and rehabilitation tasks included:
5.4
• the repair of hinges on aboveground protective well casings at MW-10, MW-26,
MW-14. MW-15; BAPZ-1, and BAPZ-2;
• removal of existing well pad and construction of new flush-mounted well pad at
MW-57; and
• re-tapping manhole bolts for new lids and gaskets at MW-21, MW-25, MW-32,
MW-38. MW-53. and MW-55.
Former Womack Residential Well
The Five-Year Review of the GRS conducted by the USEPA in April 2004 identitied
the abandonment of an off-site domestic water well as an action item. The water well
was located at the former Womack residence directly west of and across Spartanburg
Highway from the GE Subsite. In July 2008, Geosyntec personnel visited this property
on behalf of GELS to confirm the presence of the well in an effort to make provisions
for its abandonment. During this visit, it was learned that a small electronics store
(L&B Electronics) was now located on the property. The property owner indicated that
he recalled the presence of the water well in his driveway, but that he had backfilled it
with fill material and paved over it with asphalt in 2004 or 2005. The owner did not
have any records concerning the well's depth or construction details. Based on this
information, Gcosyntcc considers this FYR action item closed .
CiA080668/GA0R0668_ GELS 2008 Annual Report_n:v0l.<locx 29 5.27.2009
• •
Table 3-7
Residential well analytical results for September 2008
GE Lighting Systems Annual Performance Monitoring
East Flat Rock, North Carolina
Remediation WW-5 WW-28 WW-33 WW-34 WW-73 WW-82
Parameter Goal
voes (µg/LJ
1,2-Dichloroethane ND(I.OJ ND(I.OJ ND (1.0) ND(l.0) ND (1.0) ND (I.OJ
Benzene ND(l.0) ND(I.OJ ND(l.0) ND(I.Oi ND(I.O) ND (I.Di
Chloroform ND ( I.DI ND ( I.OJ ND(I.O) ND (1.0) ND(l.O) ND(I.O)
Cis-1,2-Dichloroethene 70 ND(l.0) ND(I.0) ND ( 1.01 NU(i.0) ND(l.0) ND(I.O)
Tetrachloroethene ND (I.Di ND (1.0) ND(l.0) ND(I.OJ ND(l OJ ND (1.0)
Trans-1,2-Dichloroethene 70 ND(l.0) ND(l.0) ND(l.0) NU (1.0) ND(I.OJ ND (1.0)
Trichloroethene 2.8 ND (1.0) NU (I.OJ ND(l.0) ND(l.0) ND (I.OJ NU (1.0)
Vinyl Chloride ND (1.0) ND(l.0) ND (I.OJ NU (1.0) ND (1.0) ND (I.OJ
METALS TOTAL (µg/L)
Lead 15 ND t15.0) ND(l5.0J ND(l5.0) ND(l5.0) ND(l5.0) 2-to
Manganese 50 70.0 ND (50.0) ND (50.0) ND (50.0) ND(50.0) 1200.0
Nickel 100 ND(IOO.O) ND(IOO.O) ND(I00.0) ND (100.0) ND (I00.0) ND(IOO.OJ
Notes:
U,ND -not detected Bolded \'aloes indicate concentrations greater than remediation goals.
J • detected, estimated result
UJ -not detected, Detection Umit approximate
B -VOC\SVOC-found In blank; Metal-estimated
R -rejected due to lnslflcient matrix spike recoveries
NA -not analyzed
•
WW-828
ND(l.0J
ND(I.OJ
ND ( 1.0)
ND(I.OJ
ND (I.OJ
ND (1.0)
ND (1.0)
ND(l.0)
160.0
ND (50.0)
NU (100 0)
•
•
•
Table 5-4
Influent and Effluent Groundwater Results for the 3rd Quarter 2008
GE Lighting Systems Annual Performance J\:lonitoring
East Flat Rock, North Carolina
15-Sen-08 Remediation Target Remediation Goal (ug/L) Influent Compounds
'··••/L\
Volatile Or,:anic Compounds
Benzene I 0.23 J
Chlorofonn I 2
1,2 Dichloroethanc I 3
cis-1,2 Dichlorocthcnc 70 12
trans-1,2 Dichlorocthenc 70 0.29 J
Tctrach\orocthcnc I 170
Trichlorocthcnc 2.8 16
Vinyl Chloride I ND(I.O)
l1etuls
Lead 15 ND ( 15)
Manganese 50* 2,100
Nickel 100 ND ( I 00)
,ug/L -micrograms per liter
Effluent 1
l,10/L\
ND(l.0)
ND(I.O)
ND(l.0)
ND(I.O)
ND(I.O)
ND (1.0)
ND ( 1.0)
ND ( 1.0)
ND (15)
2,200
ND(IOO)
1 Etllucnl samples rn!lcctcd atlcr airstripper for VOCs and mt:lals since metals pretreatment no longer conducted hy GE.
RTC's no! detected arc shown as less than reporting limit (i.e .. < I)
Boldcd values indicate detected concentrations greater than remediation goal.
'"National Secondary Drinking Water Regulation criterion based on ,icsthetic effects only.
J -Estimated value between reporting limit and method detection limit
GA080668/5-4 sept 08 GW inf-eff results.xis
• • • ' I I I ;; t I • " ! • . ~ E • " w s z i ~ ;;; N .. N 0 ;!: N -•-i-----:: ~ iEE i!l ;;; r-:!l ;;; -1-,-,-:.-/1-+-+-!-+--1-r=I---:-1-1-!I ~ *■-,_ .2 ~ " ;: i ---t I= . § ~· OCO«>.,,NO :! ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N N N N N N Jun-08 Jun-07 Jun-06 Jun-05 Jun-04 Jun-03 Jun-02 Jun-01 Jun-OD Jun-99 Jun-98 Jun-97 Jun-08 Jun-07 Jun-06 Jun-05 Jun-04 Jun-03 Jun-02 Jun-01 Jun-00 Jun-99 Jun-98 Jun-97 Jun-08 Jun-07 Jun-06 Jun-OS l----1-N--+--f-H· Jun-04 ,;-== l-/-l-l-1-=!=t:-1■·1-:E -,-,-,--,-+-1-1-1-1-0 "' <O "' ~ i ~ ~ N N ................ N N N N Jun-03 Jun-02 Jun-01 Jun-00 Jun-99 Jun-98 Jun-97 -l-+-1-\--i_.!_t --1-+-+-1--1-+-1-1-,,1-1-1-t-t-1--1-+~ 1-j-+-1-,-+-+-1-'l'im ~ . :E ' -l-+·l·+±t;A--1-+-+-+-+-,-.. It) M .-0, ,.._ in in It) It) It) ,.,. • -.:t ............................ N N N N N N N -t-f-!-l-l-/ 1-1-1-\1_::[-+-t-t-t-t-I-; :!--+ :E . r--.._-~ I-!-! -l-~f-l-t-t-1-~ i &1 N N N 0 "' N "' .. ;;; t-.i--t-t-t--1--+-T\.-1-1-1-1-i 1-1--+-!-I-:-~ <O .. ~ N -f ~ N N .. ;;; ~ ;;; i!l ;;; Jun-OB Jun-07 Jun-06 Jun-05 Jun-04 Jun-03 Jun-02 Jun-01 Jun-OD Jun-99 Jun-98 Jun-97 Jun-08 Jun-07 Jun-06 Jun-05 Jun-04 Jun-03 Jun-02 Jun-01 Jun-00 Jun-99 Jun-98 Jun-97 Jun-08 Jun-07 Jun-06 Jun-05 Jun-04 Jun-03 Jun-02 Jun-01 Jun-00 Jun-99 Jun-98 Jun-97 -.,, ~ 0 ~ i -~ ~ -•-t-+-1-1--1-f----+-t-1--+-+-t-i---+-+-1-i -1-1-1-1-1-1-1-"' "' ~ N :g ~ N ;\ ~ :ii ;;; N N -!-t-t-f-l-i ,.1-1-1-W-1-l-~ ~ ig i ~ f5 N N N N N N mH.,_,_,_,_ ~ ':-~ 1-1-1-1-41 :E m ti= DO<O~NODO ~~~~~:! N N N N N N Jun-08 Jun-07 Jun-06 Jun-OS Jun-04 Jun-03 Jun-02 Jun-01 Jun-00 Jun-99 Jun-98 Jun-97 ... 3: :E .!! l Cl Ca, ·;: 3: ,g:E C .C 0 Cl E ::i .. 0 0 .. ... .c Ill., .c a. E e 't, ~ Jun-08 Jun-07I ~ Jun-06 Jun-OS Jun-04 Jun-03 Jun-02 Jun-01 Jun-00 Jun-99 Jun-98 Jun-97 Jun-08 Jun-07 Jun-06 Jun-OS Jun-04 Jun-03 Jun-02 Jun-01 Jun-00 Jun-99 Jun-98 Jun-97 ~ 1 i::' 'O -0 E j "' tl ·a Q) 0 " z " 8 "' ~ .!! ... ; .:: ;; E s ~ "' "' e E "' ::i w Cl ~ ~ 1 ' ~ m ~ ~ B ·1~ i . ~ .. < a 0 u VJ Cl) E ..... " g__ j er; § 0 u Cl) u ~------------------------------__J
•
N·\GE Lignllng Syll•ms\GRS ~rformanu moM,;,ring\Sepl 200al2008 ANNUAL REPTIAPP\BWLdatabaH . .<ls
2166
2164
2162
2160
2158
2156
2154
2152
2128
2126
2124
2122
2120
2164
2162
2160
---+
' --,·
t.... t.... t... L. t.... C C C C C ::J :::, ::J ::J :::, ~ ~ IB g ~
I
.L
I
L C ,
6 0
L C ,
6
MW-19
I I
L C ,
6 N
L C ,
6 w
I I I
L C ,
6 <»
I I I I I I
I I I I I I
2158 t+l++'l!-H'''\H4-'\8';.~'H\lf+l+H++lf.H-ll++l+l+l!-i'i,...H+ll
1 I I I I I
2156 I I I I I I
L C ,
6 0
L C ,
6
L
C ,
6 N
L
C ,
6 w
L
C ,
6 ,.
L C ,
6 <»
2172
2170
2168
2166
2164
2162
2160
2156
2154
2152
2150
2148
2136
2134
2132
2130
2128
L C 0 "' <»
L C ,
"' <»
L C , :g
L C 0 6 0
•
MW-20 Cluster ~~~~~, ~~~
'
" ' " '
L C 0 6
L C ,
6 w
L C ,
6 ,.
' '
' J
' ' I -MW-20
: -MW-208
' "
L C ,
6 <»
I ! I I I
~ ' I
I I I
I I I I
I I I I
L C
0 6 0
L C ,
6 N
L C ,
6 w
111 i MW-27_ Cluster,
~MW-27
---MW-27A
11111111
L C 0 6 0
L C 0 6
L C ,
6 N
L C ,
6 w
L C ,
6 ,.
L C 0 6 '"
L C ,
6 <»
L L L C C C 0 0 0 6 6 6
'" " <» TITLE
Note: MW-23 has not been located in the field since Sept 2006 (See Table 2-3 ) LOCATION:
2176 1 1 MW-21 I I
2174 : : :
2112 + · -+ · + -T
2170 •I I : :
•
.!. ...
I
I
2168 · 1: : : : :
2166 .1-'..Li..LI..LI 11.LL.LLU.LLCL1w..µ..W-'1..LI-Ll..LI.LL1.LL.U-.LLLl-~I µ_µ
2158
2156
2154
2152
2150
2148
2158
2156
2154
L C ,
"' <»
L C ,
:l:
L C 0 "' "'
L C 0 6
L C ,
6 w
L C ,
6 ,.
+·-l + +
I
I
+
L
C ,
6 0
I
+
I
L
C ,
6
L
C ,
6 N
I
I _t_J __ _
I
L
C ,
6 w
I MW-28 I
I I
I
cl '
I
L C ,
6 '"
I
I I
L
C ,
6 <»
L C
0 6 <»
2152 +1-./.W+l-!.l: +l-l+++l-:-1-1-l+i-l-l-!.l: -l-1-!.l!.l+l-: -1-1-./.W-l-l-!.l: -I-I-
2150 I I I I I
L C 0 6 0
L C 0 6
L C ,
6 N
L C ,
6 w
L C ,
6 ,.
L C ,
6 '"
L C 0 6 <»
Hydrographs for monitoring wells MW-19
through MW-28
GE Lighting Systems, East Flat Rock, NC
' Geosyntec 1>
FIGURE:
'
FILE: Wldatabaae.Jds B-4 consultants DA TE: 4/3/09
• •
N:\GE Lighting Sys1ems\GRS per1onnanc:e m,;,mtoring\Sept 2008\2008 ANNUAL REPT\APPIBWLClatabaH.xls
2138
2136
2134
2132
2130
2128
2150
2148
2146
2144
2142
2172
2170
2168
2166
2164
~,~ ,m~~~, m~ MW-29 ~~-1 m~~~~~~
I
I
I
L C a "' "'
L C a "' <O
I I I
I I I + -I
I
L C a g
L C a 6
L C a 6 w
+
I
I
L C a 6 ,.
L C a
6 ~
I I
L C a
6 "'
L C a
6 "'
L C a
6 "'
I l'I I I
I I I 11
L C a "' "'
L C a 6 0
L C a 6
L C b N
L C a 6 w
L C a 6 ~
L C a 6 "'
L L C C a a 6 6 "' "'
~~m~~1 ~m MW-38 TTI7TTTI,1 m-rrr;1-rrrrn
I I I I
I I ...:._ I
-l-l--l-l-l--l-l-l--l-l--l-11 -•µl-.1.+-1++-1++-1-++-CJI -l--l-1-1-1--'-I 1-1.J--l\l.j I I I I
L C a "' <O
I I I I
L C a 6 0
L C a 6 N
L C a b w
L C a b ,.
L
C a b ~
L C a b "'
2154
2152
2150
2148
2146
2172
2170
2168
2166
2164
1 l MW-30 Cluster I I
11~toft~·t-1,.H-H+++n1 +++++-H
. H--N'+H+H+H: +fl"ftl'+-i f'Klli±J.
L C a "' "'
L C a "' <O
L C a
6 0
L C a
6
L C a
6 N
L C a
6 w
1· T
L C a 6 ,.
-MW-30
-MW-30A
11111 I I II
L C a 6 ~
L
C a 6 "'
L
C a 6 "'
TTTTTIITTITrCTTTTI MW-35 m~m~~m1~~
t-·I· t t· ·-·-·t----
I I I I I
I I I I I
I I I I
+t-Hlr-i-1 ttiltt~IJ-t-t+t+.l+H1 abandoned Sept. 08
' ,.
L
C a "' "'
L C a "' <O
L C a 6 0
L C a 6
L C a 6 N
I II 1111111111 1111
L L C C a a 6 6 w ,.
L C a 6 ~
L C a 6 "'
L C a 6 "'
2170 m-rrm-rrm=n MW-39 TTI7TTTT~-rrm-rrrrn IHIH lltl TIT + + + 2166
1~·,,~·1H'f'f,it,i~tlt~lJ'~,~~
11111
~+~1,]'+,iftt~r~r1,~])1r1~,f~~111,111
2162 1 I I I I I I I I :m I : : 1
2158 I I I I
2154 -+·····-t---+-·+···· +
2150 .µ.u.j..l.J-4.LL~1.l.L4J-41+1-L4.l..!.14J..!..lj..l.J''-4.l..!.4J1.l.LJ-l
L C a "' "'
L C a b 0
L C a 6
L C a b N
L C a b w
L C a 'l'
L C a 6 ~
L
C b "' TITLE
L
C a b "'
■ ■ ■ •••••••••• Depicts bottom of dry well
LOCATION:
•
2150 ~m~nl ~=~, MW-31
2148 I I
• I
I I " I I
I I
2146
2144
2142
abandoned Sept 08
2142
2140
2138
2136
2134
2132
2130
2168
2164
2160
2156
2152
2148
L C a "' "'
L
C a 6 0
L
C a 6
L
C a 6 N
L C a 6 w
~m7T~, m-rrmn MW-37
L
C i:,
"'
L C a "' "'
' ' ' I I
I
I
L
C a "' <O
-T
L C a 6 0
' ' I
I
' '
L C a 6 N
1 MW-40
L C a 6 w
I '
I
I I ... +
"" ll I
'II I
1111 I
1111 I
L C a b 0
L C a b
L C a 6 N
L C a b w
L C a 6 ,.
L C a 6 ,.
L C a 'l'
L C a 6 ~
L C a 6 ~
L C a 6 "'
+
L C a 6 "'
I
L C a 6 "'
L C a 6 "'
L C a b "'
Hydrographs for monitoring wells MW-29
through MW-40
GE Lighting Systems, East Flat Rock, NC
Geosyntec t>
Kl< FIGURE:
8-5 consultants FILE: -~~atabase.x:ls
DATE· ll/3/09
• Jun-08 Jun-08 + ~ ,~. Jun-08 ... to .,. I Jun-07 ----!-- -Jun-07 Jun-07 Ill s:: Jun-06 Jun-06 ~-Jun-06 ::!!; u .!!! z __ , --t-- -.,,; . Jun-05 Jun-05 Jun-05 -a; u ~ ;;: 0 ' "' a Jun-04 Jun-04 -Jun-04 Cl,._ Ji i ~ ... c"' ... I Jun-03 Jun-03 Jun-03 ·:s 3: .. ~ . ., ., ,_, ~ 1 "I ..,, ~::!!; w ;;: Jun-02 ;;: Jun-02 3: : Jun-02 C .C UJ ~ • :& :& -:& ' 0 Cl E ii: ~ Jun-01 Jun-01 Jun-01 E::, s - - ---~ 0 ~ Jun-00 Jun-00 ' Jun-00 0 ~ 1/j '; = ., 0 -----~ --C Jun-99 Jun-99 Jun-99 .c ., u "' .c -+ --+ C. O> Cl.) C: Jun-98 Jun-98 Jun-98 .. :i "' ~ ..... -Cl w g_,~ _, -e " Jun-97 Jun-97 Jun-97 N ., ;,; 0 "' 0 "' N ., "' ;i; N 0 ., "' "C "' "' "' .. .. "' "' "' ., ., ., .. .. >, (J') 0 ~ " " " " " " " " ~ ~ " " " " ::c: 0 u N N N Jun-08 i Cl.) Jun-08 Jun-08 g CJ -------~ < Jun-07 Jun-07 Jun-07 ~ ~ --T------_.,._ Jun-06 Jun-06 Jun-06 Jun-05 Jun-OS Jun-05 ,_ i --i------Jun-04 Jun-04 Jun-04 -- ----Jun-03 Jun-03 Jun-03 • N .. ., 1 Jun-02 .., t "I Jun-02 §, s:13 Jun-02 ;;: :& ' :&-Jun-01 Jun-01 Jun-01 ! --~ -Jun-00 Jun-OD Jun-OD --------Jun-99 Jun-99 Jun-99 I Jun-98 I ~ -Jun-98 Jun-98 ' 'b 14'.;; Jun-97 Jun-97 Jun-97 ' a ; N ., ;,; 0 ~ ., "' ;,; N 0 "' ;,; N 0 ., "' "' "' "' "' "' "' "' "' "' " " " " ~ ~ " " ~ " " N N N N N N N N i • ~ Jun-08 Jun-08 Jun-08 e • w -Jun-07 Jun-07 Jun-07 • • 0 ~ I •---+ ---- ----Jun-06 Jun-06 -----+-· - ---Jun-06 Jun-OS Jun-OS Jun-OS -------1-Jun-04 --------Jun-04 I Jun-04 I i Jun-03 Jun-03 Jun-03 :; ., ~ Jun-02 ~ ,_, Jun-02 -1-1-1-Jun-02 ;;: ' ;;: -:& :I!_ :I! ' J Jun-01 Jun-01 Jun-01 --+ Jun-00 Jun-00 Jun-00 ~ " • 1 ; i}; • • 3 w ~ Jun-99 -Jun-99 Jun-99 Jun-98 Jun-98 ~ -~ -! Jun-98 Jun-97 Jun-97 Jun-97 ;i; 0 "' N ., ., "' ;,; N 0 ;;; O> .. "' "' ~ "' "' "' .. "' "' "' "' "' "' "' "' "' " " " " " N " " " " ~ ~ ~ " " " N N N %
• • • ~ I • ~ I I " t ! l ~ i /Ji I w s z f---t-t------i-1-1-I-!--,::--: '=== .. 0 ' ' 'I' : : l: ' : :& --i---~ -l=I· ~--. -t-+-'!.-11-•-• -+-1:l=_1_\:j-t-~ N "' M N :al -N .I -N N M -N -+-1-+-1-1,-1-1--l-l-l·r-f-1-1-1-g; r-1-~-'-.-+-i-i-;: :Ii 1-1-1-1-,-~ N :g -N :;l -N ~ '" ~ '" -+-11-1-1-1-+-1-+--t:1=1=1=1=1=1=1= .. ' .. ' ;: i :::& ~ 1·-..-1-+-+-1--i=t= =!-1-1·---1-1-+-I-I· gi ,-,n M ,n ,n ,n ---N N N -,n N a, ;!: N Jun-08 Jun-07 Jun-06 Jun-OS Jun-04 Jun-03 Jun-02 Jun-01 Jun-00 Jun-99 Jun-98 Jun-97 Jun-08 Jun-07 Jun-06 Jun-05 Jun-04 Jun-03 Jun-02 Jun-01 Jun-00 Jun-99 Jun-98 Jun-97 Jun-08 Jun-07 Jun-06 Jun-05 Jun-04 Jun-03 Jun-02 Jun-01 Jun-00 Jun-99 Jun-98 Jun-97 I t .5 ,, ., C: 0 ,, -++-I-~ " 0 M . ~ .a ~ " ~ ; t :& 0 "' "' ,_ .0 "' ~ ~ ~ g N N N N N N _,_ N -1-1-1-~ ~ t -•---•-•-•-•-•-O~OONU)O .-Q(J)O'JOOOO N N .-..-,,.... ...-N N N N N N -!-!-1-\f.:1-1-1-i E§ 1--1-1-1-t--~-!-t->-N M N N "' N N N ~ N N 0 N N N <0 '" N Jun-08 Jun-07 Jun-06 Jun-05 Jun-04 Jun-03 Jun-02 Jun-01 Jun-00 Jun-99 Jun-98 Jun-97 Jun-08 Jun-07 Jun-06 Jun-05 Jun-04 Jun-03 Jun-02 Jun-01 Jun-00 Jun-99 Jun-98 Jun-97 Jun-08 Jun-07 Jun-06 Jun-OS Jun-04 Jun-03 Jun-02 Jun-01 Jun-00 Jun-99 Jun-98 Jun-97 r-i-,-1-+-l-f-l-t-t-i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N N N N N N -1-1-1----Y-+-1-t--1'\:-t-l-t-l----1-1-., 'I' l: . :&LU_, t--1-!-l-!-l-l-!--0 "' '" :e '" :e '" ;! '" ~ '" ;! '" N ,_ '" 0 ,_ N "' <0 -N :g '" Jun-0 Jun-07I Jun-061 Jun-OSI Jun-0 Jun-03I Jun-02I Jun-01 Jun-OOI Jun-9' Jun-9 Jun-97I Jun-0 Jun-0~~ ~ 00 ; ::e .!!! -.; l: en C: ·c: ~ C: 0 E ~ ,g U) .J:. C. E en e -g_ :c " z _,,; u ~ .5 u. .. ,ll ~ ~ s 12. U) .. C ., .c .!!' .J w " . r,.. ~ I il m " . ~ ~ A Iii wf~ iL~_ () u ~ Cl) t:: ~E ~] VJ 8 0 Cl) 0 Jun-o,!------------1 Jun-05 Jun-04 Jun-03 Jun-02 Jun-01 Jun-00 Jun-99 Jun-98 Jun-97 Jun-08 Jun-07 Jun-06 Jun-05 Jun-04 Jun-03 Jun-02 Jun-01 Jun-00 Jun-99 Jun-98 Jun-97 .;:, N ., :c "' I-Q) ., ~ "' 0 0 N ci. ., Cf) " u C: ·.; -0 ai "' ., c5 .5 -0 f;l u _Q C: ., ., .a 0 C: U) "' ,: g ~ ::; .!!! 0 z
Jun-08 Jun-08 Jun-08 I 00 I • 11 ~i-Jun-07 •! Jun-07 Jun-07 "O ID ca ---.. Jun-06 Jun-06 Jun-06 ..c 0 f ~ z Jun-05 _., -~ Jun-05 Jun-OS 0 .,; ~ Ji1~ -~ " ---~ 0 ~-ca "' Jun-04 Jun-04 Jun-04 "O E . ~ . " .. II) ... i ~ Jun-03 ---f--1-Jun-03 Jun-03 ..c ~ ;; 'I' 'I' u .! .. 0 0 ~ t -N N C GI w ~ w Jun-02 ~ Jun-02 ~ Jun-02 :::i E ,; u ~1 t " a, a, .c 0 E ~ ~ ~ ~ 0. Jun-01 . .....:. +----Jun-01 Jun-01 ~ N .'!I u q u. .. 0 .. ~ re i---·-Jun-00 Jun-00 Jun-00 II) a. II) Cl "' ..c C "t = Jun-99 Jun-99 a. "' u <fl •. Jun-99 ca .c -~ "' Cl) .: Jun-98 Jun-98 Jun-98 Cl :::; ~ "' e w -C) ~] Jun-97 Jun-97 Jun-97 ~ "' <0 ... :g "' ;;i; "' ;;i; "' N p 0 "' ;;i; "' N .; 0 J: en 0 "' "' "' "' "' "' "' "' "' "' "' "' "' ;;. ;;. ;;. ;;. ;;. p p ;;. ;;. ;;. ;;. ;;. 0 w N N N N N N N N Cl) -Jun-08 Jun-08 Jun-OB~ ~ 10 r:::::=-1-7-1--1 Jun-07 Jun-07 ----1/ - -Jun-07 Jun-06 Jun-06 Jun-06 Jun-05 Jun-OS Jun-OS -------.... Jun-04 Jun-04 Jun-04 ~:rtl Jun-03 Jun-03 Jun-03 .,; I Jun-02 .., 'I' -0 N N 0 • 11 ~ Jun-02 ~ Jun-02 N · Jun-01 a, a, Jun-01 Jun-01 -a. C QJ I!! U'.) Jun-00 Jun-00 Jun-00 n, C a.--Jun-99 Jun-99 Jun-99 a. "O "' " -l-EI O C Jun-98 -------Jun-98 -------Jun-98 -o " "O :, C Jun-97 Jun-97 Jun-97 "O "' • <I) .0 ' N 0 ~ ~ fg ~ ~ :g i ~ ~ .-oaicor---~ioi C n, a "' "' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .... ~ .... 0 <I) i N N N NNNNNNNN NNNNNNNN 1 ~~ C 00 .!!! ' " Jun-08 Jun-08 Jun-08 2:' a.N ~ "O )( 0.. Jun-07 -" ..: " Jun-07 Jun-07 0 .'!! "' ~ - - -----CC-/----E "' ~ L I i "O ,,; Jun-06 Jun-06 Jun-06 0 z "' 0, ~ < 0 c2 Jun-OS Jun-OS .0 ·-" ; Jun-05 <I) ::l E tl ·-0 ~ Jun-04 Jun-04 Jun-04 E N ·a. ~ " I " -2 ·a p Jun-03 Jun-03 Jun-03 0 ~ iii -~ N-__ ... , __ .., ~ ' ~ N N a, I ~= ~-Jun-02 ~ !-Jun-02 ~ Jun-02 " > -" a, a, a, .0 <I) I Jun-01 Jun-01 Jun-01 "' -~ ---f--0 Jun-00 : Jun-00 " 0, ~ Jun-00 QJ C ~ en .i: • Jun-99 Jun-99 Jun-99 .. 8. " l ---2 E Jun-98 Jun-98 Jun-98 0"' z_ !---t-• i Jun-97 Jun-97 Jun-97 N 0 <0 $ N 0 <0 "' ;;i; $ N 0 <0 :g ;;i; "' "' .. "' "' "' "' "' "' "' w ;;. ;;. ;;. ;;. ;;. p p p p p ~ N N N N N N N N N N z
•
•
•
Table I:
Table 2:
Table 3:
Table 4:
Table 5:
Table 6:
Figure I:
Figure 2:
Figure 3:
Figure 4:
Figure 5:
Figure 6:
Figure 7:
Figure 8:
Geosyntec0
consultants
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
LIST OF TABLES
NOAA station data monthly sum (inches) of daily precipitation from
August 2007 thru August 2008
Substrate and hydrological data summary for the Bunched Arrowhead
Wetland, September 2008
Species observed at the Bunched Arrowhead Wetland survey quadrats and
absolute percent cover for each, September 2008
Assessment of the Bunched Arrowhead Wetland characteristics and change
since April 2000
Risk Assessment Factors
Overall risk assessment, restricted to QI, Q2, Q3, Q4-5
LIST OF FIGURES
Site Location Map
Site Topographic Map
Representative Photographs Showing View of Wetland from Previously
Established BRA Photo Point -East and South
Representative Photographs Showing View of Wetland from Previously
Established BRA Photo Point -West and North
Representative Photographs -Large GE Wetland Seeps
Representative Photographs - Q l and Q2
Representative Photographs -Q3 and Q4
Representative Photographs -Q5
GR3948,VGA0807 IJ Final BA Report 2008 _re\'0 1.docx ii 12.12.08
•
•
•
::.. ... _/,}'
!1, 1J'/ •• Bu<~• ,f: •
;,
' '
. '
' -, ,.. 1 -: " ~' \-.~ "· ,p.:., ~---. /,1;;. ~~-;IN ~~~ :::•\' .'· . <_:.,--:: ~ 'I ScalenFNI ; ~ . -,,,~'vJ/"";:e._c _ ~;::i§~ .;:::;,: , 1000 0 J 000 2000 3000 4000 ~ i t;: -" ;, . '•)''"fL\llic ,aJ$-.. . ~ : ~-; . '-' ', ' • ~I . /.:: /)m~~~ 8•0=~1:1 ,l•:~"'~ U~~ :Ol':111:"": ... p !
I I
!
i
l
i I I
Site Location Map
Ecology Monitoring
General E1ectric1Shepherd Farm Superfund Site
Geosyntec <> Project No. GR3948 Figure
COllSUltants November 2008 1
il :\tbnla, Ccorg:iJ
·~-------------------------'-------....:. ___ _,__ _________ ...J. ____ __,
•
•
•
I i I I
l i
l
l
I
'
~ "< %\
I \
~
Site Topographic Map
Ecology Monitoring
General Electric/Shepherd Farm Superfund Site
Geosyntect> Project No. GR3948 Figure
consultants November 2008 2 ~ i\tla11La, (iL"t.irgia ~-------------------~--------~-------~~---~
•
•
•
8 i I ! !
j
I
l
I
i
Large GE Wetland Facing East
Large GE Wetland Facing South
Representative Photographs Showing View of
Wetland from Previously Established BRA Photo
Point-East and South
Ecology Monitoring
General Electric/Shepherd Farm Superfund Site
Geosyntece> Project No. GR3948 Figure
consultants November 2008 3 ~ :\tlan!a. CiL·,,rgia '----------------------'--------'-----'------------'----.J
•
•
•
Large GE Wetland Facing West
Large GE Wetland Facing North
Representative Photographs Showing View of
Wetland from Previously Established BRA Photo
Point-West and North
Ecology Monitoring
General Electric/Shepherd Farm Superfund Site
Geosyntec 0
consult.ints
Project No. GR3948
November 2008
Figure
4
•
•
•
Seep Immediately North of Photo Point in Large GE Wetland
I j Bunched Arrowhead Found Within Seep 3 at Northern Terminus of Transect in Large GE Wetland
! I
l
i
l
i
i
Representative Photographs -Large GE
Wetland Seeps
Ecology Monitoring
General Electric/Shepherd Farm Superfund Site
Geosyntec 1> Project No. GR3948 Figure
c011sultants November 2008 5 ~ :\llanla. Cio.::mgia ·~-------------------~--------~--------'-----'
•
•
•
~
i
A i J
i
l
i
(
Q1
Q2
Representative Photographs -Q1 and Q2
Ecology Monitoring
General Electric/Shepherd Farm Superfund Site
Geosyntec 0 Project No. GR3948 Figure
cnnsultanls November 2008 6 ~ t\tkmta. u ... ,lrgia ·~------------------~-------~-------~---~
•
•
•
~
i
I I
i
l
i
I
Q3
Q4
Representative Photographs -Q3 and Q4
Ecology Monitoring
General Electric/Shepherd Farm Superfund Site
Geosyntecf> Project No. GR3948 Figure
COllSU\tanls November 2008 7 I ,._ ____________________ _J __ ...:.;_''_::lh_::'°_::la.::. C_::;'.::"ccrg:;:i:1 __ _L ________ ..1.. ___ _j
•
•
•
~
j
I I
!
f
l
5
!
I
Q5
Representative Photographs -QS
Ecology Monitoring
General Electric/Shepherd Farm Superfund Site
Geosyntec 1> Project No. GR3948 Figure
co11su\tants November 2008 8 I ,._ ____________________ _1 __ ...:.;_'':;:tla:;:":;:ta;_;, <.:;'k:;:'":.;rg:;:ia __ _j_ ________ .J. ___ _J
•
•
•
,
I
I
I
I
I
\
// ' I I
I ,
I
"
I
I I ,
I
I
I
I
I
"
I
I
Topographic Contour Lines \
(2 foot intervals)
\
11 .... ---------------;,,==========eehe,•e,•u:e,O•e,-,~e,'"e,••e,••~e,~e,••-e,•~
I
t
I
I
i
Bunched Arrowhead Habitat
Ecology Monitoring
General Electric/Shepherd Farm Superfund Site
Geosyntec t> Project No. GR3948
consultants November 2008
Figure
9 ~ ,\11:rnla. (i~·,irgia ·~---------------'------"'---'---------'-------'
•
5
4
3
2
1
X 0 Q)
"'C r:::
-1
-2
-3
8 -4
' ;
!
i
f
t
i l ;
i
I
M 0 0 N
•
Year
Table 1. Palmer Drought Index severity classes for wet and dry periods
(Palmer, 1965).
Palmer Index
4.0 or more
3.0 lo 3.99
2.0 to 2.99
1,0 lo 1,99
0.5 lo 0,99
0.49 to -(l.49
-0.5 to -0.99
-1.0 to -1.98
-2.0 to -2.99
-3.0 to -3.99
-4.0 or less Extreme drou hi
t--0 0 N
<Xl 0 0 N
Source: https://www.dnr.sc.gov/droughVindex.php?pid=5
•
Palmer Drought Index for North Carolina,
Region 1
Ecology Monitoring
General ElectricJShepherd Farm Superfund Site
Geosyntec<>
consultants
Atlanta. Georgia
Project No. GR3948
November 2008
Figure
10
•
September 2008
Henderson County
September 2005
8 Henderson County
' '
s l
CJ
r-----
DO Abnormally Dry
D1 Drought -Moderate
D2 Drought -Severe
D3 Drought -Extreme
•
September 2007
Henderson County
September 2004
Henderson County
September 2006
Henderson County
September 2003
Source: http://drought.unl.edu/dm/archive.html
North Carolina
Drought Severity
Ecology Monitoring
•
General ElectricJShepherd Farm Superfund Site
Geosyntec C> Project No. GR3948 Figure
consultants November 2008 11 -D4 Drought -Exceptional '•i_ ____________________________________ .L_ _ _:_A::;_tl::;_an::;_t"::;_·::;_G::;_'"::;'g:::'i:i:__....1.. ________ .1_ ___ _J
I ' !
I
i
•
;; > m J
~ m <f)
~ 0 ~ ~ ;; m !!:.
C 0 ;
> .!! w
j
j
" s i
2161.00
2160.00
2159.00
2158.00
2157.00
2156.00
2155.00
2154.00
2153.00
• •
-+--BAPZ-3
-1-------------------------~---------------o-BAPZ-3D '--------'
BAPZ-3S
~ MW-28
-1----------------------~I-------\--------------------BAPZ-8
--BAPZ-5
2152.00 ·
Ecology Monitoring
General ElectridShepherd Farm Superfund Site
Figure
Note: The aboveground protective casings for BAPZ-3 and -3D were found broken at the ground surface Geosyntec<> Project No. GR3946
November 2008 And removed in September 2008; in September 2006, BAPZ-3S was found to have been silted in, consultants
~ apparently by an ant colony. Atlanta. Georgia
12
•
•
•
!
i I I
l
I
t
i I
Seep 3
Seep 4
Previously Established Photo Point
'm-.1SHEosro'C1< 'WAREHOUSE .. ,
----~ ~\
125 0
Large GE Wetland
Bunched Arrowhead Location
Ecology Monitoring
250 Feet
General Electric/Shepherd Farm Superfund Site
Geosyntec 1> Project No. GR3948 Figure
consultants November 2008 13 ~ 1\tbnla. (lL·urgia ~-------------------'------''-----'--------'------'
•
Geosyntec t>
consultants
Mr. Michael Townsend
Remedial Project Manager
U.S. EPA Region IV
6 I Forsyth Street
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960
Subject: Response to NCDENR Comments on
•
1255 Roberts Boulevard, Suite 200
Kennesaw, Georgia 30144
I'll 678.202.9500
FAX [phone]
www.gcosyntcc.com
17 April 2008
Annual Groundwater Remedial Action -Performance Monitoring Report -2007
GE/Shepherd Farm Site
East Flat Rock, North Carolina
Dear Mr. Townsend:
On behalf of GE Lighting Systems (GELS), Geosyntec Consultants (Geosyntec) is providing the
attached responses to comments provided by Mr. David Mattison of North Carolina Department
of the Environment and Natural Resources' Superfund Section on 05 March 2008. Should you
have any questions, please contact Todd Kafka at 865.330.003 7 or Todd Hagemeyer at
678-202-9509.
Attachment
Copies to: Mr. Barry Hallock (GE Lighting Systems)
Respectfully,
"/'Mf/~
Todd Kafka
Project Manager
Todd Hagemeyer, P.O.
Associate
Mr. David Mattison (NC DENR Superfund Section)
GR3948A/GA080201.2007 Annual Report RTC.doc
engineers scientists innovators
• • •
GENERAL ELECTRIC/SHEPHERD FARM NPL SITE
Annual Groundwater Remedial Action Performance Monitoring Report -2007
Section 1.4.2 G RS
I. The first sentence of the second paragraph of Section 1.4.2 indicates that the
treated groundwater effluent is discharged to the Hendersonville Waste Water
Treatment Plant (POTW). It is the agency's understanding that this treated water
is first utilized as process water in the manufacturing facility, treated for metals,
and then discharged to the POTW. Please clarify this discrepancy.
Response: On 04 June 2004, GE requested that the Hendersonville Water and Sewer
Department (HWSD) permit discharges directly from the GRS to the municipal
sewer outfall at the facility. The justification for this change was that of the five
metals of concern in groundwater, there were 110 ejjluent discharge limits
imposed by HWSD for barium, beryllium, and ma11ga11ese a11d the pre-treatment
co11ce11tratio11s of lead and nickel were well below the HWSD 's ejjluent limits.
Thus, GE proposed to omit pre-treatment of GRS groundwater. Mr. Hallock was
notified verbally by HWSD of their approval to eliminate metals pre-treatment.
GE began to discharge the GRS ejjluent directly to the POTW i11 November 2004
upon completion of piping modifications.
This text will be added to Sectio11 l.4.2for clarity a11d backgrou11d.
Section 2.3 Stream Flow
2. Please correct the first sentence of Section 2.3 to state " ... with an in-stream
velocity meter (Figure 2-3)."
Response: This correction will be made.
Section 2.4 Hydraulic Containment
3. Please correct the first sentence of the second paragraph of Section 2.4 to state
"Figure 2-2 depicts the calculation drawdown ... "
Response: This correction will be made.
4.
Response:
Section 3
5.
Response:
6.
Response:
• •
Please correct the first sentence of the third paragraph of Section 2.4 to state " ...
the recovery well elevations were included in Figure 2-2 to best portray the cone
of depression associated with each recovery well."
This correction will be made.
Groundwater Quality Data
Please correct the third sentence of Section 3 to state "... are graphically
displayed as time-concentration plots in Appendix D and tabulated in Appendix
E."
This correction will be made.
The last sentence of Section 3 indicates that the historical performance
monitoring well data, collected before Groundwater Remediation System (GRS)
startup in September 2000, is included in this document. However, this
information was inadvertently omitted. Please correct this oversight.
This reference will be removed as only data since the GRS startup will be
included in this report.
Section 3.1.3 Non-Parametric Statistical Analysis
7. In accordance with the data presented in Tables 3-5 and 3-6, please correct the
fourth sentence of the second paragraph of Section 3.1.3 to state "Most of the
trends identified (48 out of54) were downward."
Response: This correction will be made.
Section 3.2 Residential Well Monitoring
8. Please revise the last sentence of the second paragraph of Section 3.2 to state
"However, Geosyntec instructed the laboratory not to analyze the WW-82 sample
until it was confirmed that the bedrock well was the intended target of sampling
at this property."
Response: This correction will be made.
2
9.
Response:
Response:
• •
Please correct the first sentence of the last paragraph of Section 3.2 to state
'Time-concentration tables for residential wells are located in Appendix E."
This correction will be made.
The last sentence of Section 3.2 indicates that the historical performance
residential monitoring well data, collected before GRS startup in September 2000,
is included in this document. However, this information was inadvertently
omitted. Please correct this oversight.
This reference will be removed as only data since the GRS startup will be
included in this report.
Section 5.1.1 Total Volume Measurements
11. Please correct the value given for average flow in the first sentence of Section
5.1.1. The value given does not correspond with total effluent discharge, average
effluent rates, total influent, or average influent rates. Please correct this
oversight.
Response:
12.
Response:
These values were obtained from the data provided in Table 5-2; the table will be
revised to show the sum and average discharges.
The last bullet item in the bullet list in the last paragraph of Section 5.1.1
describes the anomalies noted in June and July 2006. Please revise the bullet list
in the last paragraph of Section 5.1.1 to describe the anomalies noted in January
2006 through May 2006.
We have assu111ed that this comment was 111eant to address perfor111a11ce between
January through May 2007 and not 2006. The second paragraph of Section 5.1.l
docu111e11ted that the recovery wells except R W-5 and R WSF-2 were perfor111i11g
sporadically or illler111ittently shutdown between December 2006 and July 2007
due to unexpected GRS shutdowns. Table 5-3 sum111arizes the substantial
troubleshooting that was performed to address their performance issues. The
initial focus was the condition of the air stripper as high pressure readings would
shutdown the GRS. Perfor111ance was steady to slightly i111proved fro111 March to
May 2007 (see average GRS discharge in Table 5-2) until total discharge fell by
the end of June 2007. O&M tasks in the summer of 2007 focused 011 each of
• •
recovery wells during which substantial repairs were made to many of the well
pumps or were replaced, as shown in Table 5-3. GRS discharges in September
and October 2007 showed marked improvement as a result of these repairs.
An additional bullet will be added to summarize the above information.
Section 5.2.2 Mass Removal
13. Please complete the third sentence of Section 5.2.2.
Response:
14.
Response:
15.
Response:
Section 6
16.
The sentence will be corrected to state "During the annual period, 14.9 pounds
(lbs) of VOCs have been removed by the GRS."
In accordance with the information presented in Table 5-6, please correct the last
sentence of the first paragraph of Section 5.2.2 to state "PeE has the highest
estimated mass removal among the voes, totaling 12.21 lbs in PY 2007."
This correction will be made.
In accordance with the information presented in Table 5-6, please correct the
second paragraph of Section 5.2.2 to state "Since the startup of the GRS,
cumulative voe and total metals mass removal have been estimated at 192.5 lbs
and 844.8 lbs, respectively. Of the voes, PeE has had the highest estimated
mass removal, totaling 156.86 lbs; the second highest has been cis-1,2-DeE at
19.61 lbs."
These corrections will be made.
Summary and Conclusions
The fourth bullet item in the second paragraph of Section 6 indicates that the
hydraulic containment (capture zones) observed in September 2007 compare
favorably to the design at both the GE and Shepherd Farm Subsites. However,
there is concern that the groundwater contaminant plume on the northeast and
eastern portions of the site is escaping capture. Please revise this bullet item to
include a recommendation for further investigative work to determine how best to
optimize the GRS in order to capture all elements of the groundwater contaminant
plume.
4
Response:
• •
The monitoring results indicate that a statistically significant increase of PCE
and cis-1,2-DCE in groundwater at MW-22A. However, other wells outside the
designed capture zone and downgradient from the suspected for111er source area
demonstrate a statistically significant decrease in VOCs. Specifically,
performance monitoring reveals a statistically significant decrease of PCE at
MW-3, PCE at MW-15, PCE at MW-13, PCE and cis-1,2-DCE at MWJ7, PCE
and cis-1,2-DCE at MW-27, and cis-1,2-DCE at MW-27A. At MW-27A, there is a
statistically significant increase in 1,2-DCA but the detected co11ce11tratio11s are
below the remediation goal and in 2007, 1,2-DCA was not detected at MW-27A.
Please recall that the design of the GRS was never intended to provide complete
hydraulic containment of the impacted groundwater. Instead, the selected
groundwater extractioi, design achieved a balance between contaminant re111oval
and protection 011 the Bunched Arrowhead. The impacted groundwater in the
northeastern and eastern portions of the site was never intended to be captured
hydraulically. Figure 2-6 shows that the aerial exte11t of the capture zone
observed in 2007 is very similar to the target capture zone. The surface water
and sediment sampling program for Bat Fork Creek was incorporated into the
performa11ce mo11itoring program to address concerns about impacted
groundwater pote11tially discharging into Bat Fork Creek. These 111011itori11g
results have co11sistently show11 that VOCs have not exceeded releva11t screeni11g
criteria in sediment or surface water in Bat Fork Creek. Further, there are 110
drinking water wells in close proximity and dow11gradie11t from the impacted
groundwater. As stated in the Five-Year Review, the groundwater remediation
progra111 is protective to hu111a11 health and the e11viro11me11t. Geosyntec
recommends co11ti11ued perfor111a11ce monitoring without modification.
17. The fifth bullet item in the second paragraph of Section 6 indicates that the
predominance of downward trends of remediation target compound (RTC)
concentrations in groundwater at the performance monitoring wells suggests an
overall improvement to the water quality at the GE and Shepherd Farm Subsites.
The bullet item further states that the limited number of upward trends indicates
localized variability. However, the location of the groundwater monitoring wells
indicating upward trends (MW-22A, MW-27 and MW-27 A) appears to indicate
lack of hydraulic containment. Please revise this bullet item to include a
recommendation for further investigative work to determine how best to optimize
the GRS in order to capture all elements of the groundwater contaminant plume.
5
Response:
18.
Response:
19.
Response:
•
Please refer to the response to comment #16.
Please correct the value given for average flow in the eighth bullet item in the
second paragraph of Section 6. The value given does not correspond with total
effluent discharge, average effluent rates, total influent, or average influent rates.
Please correct this oversight.
This correction will be made in accordance with comment #11.
Please revise the eleventh and twelfth bullet items in the second paragraph of
Section 6 to include the option of GE abandoning residential monitoring wells
WW-17 and WW-82 (shallow) to prevent the introduction of contaminants into
the groundwater aquifer.
As discussed in Section 3.2, WW-17 was not sampled in September 2006 by
Geo Trans nor in September 2007 by Geosyntec as the well has been inaccessible.
Access issues have evidently coincided with a change in property ownership to
Mr. James Oliver, who informed Geo.,yntec that the well was covered up and
capped off in his front yard and that he did 110/ want us to dig it up. Mr. Oliver is
011 city water.
WW-82 is used by the resident (Mr. Stepp) via an exterior spigot, but WW-82B
(the bedrock well analyzed in September 2007) is not used since there is 110
permanent pump. We believe these wells were inadvertently switched i11 the past
such that the shallow well has been sampled historically (at the spigot) despite
the bedrock well being the intended target. According to Mr. Steep, the bedrock
well is not used since there is 110 active pump; he was also unclear as the total
well depth but believed it to be around 110 feet deep. Geosyntec attempted to
measure the total well depth but it exceeded the 100 fl tape length 011 the water
level indicator; however, the well diameter was noted to be 6-inches and had a ·
depth to water of 15. 6 fl below the top of casing. Because of concerns that the
lead results in the WW-82B sample in September 2007 may be due to well
construction issues and may have been influenced by insufficient purging due to
lack of information regarding total well depth and open interval, GE proposes to
collect another sample during the September 2008 annual sampling event.
Although the wel/ 's intake interval is likely to still be unknown at that time, the
pump will be set at or near the bottom of the well and low-flow purging
6
• •
techniques will be employed to ensure a representative sample is obtained. We
do not propose to fully purge the well of three volumes due to the magnitude of
this volume (approximately 585 gallons per well volume).
20. The last bullet item of the second paragraph of Section 6 indicates that the
granular activated carbon (GAC) was below the 80% threshold criterion that
triggers replacing the GAC. GAC performance has been an issue with the GRS
since startup. In addition to the provisions for additional influent and effluent
sampling, please revise this bullet item to include provisions for additional
measures to be taken to prevent the GAC from reaching such poor performance
prior to replacement.
Response:
Table 1-1
21.
Response:
Table 1-2
The 80% criterion has simply been instituted as a working threshold with which
to evaluate GAC sorption. The vapor ejjluent from the stripper (GAC ilifluent)
has historically been well below applicable North Carolina air ejjluent standards
for VOCs as shown in Table 5-8. This is particularly true for PCE and TCE
which have been detected at least an order of magnitude below these standards
(note the March 2007 i1ifluent sample for PCE was deemed erroneous due to
improper dilutions by the analytical laboratory). Thus, GE believes that
additional redundancies for addressing GAC performance are not warranted.
Also note that the GAC has been replaced 011 12 March 2008.
Remediation Goals for RTCs in Groundwater
Table 1-1 was inadvertently omitted. Please correct this oversight.
This correction will be made.
Remediation Goals/POTW Effluent Limitations and Monitoring
Requirements
22.
Response:
Table 2-1
23.
Table 1-2 was inadvertently omitted. Please correct this oversight.
This correction will be made.
Bunched Arrowhead Wetland Piezometer Water Level Measurements
Table 2-1 was inadvertently omitted. Please correct this oversight.
7
Response:
Table 2-2
24.
Response:
Table 2-3
25.
Response:
Table 3-3
26.
Response:
Table 3-5
27.
Response:
Table 3-9
• •
This correction will be made.
Recovery Well Water Level Measurements·
Table 2-2 was inadvertently omitted. Please correct this oversight.
This correction will be made.
Monitoring Well Water Level Measurements
Table 2-3 was inadvertently omitted. Please correct this oversight.
This correction will be made.
GE Subsite -Performance well analytical results for September 2007
Table 3-3 indicates that the groundwater sample collected from monitoring well
MW-15 and the duplicate groundwater sample collected from monitoring well
MW-15 contained 2,300 micrograms per liter (µg/L) manganese and 2,400 µg/L
manganese, respectively. However, the laboratory analytical reports submitted as
Appendix A indicate that the groundwater sample collected from monitoring well
MW-15 and the duplicate groundwater sample collected from monitoring well
MW-15 contained 2,400 µg/L manganese and 2,300 µg/L manganese,
respectively. Please clarify these discrepancies.
This correction will be made.
Summary of Mann-Kendall Trend Analysis for VOCs
Please correct Table 3-5 to indicate that there are 4 total decreasing trends for 1,2-
dichloroethane (1,2-DCA).
This correction will be made.
Surface Water Analytical Results for September 2007
28. Please remove Table 3-9 as it is not referenced in the document and it 1s
duplicated by Table 4-1.
8
• •
.Response: This correction will be made.
Table 3-10 Summary of Surface Water Results Since GRS Start Up
29. Please remove Table 3-10 as it is not referenced in the document and it 1s
duplicated by Table 4-2.
Response: This correction will be made.
Table 3-11 Sediment Analytical Results for September 2007
30. Please remove Table 3-11 as it is not referenced m the document and it 1s
duplicated by Table 4-3.
Response: This correction will be made.
Table 3-12 Summary of Sediment Results Since GRS Start Up
31. Please remove Table 3-12 as it is not referenced in the document and it 1s
duplicated by Table 4-4.
Response:
Table 4-1
32.
Response:
Table 5-1
33.
Response:
This correction will be made.
Surface Water Analytical Re~ults for September 2007
Please revise Table 4-1 to indicate in bold font the surface water exceedanccs for
manganese at surface water monitoring station SW-3.
This correction will be made.
Measured Recovery Well Discharge Volumes in 2007
Table 5-1 indicates that, with the exception of June 2007, no measurements of
discharge volumes were recorded from the GE or Shepherd Fann recovery wells
from December 2006 through July 2007. Please provide an explanation for this
omission of operation and maintenance (O&M) responsibilities.
This issue was an inadvertent oversight due to personnel staffing issues at GE.
These issues were rectified in August 2007 and monthly measurements have been
9
34.
Response:
Figure 3-6
35.
Response:
•
collected since that time. This expla11atio11 will be added to the notes i11 Table 5-
1.
Please correct the values given for Pumping Year 2007 average individual flow
rates for the Shepherd Farm recovery wells (except RWSF-2) and the Pumping
Year 2007 average total individual flow rate given in Table 5-1.
The average flow rate at each well is calculated as the average rate (i11 gpm) over
the entire pumping year (between 30 September 2007 and 30 September 2006).
This method was selected due to the limited amount of mo11thly data from each
recovery well.
Location of Residential Monitoring Well Network
Please revise Figure 3-6 to include the location of residential monitoring well
WW-33.
This correction will be made.
Attachment 1 Ecological Monitoring Report
Table of Contents
36. Please correct the List of Tables in the Table of Contents to indicate that the title
of Table 1 is "NOAA station data monthly sum (inches) of daily precipitation
from September 2006 thru August 2007."
Response: This correction will be made.
Section 2 Methodology
37. Please complete the first sentence of the second paragraph of Section 2.
Response: This sentence will be re-wrillen more clearly.
10
•
Section 3.3.1 Extent of Habitat
38.
Response:
Please correct the second sentence of Section 3.3.1 to state "According to ESI
{2006), the overall length of the ditch bottom occupied by the bunched
arrowhead has remained stable since September 1999."
This correction will be made.
Appendix E Performance Monitoring Wells Time-Concentration Tables
39. The September 2007 data was inadvertently omitted from the time-concentration
tables included as Appendix E for all of the residential monitoring wells. Please
correct this oversight.
Response: This data will be added to the tables.
II
• Jl(.!'A
..;;;;;:;;;;;;:;;;;~ .. ~"-~-~-•
N CDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Dexter R. Matthews, Director
Mr. Michael Townsend
Remedial Project Manager
Division of Waste Management
March 5, 2008
Superfund Remedial Site Evaluation Branch
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4
Sam Nunn -Atlanta Federal Center
61 Forsyth Street
Atlanta, GA 30303
RE: Annual Groundwater Remedial Action
Performance Monitoring Report -2007
General Electric/Shepherd Farm NPL Site
East Flat Rock, Henderson County
Dear Mr. Townsend:
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
The North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NC DENR) Superfund
Section has received the Annual Groundwater Remedial Action Performance Monitoring Report -
2007 for the General Electric/Shepherd Farm National Priority List (NPL) Site. The NC DENR
Superfund Section has reviewed this document and offers the following attached comments.
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this document. If you have any questions, please feel . .
free to call me at [phone].
Attachment
Sincerely,
j)JZ//(:$5
David B. Mattison
Environmental Engineer
NC DENR Superfund Section
1646 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1646
Phone [phone] \ FAX [phone]\ Internet http://wastenotnc.org
An Equal Opportunity/ Affirmative Action Employer-Printed on Dual Purpose Recycled Paper
Michael Townsend
GE/Shepherd Farm NPL Site
•
Annual Groundwater Remedial Action Performance Monitoring Report -2007
March 5, 2008
Page I
•
GENERAL ELECTRIC/SHEPHERD FARM NPL SITE
Annual Groundwater Remed_ial Action Performance Monitoring Report -2007
Section 1-4.2 GRS
1. The first sentence of the second paragraph of Section 1.4.2 indicates that the treated
groundwater effluent is discharged to the Hendersonville Waste Water Treatment Plant
(POTW). It is the agency's understanding that this treated water is first utilized as process
water in the manufacturing facility, treated for metals, and then discharged to the POTW.
Please clarify this discrepancy.
Section 2.3 Stream Flow
2. Please correct the first sentence of Section 2.3 to state" ... with an in-stream velocity meter
(Figure 2-3)."
Section 2.4 Hydraulic Containment
3. Please correct the first sentence of the second paragraph of Section 2.4 to state "Figure 2-2
depicts the calculation drawdown ... " ·
4. Please correct the first sentence of the third paragraph of Section 2.4 to state" ... the recovery
well elevations were included in Figure 2-2 to best portray the cone of depression associated
with each recovery well."
Section 3 Groundwater Quality Data
5. Please correct the third sentence of Section 3 to state" ... are graphically displayed as time-
concentration plots in Appendix D and tabulated in Appendix E."
6. The last sentence of Section 3 indicates that the historical performance monitoring well data,
collected before Groundwater Remediation System (GRS) startup in September 2000, is
included in this document. However, this information was inadvertently omitted. Please
correct this oversight.
Michael Townsend
GE/Shepherd Farm NPL Site
•
Annual Groundwater Remedial Action Performance Monitoring Report -2007
March 5, 2008
Page 2
Section 3.1.3 Non-Parametric Statistical Analysis
•
7. In accordance with the data presented in Tables 3-5 and 3-6, please correct the fourth
sentence of the second paragraph of Section 3.1.3 to state "Most of the trends identified (48
out of 54) were downward."
Section 3.2 Residential Well Monitoring
8. Please revise the last sentence of the second paragraph of Section 3.2 to state "However,
Geosyntec instructed the laboratory not to analyze the WW-82 sample until it was confirmed
that the bedrock well was the intended target of sampling at this property."
9. Please correct the first sentence of the last paragraph of Section 3.2 to state "Time-
concentration tables for residential wells are located in Appendix E."
10. The last sentence of Section 3.2 indicates that the historical performance residential
monitoring well data, collected before ORS startup in September 2000, is included in this
document. However, this information was inadvertently omitted. Please correct this
oversight.
Section 5.1.1 Total Volume Measurements
11. Please correct the value given for average flow in the first sentence of Section 5.1.1. The
value given does not correspond with total effluent discharge, average effluent rates, total
influent, or average influent rates. Please correct this oversight.
12. The last bullet item in the bullet list in the last paragraph of Section 5.1.1 describes the
anomalies noted in June and July 2006. Please revise the bullet list in the last paragraph of
Section 5. I. I to describe the anomalies noted in January 2006 through May 2006.
Section 5.2.2 Mass Removal
13. Please complete the third sentence of Section 5.2.2.
14. In accordance with the information presented in Table 5-6, please correct the last sentence of
the first paragraph of Section 5.2.2 to state "PCE has the highest estimated mass removal
among the VOCs, totaling 12.21 lbs in PY 2007."
Michael Townsend
GE/Shepherd Farm NPL Site
•
Annual Groundwater Remedial Action Performance Monitoring Report -2007
March 5, 2008
Page 3
•
15. In accordance with the information presented in Table 5-6, please correct the second
paragraph of Section 5.2.2 to state "Since the startup of the GRS, cumulative VOC and total
metals mass removal have been estimated at 192.5 lbs and 844.8 lbs, respectively. Of the
VOCs, PCE has had the highest estimated mass removal, totaling 156.86 lbs; the second
highest has been cis-1,2-DCE at 19.61 lbs."
Section 6 Summary and Conclusions
16. The fourth bullet item in the second paragraph of Section 6 indicates that the hydraulic
containment ( capture zones) observed in September 2007 compare favorably to the design at
both the GE and Shepherd Farm Subsites. However, there is concern that the groundwater
contaminant plume on the northeast and eastern portions of the site is escaping capture.
Please revise this bullet item to include a recommendation for further investigative work to
determine how best to optimize the GRS in order to capture all elements of the groundwater
contaminant plume.
17. The fifth bullet item in the second paragraph of Section 6 indicates that the predominance of
downward trends ofremediation target compound (RIC) concentrations in groundwater at
the performance monitoring wells suggests an overall improvement to the water quality at the
GE and Shepherd Farm Subsites. The bullet item further states that the limited number of
upward trends indicates localized variability. However, the location of the groundwater
monitoring wells indicating upward trends (MW-22A, MW-27 and MW-27A) appears to
indicate lack of hydraulic containment. Please revise this bullet item to include a
recommendation for further investigative work to determine how best to optimize the GRS in
order to capture all elements of the groundwater contaminant plume.
18. Please correct the value given for average flow in the eighth bullet item in the second
paragraph of Section 6. The value given does not correspond with total effluent discharge,
average effluent rates, total influent, or average influent rates. Please correct this oversight.
19. Please revise the eleventh and twelfth bullet items in the second paragraph of Section 6 to
include the option of GE abandoning residential monitoring wells WW-17 and WW-82
(shallow) to prevent the introduction of contaminants into the groundwater aquifer.
20. The last bullet item of the second paragraph of Section 6 indicates that the granular activated
carbon (GAC) was below the 80% threshold criterion that triggers replacing the GAC. GAC
performance has been an issue with the GRS since startup. In addition to the provisions for
additional influent and effluent sampling, please revise this bullet item to include provisions
for additional measures to be taken to prevent the GAC from reaching such poor performance
prior to replacement.
• • Michael Townsend
GE/Shepherd Farm NPL Site
Annual Groundwater Remedial Action Performance Monitoring Report -2007
March 5, 2008
Page 4
Table 1-1 Remediation Goals for RTCs in Groundwater
21. Table 1-l was inadvertently omitted. Please correct this oversight.
Table 1-2 Remediation Goals/POTW Effluent Limitations and Monitoring Requirements
22. Table 1-2 was inadvertently omitted. Please correct this oversight.
Table 2-1 Bunched Arrowhead Wetland Piezometer Water Level Measurements
23. Table 2-l was inadvertently omitted. Please correct this oversight.
Table 2-2 Recovery Well Water Level Measurements
24. Table 2-2 was inadvertently omitted. Please correct this oversight.
Table 2-3 Monitoring Well Water Level Measurements
25. Table 2-3 was inadvertently omitted. Please correct this oversight.
Table 3-3 GE Subsite -Performance well analytical results for September 2007
26. Table 3-3 indicates that the groundwater sample collected from monitoring well MW-15 and
the duplicate groundwater sample collected from monitoring well MW-15 contained 2,300
micrograms per liter (µg/L) manganese and 2,400 µg/L manganese, respectively. However,
the laboratory analytical reports submitted as Appendix A indicate that the groundwater
sample collected from monitoring well MW-15 and the duplicate groundwater sample
collected from monitoring well MW-15 contained 2,400 µg/L manganese and 2,300 µg/L
manganese, respectively. Please clarify these discrepancies.
Table 3-5 Summary of Mann-Kendall Trend Analysis for VOCs
27. Please correct Table 3-5 to indicate that there are 4 total decreasing trends for 1,2-
dichloroethane (1,2-DCA).
Table 3-9 Surface Water Analytical Results for September 2007
28. Please remove Table 3-9 as it is not referenced in the document and it is duplicated by Table
4-1.
Michael Townsend
GE/Shepherd Farm NPL Site
Annual Groundwater Remedial Action Performance Monitoring Report -2007
March 5, 2008
Page 5
•
Table 3-10 Summary of Surface Water Results Since GRS Start Up
29. Please remove Table 3-10 as it is not referenced in the document and it is duplicated by
Table 4-2.
Table 3-11 Sediment Analytical Results for September 2007
30. Please remove Table 3-11 as it is not referenced in the document and it is duplicated by
Table 4-3.
Table 3-12 Summary of Sediment Results Since GRS Start Up
31. Please remove Table 3-12 as it is not referenced in the document and it is duplicated by
Table 4-4.
Table 4-1 Surface Water Analytical Results for September 2007
32. Please revise Table 4-1 to indicate in bold font the surface water exceedances for manganese
at surface water monitoring station SW-3.
Table 5-1 Measured Recovery Well Discharge Volumes in 2007
33. Table 5-1 indicates that, with the exception of June 2007, no measurements of discharge
volumes were recorded from the GE or Shepherd Farm recovery wells from December 2006
through July 2007. Please provide an explanation for this omission of operation and
maintenance (O&M) responsibilities.
34. Please correct the values given for Pumping Year 2007 average individual flow rates for the
Shepherd Farm recovery wells ( except R WSF-2) and the Pumping Year 2007 average total
individual flow rate given in Table 5-1.
Figure 3-6 Location of Residential Monitoring Well Network
35. Please revise Figure 3-6 to include the location ofresidential monitoring well WW-33.
Michael Townsend
GE/Shepherd Farm NPL Site
(
Annual Groundwater Remedial Action Performance Monitoring Report -2007
March 5, 2008
Page 6
Attachment I Ecological Monitoring Report
Table ofContents
36. Please correct the List of Tables in the Table of Contents to indicate that the title of Table 1
is "NOAA station data monthly sum (inches) of daily precipitation from September 2006
thru August 2007."
Section 2 Methodology
3 7. Please complete the first sentence of the second paragraph of Section 2.
Section 3.3.1 Extent of Habitat
38. Please correct the second sentence of Section 3.3.1 to state "According to ESI (2006), the
overall length of the ditch bottom occupied by the bunched arrowhead has remained stable
since September 1999."
Appendix E Performance Monitoring Wells Time-Concentration Tables
39. The September 2007 data was inadvertently omitted from the time-concentration tables
included as Appendix E for all of the residential monitoring wells. Please correct this
oversight.
' -
www. geotra ns inc. com
Mr. Michael Townsend
Remedial Project Manager
U.S. EPA Region 4
61 Forsyth Street
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960
• 1080 Holcomb Bridge Road
Building I 00, Suite 190
Roswell, G1\ 30076
770-642-1000 FAX [phone]
May 10, 2007
1/B) & © & D W &,!Fi)
lll11 MAY 1 4 2007 ~I
SUPERFUND SECTION
Reference: Response to comments on the Annual Groundwater
Remedial Action Performance Monitoring Report-2006
GE/Shepherd Farm Site, East Flat Rock, NC
Geo Trans Project No. 2204.166.01
Dear Mr. Townsend:
On behalf of General Electric Lighting Company (GE), GeoTrans, Inc. (GcoTrans) is
actively conducting performance monitoring at the above referenced site for the groundwater
remediation system (GRS) in accordance with the Remedial Goal Verification Plan (RGVP) (HSI
Geo Trans, 2000 ). Enclosed for your review please find the response to comments provided by Mr.
David Mattison of the NCDENR as well as those made during the in-house review on the Annual
Groundwater Remedial Action Performance Monitoring Report-2006. Replacement pages arc
included.
Please feel free to contact Barry Hallock at [phone] or myself at 770-642-1000
with any questions you may have.
cc: Barry Hallock (GELS)
David Mattison (NCDENR)
Tom Augspurger (US Fish and Wildlife)
P: \GE\DOCS\EP ... \Ep~ HO_ M~r07. doc
~
Fatimah Hinds
Staff Scientist
• •
Response to Comments
GENERAL ELECTRIC/SHEPHERD FARM NPL SITE
Annual Groundwater Remedial Action Performance Monitoring Report-2006
General
GeoTrans, on behalf of General Electric (GE), has requested that the monitoring program be
modified by the following: Removal of Chloroform from the list of Remedial Target Compounds
or an increase in Remedial Goal to 70 µg/L; and, Change to annual monitoring in accordance with
the Remedial Goal Verification Plan. Before any further consideration of a reduction in sampling
frequency can be made, an evaluation of the performance of the Groundwater Remediation System
(GRS) should be conducted. This is in response to two major issues: the operation and maintenance
(O&M) of the GRS; and, the current inability of the GRS to contain the contaminant plume. A work
plan and schedule for evaluating and optimizing the performance of the GRS should be prepared as
soon as possible.
· Response: Another firm will be taking over the monitoring of the GE/Shepherd Farm site effective
immediately. Any evaluation of the GRS would be conducted by them.
Table of Contents
I. Please correct the page numbering and the page numbers given in the Table of Contents for
Section 3 -Water Quality Monitoring Activities.
Response: Text was corrected as requested.
Section 1.2 Regulatory History
2. Please correct the spelling of the word "biphenyls" in the fourth sentence of Section 1.2.
Response: Text was corrected as requested.
Section 5 Summary and Conclusions
3. In accordance with the data presented in Table 4-2 and Table 4-6, please correct the second
sentence of the third paragraph of Section 5 to state that the volume of groundwater extracted
and treated by the Groundwater Remediation System (GRS) in Pumping Year (PY) 2006 was
13.1 million gallons.
Response: Text was corrected as requested.
Figure 3-3 Plan View of September 2006 PCE Measurements at the GE Subsite
• •
4. Please correct the tetrachloroethylene (PCE) values given for performance monitoring wells
MW-27 and MW-27A in Figure 3-3.
Response: Figure was corrected as requested.
Table 3-6 Summary of Statistical Trend Analysis for Metals
5. Please correct the values given for "Total Down" for the contaminant nickel in Table 5-6.
Response: Text was corrected as requested.
Appendix D Performance Monitoring Well Water Quality Statistical Results Examples
6-11. Response: Prior to 2004 the laboratory reported the IDL as the Non-Detect value for metals.
After 2003 they reported the MDL. The IDL was continued to be used in the database, as the
statistics would be calculated incorrectly using the higher MDL value.
Appendix F Performance Monitoring Well Water Quality Statistical Results Examples
12. The statistical analysis of cis-1,2-dicloroethene ( cis-1,2-DCE) water quality results, as given
in Table 3-5, was inadvertently omitted from Appendix F. Please correct this oversight.
Response: Text was attached as requested.
13. The statistical analysis of trichloroethene (TCE) water quality results observed at
performance monitoring well MW-29, as given in Table 3-5, was inadvertently omitted from
Appendix F. Please correct this oversight.
Response: Text was attached as requested.
2
• •
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................... 1-1
1.1 SITEFEATURES ....................................................................................................... 1-2
1.2 REGULATORY HISTORY .......................................................................................... 1-2
1.3 GROUNDWATER REMEDIAL OBJECTIVES ................................................................ 1-3
1.4 REMEDIAL ACTIONS ............................................................................................... 1-4
1.4.l AGRS ............................................................................................................. 1-4
1.4.2 GRS ................................................................................................................ 1-4
1.5 PERFORMANCE MONITORING OBJECTIVES AND REPORTING ................................... 1-5
2 HYDROLOGIC DATA ................................................................................................. 2-1
2.1 SETTING .................................................................................................................. 2-1
2.2 GROUNDWATER ELEVATION DATA ........................................................................ 2-1
2.3 STREAM FLOW ..................................................... ························ .......................... 2-2
2.4 HYDRAULIC CONTAINMENT .................................................................................... 2-2
2.5 BIOLOGICAL DATA ................................................................................................. 2-3
2.5. ! BUNCHED ARROWHEAD WETLAND ................................................................ 2-3
2.5.2 LARGE GE WETLAND ..................................................................................... 2-4
3 WATER-QUALITY MONITORING ACTIVITIES .................................................... 3-1
3.1 PERFORMANCE MONITORING WELLS ...................................................................... 3-1
3.2 RESIDENTIAL WELL MONITORING .......................................................................... 3-3
3.3 SURFACE WATER MONITORING .............................................................................. 3-4
3.4 SEDIMENT MONITORING ......................................................................................... 3-5
4 SUMMARY OF TREATMENT SYSTEM ACTJVITIES ............................................ 4-l
4.1 GRS OPERATION ............................................... ············· ........................................ 4-1
4.1.1 PUMPAGE MEASUREMENTS ............................................................................. 4-1
4.1.2 GRS OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE ............................................................ 4-1
4.2 TREATMENT SYSTEM EFFLUENT MONITORING ....................................................... 4-2
4.2.1 WATER ........................................................................................................... 4-2
4.2.2 MASS REMOVAL····························································································· 4-3
4.2.3 AIR ................................................................................................................. 4-3
5 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................ 5-1
6 REFERENCES .............................................................................................................. 6-1
P.\GEIRGVPISeptD6\1~p106rp15 _rev2 doc II
• •
removed from the RTC list. A reduction of the frequency of the biological monitoring events
was also approved. The biological monitoring event now occurs annually during the
September sampling event and is conducted by a qualified biological specialist.
The pumping year (PY) is from October to September. This report presents the
performance monitoring data after the sixth full year of GRS operation and covers October
2005 to September 2006.
1.1 SITE FEATURES
The site contains two non-contiguous areas (or subsites), referred to as the GE Subsite
and Shepherd Farm Subsite (see Figure 1-1). The GE Subsite (Figure 1-2) is approximately
110 acres in size and contains the manufacturing facilities for GE Lighting Systems. The
Shepherd Farm Subsite (Figure 1-3) is located approximately 2,500 feet west of the GE
Subsite. The Shepherd Farm Subsite currently supports residential and agricultural land uses.
Several wetlands are present along Bat Fork Creek. Along the western bank of Bat
Fork Creek at the GE Subsite is a four acre wetland. A smaller wetland is present on GE
property west of Spartanburg Highway along two railroad tracks. This wetland is a federally
protected habitat for the Bunched Arrowhead (Sagittaria fasciculata), a federal and state
listed rare and endangered plant species. Two small wetlands are also present at the
Shepherd Farm Subsite.
1.2 REGULATORY HISTORY
The site was placed on the NPL in December 1994. EPA completed the Remedial
Investigation/Feasibility Study (RVFS) in July 1995. The ROD issued in 1995 and CD filed
with the U.S. District Court in 1996 defined the remediation goals and action for soil and
groundwater. The chemical of concern for soil was polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). The
chemicals of concern (remediation target compounds or RTCs) for groundwater included
seven volatile organic compounds (VOCs), one semi-volatile organic compound (SVOC),
and five metals. A five year review of the site remediation progress as required by the
NCDENR was conducted in 2004 (NCDENR 2004). This review summarized that the
actions being taken at the site continue to be protective of human health and the environment.
The recommendations made in the five year review included proposed institutional controls
P.IGE\RGVP\$rp10b\septOtirp13 _rcv2 doc -1-2 -
• •
4 SUMMARY OF TREATMENT SYSTEM ACTIVITIES
4.1 GRS OPERATION
4.1.1 PUMPAGE MEASUREMENTS
Average flow through the GRS for the Pumping Year (PY) was approximately 24.9
gpm. Total flow measurements have been collected monthly from all recovery wells and for
the treated effluent exiting the treatment building. Table 4-1 lists the measured pumpage
from each recovery well. Table 4-2 summarizes the effluent discharge rate from the
treatment building. The high pump rate in April is indicative of high water levels at the site
activating the wells at a greater frequency of time. Operation and maintenance issues
causing the flow rate to be below 32 gpm are addressed in Section 4.1.2.
Under ideal conditions, the sum of the individual recovery wells should equal the
total flow through the treatment building (Table 4-3). Small differences of± 5% are within
the expected range of deviation and are therefore acceptable. Larger percent differences are
due to the operation and maintenance issues addressed in Section 4.1.2.
Figure 4-1 shows the monthly and cumulative extraction history of the GRS. The low
extraction months of October 2000, April 2001, September 2001, June 2004 reflect system
startup and shakedown, operation and maintenance shutdown, and two Programmable Logic
Controller (PLC) shutdowns, respectively. Low extraction months of December 2001 and
July 2002 reflect shutdown for cleaning of the air stripper and subsequent maintenance and
shutdown due to a broken seal in the waste treatment system inside the GE plant. Low
extraction in June and July 2006 involved relay and module failure repairs.
4.1.2 GRS OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
During the PY2006, the following adjustments and repairs were completed:
• Repaired leaks at RW-7 multiple times.
• Replaced pump and motor at RWSF-2
• Replaced different Warrick relays and MCC modules at RWSF-1 through 4 several
times during the year.
R W-7 continued to have leaks throughout the year. These were repaired as they were
discovered. On November 18, 2005 an electrical switch inside the plant failed, causing power
to be lost at the treatment building for 3 days. The treatment system shut down on December
P.IGE\RGVP\Scp10b\o;cpt06rpc5 _rcv2 doc -4-1 -
• •
15 and could not be rebooted until December 27. On January 23 the valve at the Alzak
cooling tower inside the plant was closed, causing the treatment system to shut down due to a
high pressure head. Low level alarms at the Shephard Farm remediation wells in February,
May, and June led to the replacement of different Warrick relays and Mee modules. The
treatment system was shut down in August to perform well maintenance. Upon restart a high
vault alarm sounded. New Mee modules were ordered and installed. Electrical storms in
July and September caused the treatment system to shut down four times. The last storm on
September 14 caused more Warrick relays to fail, which were subsequently replaced.
4.2 TREATMENT SYSTEM EFFLUENT MONITORING
Extracted groundwater is treated for organic compounds using an air stripper.
Treated groundwater is piped to the GE facility for use as process water, pre-treated for
metals, and discharged to the POTW. The air effluent from the stripping process is directed
through a GAe unit prior to discharge to the atmosphere. The treatment system water and air
effluent are sampled routinely during operations to ensure proper function of the air stripper
and carbon unit, to ensure remediation goals arc met, and to ensure POTW and air emission
requirements are met.
4.2.1 WATER
Influent and effluent water samples from the treatment system were collected on
September 21, 2006. Results are presented in Table 4-4. Laboratory reports are included in
Appendix A. Effluent water samples for voes were collected within the treatment building
after treatment by the air stripper. Effluent samples for metals were collected after metals
pre-treatment and prior to POTW discharge from clarifier #2. Laboratory results show that
TeE, 1,2-dichloroethane, chloroform, PeE, and manganese are above remediation goals in
the influent, GE-INF, sample. The effluent, GE-EFF, samples show PeE (3.9 µg/L) and
manganese (102 µg/L) concentrations above the remediation goal limits. The remaining
voes and metals were non-detect or below remediation goals.
Treatment system influent and effluent water analytical results between December
2000 and September 2006 are shown in Table 4-5. During the June 2006 sampling event only
clarifier #1 was in operation for metals pre-treatment, preventing a metals effluent sample
P: \GEIRGVP\Scp106\scpt0/Jrpt5 _rcv2 doc -4-2 ·
• •
from being collected. The metals were re-sampled on August 28, 2006 for both the influent
and effluent while clarifier #2 was in operation. Results of the sampling event showed
elevated levels of lead (influent 2.2 B and effluent 37.2 µg/L) and incomplete removal of
manganese (influent 2,340 and effluent 831 µg/L). Prior to the June 2006 sampling, an
additional waste stream was routed to the metals pre-treatment system. This stream, referred
to as Paint Stream in the lab results (Appendix A), consists of wash and rinsate water from
parts repainted prior to re-installation. The stream adds a relatively small volume and the
metals concentrations were found to be 704, 294, and 190 µg/L for lead, manganese, and
nickel respectively. The recent addition of the Paint Waste Stream to the metals pre-
treatment system likely caused the incomplete removal of lead and manganese from the
waste water. Adjustments (additional lime) in the metals pre-treatment were made by the GE
operator.
4.2.2 MASS REMOVAL
Influent water quality measurements (Table 4-4) are used in conjunction with
pumpage rates to calculate the estimated mass removal from the aquifer due to operation of
the GRS. Table 4-6 lists the estimated mass removal for each of the RTes in the PY. During
the annual period, 22.2 pounds of voes and 318. 7 pounds of metals were removed. PeE
has the highest estimated mass removal among the voes, totaling 18.7 pounds in PY2006.
Among the metals, manganese has the highest estimated removal totaling 313.8 pounds for
PY2006. PeE has the highest estimated percentage ofVOe mass removal, totaling 144.65
pounds since startup. Among the metals, manganese has the highest estimated removal
totaling 825.43 pounds since startup. Semi-annual voe removal rates are plotted in Figure
4-2.
4.2.3 AIR
Air influent and effluent samples from the carbon unit were collected on September
21, 2006. Results are presented in Table 4-7. PeE has a continued high removal rate. The
constituents benzene, chloroform, 1,2-dichloroethane, trans-1,2-dicholoroethene, and cis-1,2-
dichloroethene show a moderate to high removal rate. Vinyl chloride was non-detect in both
samples. TeE showed a small increase in concentration from influent to effluent. A voe
P _IG E\RGV P\SeptOO\sept06fllC 5 _rev 2.doc -4-3 -
• •
removal efficiency criterion for the GAC has been set at 80%. This limit was chosen for
several reasons. First, the major contaminant of concern, PCE, represents a significant
portion of the total contaminants. Secondly, degradation of the chemical structure of complex
contaminants within the carbon unit can produce other fom1s, such as PCE degrading to vinyl
chloride. Lastly, the granular activated carbon has a low affinity for some chemicals due to
their structure. When this criteria is exceeded, (<80%), the GAC will be replaced within the
unit. The removal rate based on these analytical results was 87%. This is an increase over
the 2005 rate of 84%. The proximity of the actual removal efficiency rate to the criteria
could explain the increase in TCE. Laboratory reports are included in Appendix A. Air
samples will continue to be sampled semi-annually and will be collected again during the
March 2007 sampling event.
Treatment system influent and effluent air analytical results between October 2000
and September 2006 are shown in Table 4-8. Air emissions are consistently orders of
magnitude below North Carolina Air Emission Standards. Carbon unit pcrfomrnnce, in the
past, was shown to decline during winter months where water accumulation in the carbon
unit is prevalent. Steps taken to reduce water intake into the carbon unit has included
installation of a moisture separator, enclosure of the carbon unit within a heated building and
installation of duct heater between the moisture separator and the carbon unit. These changes
have drastically improved carbon unit performance in the winter months and have
significantly reduced water accumulation in the carbon unit.
P.\GEIRGVPI.Sept06\sep106rp15 _rcv2 doc · 4.4 •
• •
5 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
Groundwater elevations at the site were generally lower than in 2005. The drawdown
compared to October 2001 is consistent with the September 2006 hydraulic containment and
pump rates.
The Annual Ecological Monitoring Report for 2006 (Ecological Solutions, 2006)
states that it appears that the wetlands are recovering from a long standing drought and that
groundwater extraction from the GRS still appears to have little or no effect on the surficial
wetland system. Conditions were generally the same as in 2005. The new stand of Bunched
Arrowhead found in 2005 appears to have been taken over by woodier plants.
The GRS has been operational for six full pumping years (from October 2000 to
September 2006). The volume of groundwater treated by the GRS was 13. l million gallons
in PY2006 with a total since inception of 82. 7 million gallons. Groundwater was extracted at
an average rate of 24.9 for PY2006. The GRS removed 22.2 pounds of VOCs and 318.67
pounds of metals in PY2006. There were two main reasons for the low extraction rate in
PY2006. The first was that the treatment system was inadvertently shut down in December
of 2005. The second major issue of the year was the failure of the Warrick relays and MCC
modules. The high failure rates could indicate that they are reaching the end of their
expected life times and all need to be replaced, or there is an electrical problem (short,
contact with ground, etc) that needs to be addressed.
A statistical trend analysis was completed on the groundwater quality data collected at
the performance monitoring wells. The overall trend in RTC concentrations was downward,
however, some upward trends were observed in some wells for some parameters. An upward
trend of PCE was found at MW-29 and MW-22A. Sufficient quarterly sampling events have
occurred so that the observed trends are statistically significant. Residential well WW-17
was found to have PCE in September and December of 2005. WW-17 was inaccessible in
September 2006 due to conversion of the resident's water supply to city water. Measures are
being taken to restore this well as a monitoring well.
The treatment system water effluent showed PCE (3.9 µg/L) and manganese (102 rig/L)
concentrations above the remediation goal limits.
Air emissions are consistently orders of magnitude below North Carolina Air Emission
Standards. Carbon unit perfomrnnce, in the past, was shown to decline during winter months
P.IGEJ\RGVP\.Sept06\scpt06rp15 _rev2 doc . 5-1 -
• •
where water accumulation in the carbon unit is prevalent. Steps taken to reduce water intake
into the carbon unit has included installation of a moisture separator, enclosure of the carbon
unit within a heated building and installation of duct heater between the moisture separator
and the carbon unit. These changes have drastically improved carbon unit perfonnance in
the winter months and have significantly reduced water accumulation in the carbon unit.
GELS and Geo Trans established a lower limit for the reduction efficiency of the carbon unit.
When the overall reduction is less than 80% the carbon in the unit will be changed out.
Currently the reduction is at 87%.
The next sampling event will be held in December 2006 and will include only
influent and effluent water. The next annual performance monitoring event will occur in
September 2007.
P .\GE\RGV P\Sep10b\sep106rp15 _rev2.doc • 5-2 -
P:IGE\RGVPlgis-rgvp\[e-mail]
~
"l,
"i>~
~
'<-;,, .,,.,_
4-., .,...,_
-~
~
J:.Xplanation
+ Site performance monitoring well
with PCE concentrations (µg/L)
• Recovery well
TABOR RD.
0 300 600
SCALE IN FEET
LOCATION:
~ llo
MW-29 (6.4) v===~
MW-22A (63.6)
I I = -:::;:r.:::;,
{fMW-13 ( 19.~)
MW'.13A (172)
East Flat Rock, NC
CHECKED PFA
[
DRAFTED LMG ~ <i~,Q rans, Inc. DATE 10/25/06
FILE PCE@GEc»--06.WOR
~ -N-
I
FIGURE:
3-3
•
Table .3-6. Summary of statistical trend analysis for Metals
I Parameter I Lead I Manganese
I GE Subsite
MW-3 Down
MW-8 Down
MW-12
MW-12A
MW-12B Down
MW-13
MW-13A Down
MW-14 Down
MW-14A
MW-15 Down
MW-16
MW-16A Down
MW-22A
MW-27 Uo
MW-27A Uo Down
MW-29
I Shepherd Farm Subsite
MW-64
MW-64A Down
MW-66 Down
RWSF-1
ITotal ue I 1 I 1
:Total Down '. 1 9
Notes:
1,2-Dichloroethane(1,2-DCA)
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene(cis-1,2-DCE)
T etrachloroethene( PC E)
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene(trans-1,2-DCE)
Trichloroethene(TCE)
I Nickel
Down
Down
Up
Down
I 1
3
•
I
I
I
I
If no statistically significant trend, either upward or downward,
is found there is no trend reported.
T3-5 and 3-6.xls
•
Mann-Kendall Trend Analysis
Parameter: Trichloroethene
Well: MW-29
Original Data (Not Transformed)
Non-Detects Replaced with 0
Xj Xk Xj -Xk Positives Negatives
ND<0 ND ND<0 ND 0 0 0
ND<0 ND ND<0 ND 0 0 0
ND<0 ND ND<0 ND 0 0 0
ND<0 ND ND<0 ND 0 0 0
ND<0 ND ND<0 ND 0 0 0
0.49 J ND<0 ND 0.49 1 0
0.54J ND<0 ND 0.54 2 0
i'~D<O ND ND<0 ND 0 2 0
0.51 J ND<0 ND 0.51 3 0
0.58 J ND<0 ND 0.58 4 0
0.86 J ND<0 ND 0.86 5 0
2 ND<0 ND 2 6 0
1.2 J ND<0 ND 1.2 7 0
1.5 J ND<0 ND 1.5 8 0
0.67 J ND<0 ND 0.67 9 0
0.68 J ND<0 ND 0.68 10 0
ND<0 ND ND<0 ND 0 10 0
ND<0 ND ND<0 ND 0 10 0
ND<0 ND ND<0 ND 0 10 0
Nr1<0 ND ND<0 ND 0 10 0
Nll<0 ND ND<0 ND 0 10 0
0.49 J ND<0 ND 0.49 11 0
0.54 J ND<0 ND 0.54 12 0
ND<0 ND ND<0 ND 0 12 0
0.51 J ND<0 ND 0.51 13 0
0.58 J ND<0 ND 0.58 14 0
0.86 J ND<0 ND 0.86 15 0
2 ND<0 ND 2 16 0
1.2 J ND<0 ND 1.2 17 0
1.5 J ND<0 ND 1.5 18 0
0.67 J ND<0 ND 0.67 19 0
0.68J ND<0 ND 0.68 20 0
ND<0 ND ND<0 ND 0 20 0
ND<0 ND ND<0 ND 0 20 0
ND<0 ND ND<0 ND 0 20 0
ND<0 ND ND<0 ND 0 20 0
0.49 J ND<0 ND 0.49 21 0
0.54 J ND<0 ND 0.54 22 0
ND<0 ND ND<0 ND 0 22 0
0.51 J ND<0 ND 0.51 23 0
0.58 J ND<0 ND 0.58 24 0
0.86 J ND<0 ND 0.86 25 0
2 ND<0 ND 2 26 0
1.2 J ND<0 ND 1.2 27 0
1.5 J ND<0 ND 1.5 28 0
0.67 J ND<0 ND 0.67 29 0
0.68 J ND<0 ND 0.68 30 0
Page 1
•
ND<0 ND ND<0 ND 0 30 0
ND<0 ND ND<0 ND 0 30 0
ND<0 ND ND<0 ND 0 30 0
0.49J ND<.0 ND 0.49 31 0
0.54J ND<0 ND 0.54 32 0
ND<0 ND ND<0 ND 0 32 0
0.51 J ND<0 ND 0.51 33 0
0.58J ND<0 ND 0.58 34 0
0.86 J ND<0 ND 0.86 35 0
2 ND<0 ND 2 36 0
1.2 J ND<0 ND 1.2 37 0
1.5 J ND<0 ND 1.5 38 0
0.67 J ND<0 ND 0.67 39 0
0.68 J ND<0 ND 0.68 40 0
ND<0 ND ND<0 ND 0 40 0
ND<0 ND ND<0 ND 0 40 0
0.49J ND<0 ND 0.49 41 0
0.54J ND<0 ND 0.54 42 0
ND<0 ND ND<0 ND 0 42 0
0.51 J ND<0 ND 0.51 43 0
0.58J ND<0 ND 0.58 44 0
0.86J ND<0 ND 0.86 45 0
2 ND<0 ND 2 46 0
1.2 J ND<0 ND 1.2 47 0
1.5 J ND<0 ND 1.5 48 0
0.67 J ND<0 ND 0.67 49 0
0.68J ND<0 ND 0.68 50 0
ND<0 ND ND<0 ND 0 50 0
0.49 J ND<0 ND 0.49 51 0
0.54J ND<0 ND 0.54 52 0
ND<0 ND ND<0 ND 0 52 0
0.51 J ND<0 ND 0.51 53 0
0.58 J ND<0 ND 0.58 54 0
0.86 J ND<0 ND 0.86 55 0
2 ND<0 ND 2 56 0
1.2 J ND<0 ND 1.2 57 0
1.5 J ND<0 ND 1.5 58 0
0.67 J ND<0 ND 0.67 59 0
0.68 J ND<0 ND 0.68 60 0
ND<0 ND ND<0 ND 0 60 0
0.54J 0.49 J 0.05 61 0
ND<0 ND 0.49 J -0.49 61
0.51 J 0.49 J 0.02 62
0.58 J 0.49 J 0.09 63
0.86 J 0.49 J 0.37 64
2 0.49 J 1.51 65
1.2 J 0.49 J 0.71 66
1.5 J 0.49 J 1.01 67
0.67 J 0.49 J 0.18 68
0.68J 0.49 J 0.19 69 1
ND<0 ND 0.49 J -0.49 69 2
ND<0 ND 0.54J -0.54 69 3
Page 2
• •
0.51 J 0.54J -0.03 69 4
0.58 J 0.54J 0.04 70 4
0.86 J 0.54 J 0.32 71 4
2 0.54 J 1.46 72 4
1.2 J 0.54J 0.66 73 4
1.5 J 0.54J 0.96 74 4
0.67 J 0.54J 0.13 75 4
0.68 J 0.54J 0.14 76 4
ND<0 ND 0.54J -0.54 76 5
0.51 J ND<0 ND 0.51 77 5
0.58J ND<0 ND 0.58 78 5
0.86 J ND<0 ND 0.86 79 5
2 ND<0 ND 2 80 5
1.2 J ND<0 ND 1.2 81 5
1.5 J ND<0 ND 1.5 82 5
0.67 J ND<0 ND 0.67 83 5
0.68J ND<0 ND 0.68 84 5
ND<0 ND ND<0 ND 0 84 5
0.58 J 0.51 J 0.07 85 5
0.86 J 0.51 J 0.35 86 5
2 0.51 J 1.49 87 5
1.2 J 0.51 J 0.69 88 5
1.5 J 0.51 J 0.99 89 5
0.67 J 0.51 J 0.16 90 5
0.68J 0.51 J 0.17 91 5
ND<0 ND 0.51 J -0.51 91 6
0.86J 0.58 J 0.28 92 6
2 0.58 J 1.42 93 6
1.2 J 0.58 J 0.62 94 6
1.5 J 0.58 J 0.92 95 6
0.67 J 0.58 J 0.09 96 6
0.68J 0.58 J 0.1 97 6
ND<0 ND· 0.58 J -0.58 97 7
2 0.86 J 1.14 98 7
1.2 J 0.86J 0.34 99 7
1.5 J 0.86 J 0.64 100 7
0.67 J 0.86J -0.19 100 8
0.68 J 0.86 J -0.18 100 9
ND<0 ND 0.86 J -0.86 100 10
1.2 J 2 -0.8 100 11
1.5 J 2 -0.5 100 12
0.67 J 2 -1.33 100 13
0.68 J 2 -1.32 100 14
ND<0 ND 2 -2 100 15
1.5 J 1.2 J 0.3 101 15
0.67 J 1.2 J -0.53 101 16
0.68 J 1.2 J -0.52 101 17
ND<0 ND 1.2 J -1.2 101 18
0.67 J 1.5 J -0.83 101 19
0.68 J 1.5 J -0.82 101 20
Page 3
ND<0 ND
0.68 J
ND<0 ND
ND<0 ND
1.5 J
0.67 J
0.67 J
0.68J
S Statistic = 102 -23 = 79
Tied Group Value
1 0
Time Period
9/26/2000
12/7/2000
3/8/2001
6/7/2001
9/512001
12/12/2001
3/1312002
6/1312002
9/11/2002
12/13/2002
3/1312003
6/12/2003
9/10/2003
3/3/2004
911412004
3130/2005
9/28/2005
9/20/2006
•
-1.5
0.01
-0.67
-0.68
Members
8
101
102
102
102
Observations
There are 0 time periods with multiple data
A= 1176
B=0
C = 336
D=0
E = 56
F=0
a= 12546
b = 44064
C = 612
Group Variance= 631.667
Z-Score = 3.10349
21
21
22
23
Comparison Level at 95% confidence level = 1.65463 (upward trend)
3.10349 > 1.65463 indicating an upward trend
Page 4
•
•
Mann-Kendall Trend Analysis
Parameter: cis-1,2-Dichloroethene
Well: MW-128
Original Data (Not Transformed)
Non-Detects Replaced with 0
Xj Xk Xj-Xk Positives Negatives
7J 7.8 -0.8 0 1
7.1 7.8 -0.7 0 2
8.1 7.8 0.3 2
6.4 7.8 -1.4 3
5:1 7.8 -2.1 4
5.4 7.8 -2.4 5
5.5 7.8 -2.3 6
5 7.8 -2.8 7
7.1 7.8 -0.7 8
2.9 7.8 -4.9 9
3.2 7.8 -4.6 10
3.8 7.8 -4 11
2.7 7.8 -5.1 12
2.4 7.8 -5.4 13
1.6 7.8 -6.2 14
1.9 7.8 -5.9 15
1.4 7.8 -6.4 16
7.1 7J 0.1 2 16
8.1 7J 1.1 3 16
6.4 7J -0.6 3 17
!..J.{ 7J -1.3 3 18
5.4 7J -1.6 3 19
5.5 7J -1.5 3 20
5 7J -2 3 21
7.1 7J 0.1 4 21
2.9 7J -4.1 4 22
3.2 7J -3.8 4 23
3.8 7J -3.2 4 24
2.7 7J -4.3 4 25
2.4 7J -4.6 4 26
1.6 7J -5.4 4 27
1.9 7J -5.1 4 28
1.4 7J -5.6 4 29
8.1 7.1 1 5 29
6.4 7.1 -0.7 5 30
5.7 7.1 -1.4 5 31
5.4 7.1 -1.7 5 32
5.5 7.1 -1.6 5 33
5 7.1 -2.1 5 34
7.1 7.1 0 5 34
2.9 7.1 -4.2 5 35
3.2 7.1 -3.9 5 36
3.8 7.1 -3.3 5 37
2.7 7.1 -4.4 5 38
2.4 7.1 -4.7 5 39
1.6 7.1 -5.5 5 40
1.9 7.1 -5.2 5 41
Page 1
•
1.4 7.1 -5.7 5 42
6.4 8.1 -1.7 5 43
5.7 8.1 -2.4 5 44
5.4 8.1 -2.7 5 45
5.5 8.1 -2.6 5 46
5 8.1 -3.1 5 47
7.1 8.1 -1 5 48
2.9 8.1 -5.2 5 49
3.2 8.1 -4.9 5 50
3.8 8.1 -4.3 5 51
2.7 8.1 -5.4 5 52
2.4 8.1 -5.7 5 53
1.6 8.1 -6.5 5 54
1.9 8.1 -6.2 5 55
1.4 8.1 -6.7 5 56
5.7 6.4 -0.7 5 57
5.4 6.4 -1 5 58
5.5 6.4 -0.9 5 59
5 6.4 -1.4 5 60
7.1 6.4 0.7 6 60
2.9 6.4 -3.5 6 61
3.2 6.4 -3.2 6 62
3.8 6.4 -2.6 6 63
2.7 6.4 -3.7 6 64
2.4 6.4 -4 6 65
1.6 6.4 -4.8 6 66
1.9 6.4 -4.5 6 67
1.4 6.4 -5 6 68
5.4 5.7 -0.3 6 69
5.5 5.7 -0.2 6 70
5 5.7 -0.7 6 71
7.1 5.7 1.4 7 71
2.9 5.7 -2.8 7 72
3.2 5.7 -2.5 7 73
3.8 5.7 -1.9 7 74
2.7 5.7 -3 7 75
2.4 5.7 -3.3 7 76
1.6 5.7 -4.1 7 77
1.9 5.7 -3.8 7 78
1.4 5.7 -4.3 7 79
5.5 5.4 0.1 8 79
5 5.4 -0.4 8 80
7.1 5.4 1.7 9 80
2.9 5.4 -2.5 9 81
3.2 5.4 -2.2 9 82
3.8 5.4 -1.6 9 83
2.7 5.4 -2.7 9 84
2.4 5.4 -3 9 85
1.6 5.4 -3.8 9 86
1.9 5.4 -3.5 9 87
1.4 5.4 -4 9 88
5 5.5 -0.5 9 89
Page 2
•
7.1 5.5 1.6 10 89
2.9 5.5 -2.6 10 90
3.2 5.5 -2.3 10 91
3.8 5.5 -1.7 10 92
2.7 5.5 -2.8 10 93
2.4 5.5 -3.1 10 94
1.6 5.5 -3.9 10 95
1.9 5.5 -3.6 10 96
1.4 5.5 -4.1 10 97
7.1 5 2.1 11 97
2.9 5 -2.1 11 98
3.2 5 -1.8 11 99
3.8 5 -1.2 11 100
2.7 5 -2.3 11 101
t;:_,1 5 -2.6 11 102
1.6 5 -3.4 11 103
1.9 5 -3.1 11 104
1.4 5 -3.6 11 105
2.9 7.1 -4.2 11 106
3.2 7.1 -3.9 11 107
3.8 7.1 -3.3 11 108
2.7 7.1 -4.4 11 109
2.4 7.1 -4.7 11 110
i .6 7.1 -5.5 11 111
1.9 7.1 -5.2 11 112
1.4 7.1 -5.7 11 113
3.2 2.9 0.3 12 113
3.8 2.9 0.9 13 113
2.7 2.9 -0.2 13 114
2.4 2.9 -0.5 13 115
1.6 2.9 -1.3 13 116
1.9 2.9 -1 13 117
1.4 2.9 -1.5 13 118
3.8 3.2 0.6 14 118
2.7 3.2 -0.5 14 119
2.4 3.2 -0.8 14 120
1.6 3.2 -1.6 14 121
1.9 3.2 -1.3 14 122
1.4 3.2 -1.8 14 123
2.7 3.8 -1.1 14 124
2.4 3.8 -1.4 14 125
1.6 3.8 -2.2 14 126
1.9 3.8 -1.9 14 127
1.4 3.8 -2.4 14 128
2.4 2.7 -0.3 14 129
1.6 2.7 -1.1 14 130
1.9 2.7 -0.8 14 131
1.4 2.7 -1.3 14 132
1.6 2.4 -0.8 14 133
1.9 2.4 -0.5 14 134
Page 3
1.4
1.9
1.4
1.4
2.4
1.6
1.6
1.9
S Statistic= 15 -137 = -122
Tied Group Value
1 7.1
Time Period
9126/2000
121712000
31712001
6nl2001
9/612001
12/1212001
3/12/2002
6/13/2002
9/12/2002
12111/2002
3/11/2003
6110/2003
9/12/2003
31412004
9/16/2004
3/30/2005
9/2712005
9121/2006
-1
0.3
-0.2
-0.5
Members
2
14
15
15
15
Observations
1
1
There are 0 time periods with multiple data
A= 18
B=0
C=0
D=0
E=2
F=0
a= 12546
b = 44064
C = 612
Group Variance = 696
Z-Score = -4.58649
135
135
136
137
Comparison Level at 95% confidence level= -1.65463 (downward trend)
-4.58649 < -1.65463 indicating a downward trend
Page 4
•
•
Mann-Kendall Trend Analysis
Parameter: cis-1,2-Dichloroethene
Well: MW-16
Original Data (Not Transformed)
Non-Detects Replaced with 0
Xj Xk Xj -Xk Positives Negatives
1.4 J N□<O ND 1.4 0
2.3 ND<O ND 2.3 2 0
1.8J N □<O ND 1.8 3 0
1.8 J N□<O ND 1.8 4 0
1.7 J N□<O ND 1.7 5 0
1.2 J ND<O NO 1.2 6 0
0.86J N□<O ND 0.86 7 0
0.91 J N □<O ND 0.91 8 0
0.95 J ND<O ND 0.95 9 0
ND<O ND N□<O ND 0 9 0
ND<O NO ND<O ND 0 9 0
N □<O NO ND<O NO 0 9 0
ND<O ND ND<O ND 0 9 0
N□<O ND ND<O NO 0 9 0
ND<O NO ND<O ND 0 9 0
ND<O ND N□<O ND 0 9 0
ND<O ND ND<O NO 0 9 0
2.3 1.4 J 0.9 10 0
1.8J 1.4 J 0.4 11 0
1.8 J 1.4 J 0.4 12 0
1.7 J 1.4 J 0.3 13 0
1.2 J 1.4 J -0.2 13 1
0.86J 1.4 J -0.54 13 2
0.91 J 1.4 J -0.49 13 3
0.95 J 1.4 J -0.45 13 4
ND<O ND 1.4 J -1.4 13 5
ND<O ND 1.4 J -1.4 13 6
N □<O NO 1.4 J -1.4 13 7
N □<O ND 1.4 J -1.4 13 8
N □<O ND 1.4 J -1.4 13 9
ND<O ND 1.4 J -1.4 13 10
N□<O ND 1.4 J -1.4 13 11
ND<O ND 1.4 J -1.4 13 12
1.8 J 2.3 ·0.5 13 13
1.8J 2.3 -0.5 13 14
1.7 J 2.3 -0.6 13 15
1.2 J 2.3 • 1.1 13 16
0.86 J 2.3 -1.44 13 17
0.91 J 2.3 -1.39 13 18
0.95 J 2.3 -1.35 13 19
ND<O NO 2.3 -2.3 13 20
ND<O ND 2.3 -2.3 13 21
ND<O NO 2.3 -2.3 13 22
ND<O ND 2.3 ·2.3 13 23
N □<O ND 2.3 -2.3 13 24
ND<O NO 2.3 -2.3 13 25
~IJ!<O NO 2.3 ·2.3 13 26
Page 1
• •
ND<0 ND 2.3 -2.3 13 27
1.8 J 1.8J 0 13 27
1.7 J 1.8 J -0.1 13 28
1.2 J 1.8 J -0.6 13 29
0.86J 1.8 J -0.94 13 30
0.91 J 1.8 J -0.89 13 31
0.95J 1.8J -0.85 13 32
ND<0 ND 1.8 J -1.8 13 33
ND<0 ND 1.8J -1.8 13 34
ND<0 ND 1.8 J -1.8 13 35
ND<0 ND 1.8 J -1.8 13 36
ND<0 ND 1.8J -1.8 13 37
ND<0 ND 1.8J -1.8 13 38
ND<0 ND 1.8 J -1.8 13 39
ND<0 ND 1.8 J -1.8 13 40
1.7 J 1.8J -0.1 13 41
1.2 J 1.8J -0.6 13 42
0.86J 1.8J -0.94 13 43
0.91 J 1.8J -0.89 13 44
0.95 J 1.8J -0.85 13 45
ND<0 ND 1.8J -1.8 13 46
ND<0 ND 1.8 J -1.8 13 47
ND<0 ND 1.8J -1.8 13 48
ND<0 ND 1.8J -1.8 13 49
ND<0 ND 1.8J -1.8 13 50
ND<0 ND 1.8J -1.8 13 51
ND<0 ND 1.8 J -1.8 13 52
ND<0 ND 1.8J -1.8 13 53
1.2 J 1.7 J -0.5 13 54
0.86J 1.7 J -0.84 13 55
0.91 J 1.7 J -0.79 13 56
0.95 J 1.7 J -0.75 13 57
ND<0 ND 1.7 J -1.7 13 58
ND<0 ND 1.7 J -1.7 13 59
ND<0 ND 1.7 J -1.7 13 60
ND<0 ND 1.7 J -1.7 13 61
ND<0 ND 1.7 J -1.7 13 62
ND<0 ND 1.7 J -1.7 13 63
ND<0 ND 1.7 J -1. 7 13 64
ND<0 ND 1.7 J -1.7 13 65
0.86 J 1.2 J -0.34 13 66
0.91 J 1.2 J -0.29 13 67
0.95 J 1.2 J -0.25 13 68
ND<0 ND 1.2 J -1.2 13 69
ND<0 ND 1.2 J -1.2 13 70
ND<0 ND 1.2 J -1.2 13 71
ND<0 ND 1.2 J -1.2 13 72
ND<0 ND 1.2 J -1.2 13 73
ND<0 ND 1.2 J -1.2 13 74
ND<0 ND 1.2 J -1.2 13 75
ND<0 ND 1.2 J -1.2 13 76
0.91 J 0.86 J 0.05 14 76
Page 2
•
0.95 J 0.86J 0.09 15 76
ND<0 ND 0.86 J -0.86 15 77
ND<0 ND 0.86J -0.86 15 78
ND<0 ND 0.86J -0.86 15 79
ND<0 ND 0.86 J -0.86 15 80
ND<0 ND 0.86 J -0.86 15 81
ND<0 ND 0.86J -0.86 15 82
ND<0 ND 0.86 J -0.86 15 83
ND<0 ND 0.86J -0.86 15 84
0.95 J 0.91 J 0.04 16 84
ND<0 ND 0.91 J -0.91 16 85
ND<0 ND 0.91 J -0.91 16 86
ND<0 ND 0.91 J -0.91 16 87
ND<0 ND 0.91 J -0.91 16 88
ND<0 ND 0.91 J -0.91 16 89
ND<0 ND 0.91 J -0.91 16 90
ND<0 ND 0.91 J -0.91 16 91
ND<0 ND 0.91 J -0.91 16 92
ND<0 ND 0.95 J -0.95 16 93
ND<0 ND 0.95 J -0.95 16 94
ND<0 ND 0.95 J -0.95 16 95
ND<0 ND 0.95 J -0.95 16 96
ND<0 ND 0.95 J -0.95 16 97
ND<0 ND 0.95 J -0.95 16 98
ND<0 ND 0.95 J -0.95 16 99
ND<0 ND 0.95 J -0.95 16 100
ND<0 ND ND<0 ND o 16 100
ND<0 ND ND<0 ND o 16 100
ND<0 ND ND<0 ND o 16 100
ND<0 ND ND<0 ND o 16 100
ND<0 ND ND<0 ND o 16 100
ND<0 ND ND<0 ND o 16 100
ND<0 ND ND<0 ND o 16 100
ND<0 ND ND<0 ND o 16 100
ND<0 ND ND<0 ND o 16 100
ND<0 ND ND<0 ND o 16 100
ND<0 ND ND<0 ND o 16 100
ND<0 ND ND<0 ND o 16 100
ND<0 ND ND<0 ND o 16 100
ND<0 ND ND<0 ND o 16 100
ND<0 ND ND<0 ND o 16 100
ND<0 ND ND<0 ND o 16 100
ND<0 ND ND<0 ND o 16 100
ND<0 ND ND<0 ND o 16 100
ND<0 ND ND<0 ND o 16 100
ND<0 ND ND<0 ND o 16 100
ND<0 ND ND<0 ND o 16 100
ND<0 ND ND<0 ND o 16 100
ND<0 ND ND<0 ND o 16 100
ND<0 ND ND<0 ND o 16 100
Page 3
ND<0 ND
ND<0 ND
ND<0 ND
ND<0 ND
ND<0 ND
ND<0 ND
ND<0 ND
ND<0 ND
S Statistic = 16 -100 = -84
Tied Group Value
1 0
2 1.8
Time Period
9/27/2000
12/5/2000
3/8/2001
6/7/2001
916/2001
12/12/2001
3/13/2002
6112/2002
9112/2002
12/12/2002
3114/2003
6/12/2003
9/10/2003
3/3/2004
911512004
3/3012005
9/29/2005
9121/2006
•
0
0
0
0
Members
9
2
16
16
16
16
Observations
There are 0 time periods with multiple data
A= 1674
B=0
C = 504
D=O
E = 74
F=0
a= 12546
b = 44064
C = 612
Group Variance = 604
Z-Score = -3.37722
100
100
100
100
Comparison Level at 95% confidence level= -1.65463 (downward trend)
-3.37722 < -1.65463 indicating a downward trend
Page 4
•
•
Mann-Kendall Trend Analysis
Parameter: cis-1,2-Dichloroethene
Well: MW-14A
Original Data (Not Transformed)
Non-Detects Replaced with O
Xj Xk Xj -Xk Positives Negatives
32.1 31.9 0.2 1 0
33.6 31.9 1.7 2 0
35.4 31.9 3.5 3 0
28.4 31.9 -3.5 3
31 31.9 -0.9 3 2
26.8 31.9 -5.1 3 3
29.8 31.9 -2.1 3 4
35.6 31.9 3.7 4 4
23.2 31.9 -8.7 4 5
12.9 31.9 -19 4 6
19.3 31.9 -12.6 4 7
23.4 31.9 -8.5 4 8
21.6 31.9 -10.3 4 9
16.1 31.9 -15.8 4 10
11.6 31.9 -20.3 4 11
31.1 31.9 -0.8 4 12
19.3 31.9 -12.6 4 13
33.6 32.1 1.5 5 13
35.4 32.1 3.3 6 13
28.4 32.1 -3.7 6 14
31 32.1 -1.1 6 15
26.8 32.1 -5.3 6 16
29.8 32.1 -2.3 6 17
35.6 32.1 3.5 7 17
23.2 32.1 -8.9 7 18
12.9 32.1 -19.2 7 19
19.3 32.1 -12.8 7 20
23.4 32.1 -8.7 7 21
21.6 32.1 -10.5 7 22
16.1 32.1 -16 7 23
11.6 32.1 -20.5 7 24
31.1 32.1 -1 7 25
19.3 32.1 -12.8 7 26
35.4 33.6 1.8 8 26
28.4 33.6 -5.2 8 27
31 33.6 -2.6 8 28
26.8 33.6 -6.8 8 29
29.8 33.6 -3.8 8 30
35.6 33.6 2 9 30
23.2 33.6 -10.4 9 31
12.9 33.6 -20.7 9 32
19.3 33.6 -14.3 9 33
23.4 33.6 -10.2 9 34
21.6 33.6 -12 9 35
16.1 33.6 -17.5 9 36
11.6 33.6 -22 9 37
31.1 33.6 -2.5 9 38
Page 1
• •
19.3 33.6 -14.3 9 39
28.4 35.4 -7 9 40
31 35.4 -4.4 9 41
26.8 35.4 -8.6 9 42
29.8 35.4 -5.6 9 43
35.6 35.4 0.2 10 43
23.2 35.4 -12.2 10 44
12.9 35.4 -22.5 10 45
19.3 35.4 -16.1 10 46
23.4 35.4 -12 10 47
21.6 35.4 -13.8 10 48
16.1 35.4 -19.3 10 49
11.6 35.4 -23.8 10 50
31.1 35.4 -4.3 10 51
19.3 35.4 -16.1 10 52
31 28.4 2.6 11 52
26.8 28.4 -1.6 11 53
29.8 28.4 1.4 12 53
35.6 28.4 7.2 13 53
23.2 28.4 -5.2 13 54
12.9 28.4 -15.5 13 55
19.3 28.4 -9.1 13 56
23.4 28.4 -5 13 57
21.6 28.4 -6.8 13 58
16.1 28.4 -12.3 13 59
11.6 28.4 ·16.8 13 60
31.1 28.4 2.7 14 60
19.3 28.4 ·9.1 14 61
26.8 31 -4.2 14 62
29.8 31 ·1.2 14 63
35.6 31 4.6 15 63
23.2 31 -7.8 15 64
12.9 31 · 18.1 15 65
19.3 31 -11.7 15 66
23.4 31 -7.6 15 67
21.6 31 -9.4 15 68
16.1 31 -14.9 15 69
11.6 31 -19.4 15 70
31.1 31 0.1 16 70
19.3 31 -11. 7 16 71
29.8 26.8 3 17 71
35.6 26.8 8.8 18 71
23.2 26.8 -3.6 18 72
12.9 26.8 -13.9 18 73
19.3 26.8 -7.5 18 74
23.4 26.8 -3.4 18 75
21.6 26.8 -5.2 18 76
16.1 26.8 -10.7 18 77
11.6 26.8 -15.2 18 78
31.1 26.8 4.3 19 78
19.3 26.8 -7.5 19 79
35.6 29.8 5.8 20 79
Page 2
•
23.2 29.8 -6.6 20 80
12.9 29.8 -16.9 20 81
19.3 29.8 -10.5 20 82
23.4 29.8 -6.4 20 83
21.6 29.8 -8.2 20 84
16.1 29.8 -13.7 20 85
11.6 29.8 -18.2 20 86
31.1 29.8 1.3 21 86
19.3 29.8 -10.5 21 87
23.2 35.6 -12.4 21 88
12.9 35.6 -22.7 21 89
19.3 35.6 -16.3 21 90
23.4 35.6 -12.2 21 91
21.6 35.6 -14 21 92
16.1 35.6 -19.5 21 93
11.6 35.6 -24 21 94
31.1 35.6 -4.5 21 95
19.3 35.6 -16.3 21 96
12.9 23.2 -10.3 21 97
19.3 23.2 -3.9 21 98
23.4 23.2 0.2 22 98
21.6 23.2 -1.6 22 99
16.1 23.2 -7.1 22 100
11.6 23.2 -11.6 22 101
31.1 23.2 7.9 23 101
19.3 23.2 -3.9 23 102
19.3 12.9 6.4 24 102
23.4 12.9 10.5 25 102
21.6 12.9 8.7 26 102
16.1 12.9 3.2 27 102
11.6 12.9 -1.3 27 103
31.1 12.9 18.2 28 103
19.3 12.9 6.4 29 103
23.4 19.3 4.1 30 103
21.6 19.3 2.3 31 103
16.1 19.3 -3.2 31 104
11.6 19.3 -7.7 31 105
31.1 19.3 11.8 32 105
19.3 19.3 0 32 105
21.6 23.4 -1.8 32 106
16.1 23.4 -7.3 32 107
11.6 23.4 -11.8 32 108
31.1 23.4 7.7 33 108
19.3 23.4 -4.1 33 109
16.1 21.6 -5.5 33 110
11.6 21.6 -10 33 111
31.1 21.6 9.5 34 111
19.3 21.6 -2.3 34 112
11.6 16.1 -4.5 34 113
31.1 16.1 15 35 113
Page 3
19.3
31.1
19.3
19.3
16.1
11.6
11.6
31.1
S Statistic= 38. 114 = -76
Tied Group Value
1 19.3
Time Period
9/25/2000
12/5/2000
3/9/2001
6/12/2001
9/4/2001
12/11/2001
3/13/2002
6/12/2002
9/11/2002
12/12/2002
3/12/2003
6/12/2003
9/11/2003
3/3/2004
9/15/2004
3/30/2005
9/29/2005
9/20/2006
3.2
19.5
7.7
-11.8
Members
2
36
37
38
38
Observations
There are 0 time periods with multiple data
A= 18
B=0
C=O
D=0
E=2
F=0
a= 12546
b = 44064
C = 612
Group Variance= 696
Z-Score = ·2.84287
113
113
113
114
Comparison Level at 95% confidence level= -1.65463 (downward trend)
•2.84287 < · 1.65463 indicating a downward trend
Page 4
•
•
Mann-Kendall Trend Analysis
Parameter: cis-1,2-Dichloroethene
Well: MW-27A
Original Data (Not Transformed)
Non-Detects Replaced with 0
Xj Xk Xj -Xk Positives Negatives
42.2 38.3 3.9 0
34.7 38.3 -3.6 1
44.7 38.3 6.4 2
47.5 38.3 9.2 3 1
36.6 38.3 -1.7 3 2
46.5 38.3 8.2 4 2
44.9 38.3 6.6 5 2
46.4 38.3 8.1 6 2
48.3 38.3 10 7 2
40.8 38.3 2.5 8 2
43.7 38.3 5.4 9 2
37.1 38.3 -1.2 9 3
34.7 38.3 -3.6 9 4
33.1 38.3 -5.2 9 5
31.5 38.3 -6.8 9 6
34.4 38.3 -3.9 9 7
20.8 38.3 -17.5 9 8
34.7 42.2 -7.5 9 9
44.7 42.2 2.5 10 9
H.5 42.2 5.3 11 9
Jo.6 42.2 -5.6 11 10
46.5 42.2 4.3 12 10
44.9 42.2 2.7 13 10
46.4 42.2 4.2 14 10
48.3 42.2 6.1 15 10
40.8 42.2 -1.4 15 11
43.7 42.2 1.5 16 11
37.1 42.2 -5.1 16 12
34.7 42.2 -7.5 16 13
33.1 42.2 -9.1 16 14
31.5 42.2 -10.7 16 15
34.4 42.2 -7.8 16 16
20.8 42.2 -21.4 16 17
44.7 34.7 10 17 17
47.5 34.7 12.8 18 17
36.6 34.7 1.9 19 17
46.5 34.7 11.8 20 17
44.9 34.7 10.2 21 17
46.4 34.7 11.7 22 17
48.3 34.7 13.6 23 17
40.8 34.7 6.1 24 17
43.7 34.7 9 25 17
37.1 34.7 2.4 26 17
34.7 34.7 0 26 17
33.1 34.7 -1.6 26 18
31.5 34.7 -3.2 26 19
34.4 34.7 -0.3 26 20
Page 1
•
20.8 34.7 -13.9 26 21
47.5 44.7 2.8 27 21
36.6 44.7 -8.1 27 22
46.5 44.7 1.8 28 22
44.9 44.7 0.2 29 22
46.4 44.7 1.7 30 22
48.3 44.7 3.6 31 22
40.8 44.7 -3.9 31 23
43.7 44.7 -1 31 24
37.1 44.7 -7.6 31 25
34.7 44.7 -10 31 26
33.1 44.7 -11.6 31 27
31.5 44.7 -13.2 31 28
34.4 44.7 -10.3 31 29
20.8 44.7 -23.9 31 30
36.6 47.5 -10.9 31 31
46.5 47.5 -1 31 32
44.9 47.5 -2.6 31 33
46.4 47.5 -1.1 31 34
48.3 47.5 0.8 32 34
40.8 47.5 -6.7 32 35
43.7 47.5 -3.8 32 36
37.1 47.5 -10.4 32 37
34.7 47.5 -12.8 32 38
33.1 47.5 -14.4 32 39
31.5 47.5 -16 32 40
34.4 47.5 -13.1 32 41
20.8 47.5 -26.7 32 42
46.5 36.6 9.9 33 42
44.9 36.6 8.3 34 42
46.4 36.6 9.8 35 42
48.3 36.6 11.7 36 42
40.8 36.6 4.2 37 42
43.7 36.6 7.1 38 42
37.1 36.6 0.5 39 42
34.7 36.6 -1.9 39 43
33.1 36.6 -3.5 39 44
31.5 36.6 -5.1 39 45
34.4 36.6 -2.2 39 46
20.8 36.6 -15.8 39 47
44.9 46.5 -1.6 39 48
46.4 46.5 -0.1 39 49
48.3 46.5 1.8 40 49
40.8 46.5 -5.7 40 50
43.7 46.5 -2.8 40 51
37.1 46.5 -9.4 40 52
34.7 46.5 -11.8 40 53
33.1 46.5 -13.4 40 54
31.5 46.5 -15 40 55
34.4 46.5 -12.1 40 56
20.8 46.5 -25.7 40 57
46.4 44.9 1.5 41 57
Page 2
•
40.3 44.9 3.4 42 57
40.8 44.9 -4.1 42 58
43.7 44.9 -1.2 42 59
37.1 44.9 -7.8 42 60
3/4.7 44.9 -10.2 42 61
33.1 44.9 -11.8 42 62
31.5 44.9 -13.4 42 63
J,j.4 44.9 -10.5 42 64
20.8 44.9 -24.1 42 65
48.3 46.4 1.9 43 65
40.8 46.4 -5.6 43 66
43.7 46.4 -2.7 43 67
37.1 46.4 -9.3 43 68
34.7 46.4 -11.7 43 69
33.1 46.4 -13.3 43 70
31.5 46.4 -14.9 43 71
34.4 46.4 -12 43 72
20.8 46.4 -25.6 43 73
40.8 48.3 -7.5 43 74
43.7 48.3 -4.6 43 75
37.1 48.3 -11.2 43 76
34.7 48.3 -13.6 43 77
33.1 48.3 -15.2 43 78
31 .5 48.3 -16.8 43 79
34.4 48.3 -13.9 43 80
20.8 48.3 -27.5 43 81
,1:n 40.8 2.9 44 81
37.1 40.8 -3.7 44 82
34.7 40.8 -6.1 44 83
33.1 . 40.8 -7.7 44 84
31.5 40.8 -9.3 44 85
34.4 40.8 -6.4 44 86
20.8 40.8 -20 44 87
37.1 43.7 -6.6 44 88
34.7 43.7 -9 44 89
33.1 43.7 -10.6 44 90
31.5 43.7 -12.2 44 91
34.4 43.7 -9.3 44 92
20.8 43.7 -22.9 44 93
34.7 37.1 -2.4 44 94
33.1 37.1 -4 44 95
31.5 37.1 -5.6 44 96
34.4 37.1 -2.7 44 97
20.8 37.1 -16.3 44 98
33.1 34.7 -1.6 44 99
31.5 34.7 -3.2 44 100
34.4 34.7 -0.3 44 101
20.8 34.7 -13.9 44 102
31.5 33.1 -1.6 44 103
34.4 33.1 1.3 45 103
Page 3
20.8
34.4
20.8
20.8
33.1
31.5
31.5
34.4
S Statistic = 46 -106 = -60
Tied Group Value
1 34.7
Time Period
9/26/2000
12/6/2000
3/9/2001
6/12/2001
9/5/2001
12/11/2001
3/11/2002
6/12/2002
9/12/2002
12/12/2002
3/12/2003
6/11/2003
9/11/2003
3/2/2004
9/15/2004
3/29/2005
9/28/2005
9/22/2006
-12.3
2.9
-10.7
-13.6
Members
2
45
46
46
46
Observations
There are O time periods with multiple data
A= 18
B=0
C=0
D=0
E=2
F=0
a= 12546
b" 44064
C = 612
Group Variance = 696
Z-Score = -2.23639
104
104
105
106
Comparison Level at 95% confidence level= -1 .65463 (downward trend)
-2.23639 < -1.65463 indicating a downward trend
Page 4
•
•
Mann-Kendall Trend Analysis
Parameter: cis-1,2-Dichloroethene
Well: MW-27
Or:ginal Data (Not Transformed)
Non-Detects Replaced with 0
Xj Xk Xj -Xk Positives Negatives
50.6 56.4 -5.8 0 1
39.7 56.4 -16.7 0 2
39.4 56.4 -17 0 3
25.3 56.4 -31.1 0 4
18.5 56.4 -37.9 0 5
16.3 56.4 -40.1 0 6
16.7 56.4 -39.7 0 7
14.6 56.4 -41.8 0 8
11.4 56.4 -45 0 9
9.3 56.4 -47.1 0 10
13.3 56.4 -43.1 0 11
17.2 56.4 -39.2 0 12
10.1 56.4 -46.3 0 13
6.7 56.4 -49.7 0 14
13.4 56.4 -43 0 15
14.9 56.4 -41.5 0 16
11.6 56.4 -44.8 0 17
39.7 50.6 -10.9 0 18
39.4 50.6 -11.2 0 19
?5,3 50.6 -25.3 0 20
ie.5 50.6 -32.1 0 21
16.3 50.6 -34.3 0 22
16.7 50.6 -33.9 0 23
14.6 50.6 -36 0 24
11.4 50.6 -39.2 0 25
9.3 50.6 -41.3 0 26
13.3 50.6 -37.3 0 27
17.2 50.6 -33.4 0 28
10.1 50.6 -40.5 0 29
6.7 50.6 -43.9 0 30
13.4 50.6 -37.2 0 31
14.9 50.6 -35.7 0 32
11.6 50.6 -39 0 33
39.4 39.7 -0.3 0 34
25.3 39.7 -14.4 0 35
18.5 39.7 -21.2 0 36
16.3 39.7 -23.4 0 37
16.7 39.7 -23 0 38
14.6 39.7 -25.1 0 39
11.4 39.7 -28.3 0 40
9.3 39.7 -30.4 0 41
13.3 39.7 -26.4 0 42
17.2 39.7 -22.5 0 43
10.1 39.7 -29.6 0 44
6.7 39.7 -33 0 45
13.4 39.7 -26.3 0 46
14.9 39.7 -24.8 0 47
Page 1
•
11.6 39.7 -28.1 0 48
25.3 39.4 -14.1 0 49
18.5 39.4 -20.9 0 50
16.3 39.4 -23.1 0 51
16.7 39.4 -22.7 0 52
14.6 39.4 -24.8 0 53
11 .4 39.4 -28 0 54
9.3 39.4 -30.1 0 55
13.3 39.4 -26.1 0 56
17.2 39.4 -22.2 0 57
10.1 39.4 -29.3 0 58
6.7 39.4 -32.7 0 59
13.4 39.4 -26 0 60
14.9 39.4 -24.5 0 61
11.6 39.4 -27.8 0 62
18.5 25.3 -6.8 0 63
16.3 25.3 -9 0 64
16.7 25.3 -8.6 0 65
14.6 25.3 -10.7 0 66
11.4 25.3 -13.9 0 67
9.3 25.3 -16 0 68
13.3 25.3 -12 0 69
17.2 25.3 -8.1 0 70
10.1 25.3 -15.2 0 71
6.7 25.3 -18.6 0 72
13.4 25.3 -11.9 0 73
14.9 25.3 -10.4 0 74
11.6 25.3 -13.7 0 75
16.3 18.5 -2.2 0 76
16.7 18.5 -1.8 0 77
14.6 18.5 -3.9 0 78
11.4 18.5 -7.1 0 79
9.3 18.5 -9.2 0 80
13.3 18.5 -5.2 0 81
17.2 18.5 -1.3 0 82
10.1 18.5 -8.4 0 83
6.7 18.5 -11.8 0 84
13.4 18.5 -5.1 0 85
14.9 18.5 -3.6 0 86
11.6 18.5 -6.9 0 87
16.7 16.3 0.4 87
14.6 16.3 -1.7 88
11.4 16.3 -4.9 89
9.3 16.3 -7 90
13.3 16.3 -3 1 91
17.2 16.3 0.9 2 91
10.1 16.3 -6.2 2 92
6.7 16.3 -9.6 2 93
13.4 16.3 -2.9 2 94
14.9 16.3 -1.4 2 95
11.6 16.3 -4.7 2 96
14.6 16.7 -2.1 2 97
Page 2
•
11.4 16.7 -5.3 2 98
9.3 16.7 -7.4 2 99
13.3 16.7 -3.4 2 100
17.2 16.7 0.5 3 100
10.1 16.7 -6.6 3 101
6.7 16.7 -10 3 102
13.4 16.7 -3.3 3 103
l~.9 16.7 -1.8 3 104
11.6 16.7 -5.1 3 105
11.4 14.6 -3.2 3 106
9.3 14.6 -5.3 3 107
13.3 14.6 -1.3 3 108
17.2 14.6 2.6 4 108
10.1 14.6 -4.5 4 109
6.7 14.6 -7.9 4 110
13.4 14.6 -1.2 4 111
14.9 14.6 0.3 5 111
11.6 14.6 -3 5 112
9.3 11.4 -2.1 5 113
13.3 11.4 1.9 6 113
17.2 11.4 5.8 7 113
10.1 11.4 -1.3 7 114
6.7 11.4 -4.7 7 115
13.4 11.4 2 8 115
14.9 11.4 3.5 9 115
11.6 11.4 0.2 10 115
::,.3 9.3 4 11 115
17.2 9.3 7.9 12 115
10.1 9.3 0.8 13 115
6.7 9.3 -2.6 13 116
13.4 9.3 4.1 14 116
14.9 9.3 5.6 15 116
11.6 9.3 2.3 16 116
17.2 13.3 3.9 17 116
10.1 13.3 -3.2 17 117
6.7 13.3 -6.6 17 118
13.4 13.3 0.1 18 118
14.9 13.3 1.6 19 118
11.6 13.3 -1.7 19 119
10.1 17.2 -7.1 19 120
6.7 17.2 -10.5 19 121
13.4 17.2 -3.8 19 122
14.9 17.2 -2.3 19 123
11.6 17.2 -5.6 19 124
6.7 10.1 -3.4 19 125
13.4 10.1 3.3 20 125
14.9 10.1 4.8 21 125
11.6 10.1 1.5 22 125
13.4 6.7 6.7 23 125
14.9 6.7 8.2 24 125
Page 3
11.6
14.9
11.6
11.6
6.7
13.4
13.4
14.9
S Statistic= 26 -127 = -101
Tied Group Value
Time Period
9/25/2000
12/6/2000
3/9/2001
6/12/2001
9/5/2001
12/11/2001
3/11/2002
6/12/2002
9/12/2002
12/12/2002
3/12/2003
6/11/2003
9/11/2003
3/2/2004
9/15/2004
3/29/2005
9/28/2005
9/22/2006
4.9
1.5
-1.8
-3.3
Members
25
26
26
26
Observations
There are O time periods with multiple data
A=0
B=0
C=0
D=0
E=0
F=0
a= 12546
b = 44064
C = 612
Group Variance = 697
Z-Score = -3.78777
125
125
126
127
Comparison Level at 95% confidence level= -1.65463 (downward trend)
-3.78777 < -1.65463 indicating a downward trend
Page 4
•
•
Mann-Kendall Trend Analysis
Parameter: cis-1,2-Dichloroethene
Well: MW-14
Original Data (Not Transformed)
Non-Detects Replaced with 0
Xj Xk Xj-Xk Positives Negatives
84.2 94.4 -10.2 0 1
51.1 94.4 -43.3 0 2
33.3 94.4 -61.1 0 3
27.5 94.4 -66.9 0 4
23.6 94.4 -70.8 0 5
44.4 94.4 -50 0 6
30.7 94.4 -63.7 0 7
33.2 94.4 -61.2 0 8
26.7 94.4 -67.7 0 9
16.2 94.4 -78.2 0 10
26.2 94.4 -68.2 0 11
21.7 94.4 -72.7 0 12
17.6 94.4 -76.8 0 13
13.2 94.4 -81.2 0 14
39 94.4 -55.4 0 15
17.8 94.4 -76.6 0 16
43.3 94.4 -51.1 0 17
51.1 84.2 -33.1 0 18
33.3 84.2 -50.9 0 19
27.5 84.2 -56.7 0 20
23.6 84.2 -60.6 0 21
44.4 84.2 -39.8 0 22
30.7 84.2 -53.5 0 23
33.2 84.2 -51 0 24
26.7 84.2 -57.5 0 25
16.2 84.2 -68 0 26
26.2 84.2 -58 0 27
21.7 84.2 -62.5 0 28
17.6 84.2 -66.6 0 29
13.2 84.2 -71 0 30
39 84.2 -45.2 0 31
17.8 84.2 -66.4 0 32
43.3 84.2 -40.9 0 33
33.3 51.1 -17.8 0 34
27.5 51.1 -23.6 0 35
23.6 51.1 -27.5 0 36
44.4 51.1 -6.7 0 37
30.7 51.1 -20.4 0 38
33.2 51.1 -17.9 0 39
26.7 51.1 -24.4 0 40
16.2 51.1 -34.9 0 41
26.2 51.1 -24.9 0 42
21.7 51.1 -29.4 0 43
17.6 51.1 -33.5 0 44
13.2 51.1 -37.9 0 45
39 51.1 -12.1 0 46
17.8 51.1 -33.3 0 47
Page 1
•
43.3 51.1 -7.8 0 48
27.5 33.3 -5.8 0 49
23.6 33.3 -9.7 0 50
44.4 33.3 11.1 50
30.7 33.3 -2.6 51
33.2 33.3 -0.1 52
26.7 33.3 -6.6 53
16.2 33.3 -17.1 54
26.2 33.3 -7.1 55
21.7 33.3 -11.6 56
17.6 33.3 -15.7 57
13.2 33.3 -20.1 1 58
39 33.3 5.7 2 58
17.8 33.3 -15.5 2 59
43.3 33.3 10 3 59
23.6 27.5 -3.9 3 60
44.4 27.5 16.9 4 60
30.7 27.5 3.2 5 60
33.2 27.5 5.7 6 60
26.7 27.5 -0.8 6 61
16.2 27.5 -11.3 6 62
26.2 27.5 -1.3 6 63
21.7 27.5 -5.8 6 64
17.6 27.5 -9.9 6 65
13.2 27.5 -14.3 6 66
39 27.5 11.5 7 66
17.8 27.5 -9.7 7 67
43.3 27.5 15.8 8 67
44.4 23.6 20.8 9 67
30.7 23.6 7.1 10 67
33.2 23.6 9.6 11 67
26.7 23.6 3.1 12 67
16.2 23.6 -7.4 12 68
26.2 23.6 2.6 13 68
21.7 23.6 -1.9 13 69
17.6 23.6 -6 13 70
13.2 23.6 -10.4 13 71
39 23.6 15.4 14 71
17.8 23.6 -5.8 14 72
43.3 23.6 19.7 15 72
30.7 44.4 -13.7 15 73
33.2 44.4 -11.2 15 74
26.7 44.4 -17.7 15 75
16.2 44.4 -28.2 15 76
26.2 44.4 -18.2 15 77
21.7 44.4 -22.7 15 78
17.6 44.4 -26.8 15 79
13.2 44.4 -31.2 15 80
39 44.4 -5.4 15 81
17.8 44.4 -26.6 15 82
43.3 44.4 -1.1 15 83
33.2 30.7 2.5 16 83
Page 2
•
26.7 30.7 -4 16 84
16.2 30.7 -14.5 16 85
26.2 30.7 -4.5 16 86
21.7 30.7 -9 16 87
17.6 30.7 -13.1 16 88
13.2 30.7 -17.5 16 89
39 30.7 8.3 17 89
17.8 30.7 -12.9 17 90
43.3 30.7 12.6 18 90
26.7 33.2 -6.5 18 91
16.2 33.2 -17 18 92
26.2 33.2 -7 18 93
21.7 33.2 -11.5 18 94
17.6 33.2 -15.6 18 95
13.2 33.2 -20 18 96
39 33.2 5.8 19 96
17.8 33.2 -15.4 19 97
43.3 33.2 10.1 20 97
16.2 26.7 -10.5 20 98
26.2 26.7 -0.5 20 99
21.7 26.7 -5 20 100
17.6 26.7 -9.1 20 101
13.2 26.7 -13.5 20 102
39 26.7 12.3 21 102
17.8 26.7 -8.9 21 103
43.3 26.7 16.6 22 103
26.2 16.2 10 23 103
21.7 16.2 5.5 24 103
17.6 16.2 1.4 25 103
13.2 16.2 -3 25 104
39 16.2 22.8 26 104
17.8 16.2 1.6 27 104
43.3 16.2 27.1 28 104
21.7 26.2 -4.5 28 105
17.6 26.2 -8.6 28 106
13.2 26.2 -13 28 107
39 26.2 12.8 29 107
17.8 26.2 -8.4 29 108
43.3 26.2 17.1 30 108
17.6 21.7 -4.1 30 109
13.2 21.7 -8.5 30 110
39 21.7 17.3 31 110
17.8 21.7 -3.9 31 111
43.3 21.7 21.6 32 111
13.2 17.6 -4.4 32 112
39 17.6 21.4 33 112
17.8 17.6 0.2 34 112
43.3 17.6 25.7 35 112
39 13.2 25.8 36 112
17.8 13.2 4.6 37 112
Page 3
43.3
17.8
43.3
43.3
13.2
39
39
17.8
S Statistic= 40 -113 = -73
Tied Group Value
Time Period
9/25/2000
12/5/2000
3/9/2001
6/12/2001
9/5/2001
12/11/2001
3/13/2002
6/12/2002
9/11/2002
12/12/2002
3/12/2003
6/12/2003
9/11/2003
3/3/2004
9/15/2004
3/30/2005
9/29/2005
9/20/2006
•
30.1
-21.2
4.3
25.5
Members
38
38
39
40
Observations
There are 0 time periods with multiple data
A=O
B=0
C =0
D =0
E=0
F=0
a= 12546
b = 44064
C = 612
Group Variance = 697
Z-Score = -2.72719
112
113
113
113
Comparison Level at 95% confidence level= -1.65463 (downward trend)
-2.72719 < -1.65463 indicating a downward trend
Page 4
•
•
Mann-Kendall Trend Analysis
Parameter: cis-1,2-Dichloroethene
Well: MW-12
Original Data (Not Transformed)
Non-Detects Replaced with 0
Xj Xk Xj -Xk Positives Negatives
12.7 16.5 -3.8 0 1
8.1 16.5 -8.4 0 2
12.6 16.5 -3.9 0 3
12.3 16.5 -4.2 0 4
12.3 16.5 -4.2 0 5
16 16.5 -0.5 0 6
14.8 16.5 -1.7 0 7
14.6 16.5 -1.9 0 8
18.7 16.5 2.2 1 8
11.7 16.5 -4.8 1 9
43.7 16.5 27.2 2 9
64 16.5 47.5 3 9
57.2 16.5 40.7 4 9
40 16.5 23.5 5 9
56 16.5 39.5 6 9
20.8 16.5 4.3 7 9
13.9 16.5 -2.6 7 10
8.1 12.7 -4.6 7 11
12.6 12.7 -0.1 7 12
12.1 12.7 -0.4 7 13
12.3 12.7 -0.4 7 14
16 12.7 3.3 8 14
14.8 12.7 2.1 9 14
14.6 12.7 1.9 10 14
18.7 12.7 6 11 14
11.7 12.7 -1 11 15
43.7 12.7 31 12 15
64 12.7 51.3 13 15
57.2 12.7 44.5 14 15
40 12.7 27.3 15 15
56 12.7 43.3 16 15
20.8 12.7 8.1 17 15
13.9 12.7 1.2 18 15
12.6 8.1 4.5 19 15
12.3 8.1 4.2 20 15
12.3 8.1 4.2 21 15
16 8.1 7.9 22 15
14.8 8.1 6.7 23 15
14.6 8.1 6.5 24 15
18.7 8.1 10.6 25 15
11.7 8.1 3.6 26 15
43.7 8.1 35.6 27 15
64 8.1 55.9 28 15
57.2 8.1 49.1 29 15
40 8.1 31.9 30 15
56 8.1 47.9 31 15
20.8 8.1 12.7 32 15
Page 1
•
13.9 8.1 5.8 33 15
12.3 12.6 -0.3 33 16
12.3 12.6 -0.3 33 17
16 12.6 3.4 34 17
14.8 12.6 2.2 35 17
14.6 12.6 2 36 17
18.7 12.6 6.1 37 17
11.7 12.6 -0.9 37 18
43.7 12.6 31.1 38 18
64 12.6 51.4 39 18
57.2 12.6 44.6 40 18
40 12.6 27.4 41 18
56 12.6 43.4 42 18
20.8 12.6 8.2 43 18
13.9 12.6 1.3 44 18
12.3 12.3 0 44 18
16 12.3 3.7 45 18
14.8 12.3 2.5 46 18
14.6 12.3 2.3 47 18
18.7 12.3 6.4 48 18
11.7 12.3 -0.6 48 19
43.7 12.3 31.4 49 19
64 12.3 51.7 50 19
57.2 12.3 44.9 51 19
40 12.3 27.7 52 19
56 12.3 43.7 53 19
20.8 12.3 8.5 54 19
13.9 12.3 1.6 55 19
16 12.3 3.7 56 19
14.8 12.3 2.5 57 19
14.6 12.3 2.3 58 19
18.7 12.3 6.4 59 19
11.7 12.3 -0.6 59 20
43.7 12.3 31.4 60 20
64 12.3 51.7 61 20
57.2 12.3 44.9 62 20
40 12.3 27.7 63 20
56 12.3 43.7 64 20
20.8 12.3 8.5 65 20
13.9 12.3 1.6 66 20
14.8 16 -1.2 66 21
14.6 16 -1.4 66 22
18.7 16 2.7 67 22
11.7 16 -4.3 67 23
43.7 16 27.7 68 23
64 16 48 69 23
57.2 16 41.2 70 23
40 16 24 71 23
56 16 40 72 23
20.8 16 4.8 73 23
13.9 16 -2.1 73 24
14.6 14.8 -0.2 73 25
Page 2
•
le.l 14.8 3.9 74 25
11.7 14.8 ·3.1 74 26
43.7 14.8 28.9 75 26
64 14.8 49.2 76 26
57.2 14.8 42.4 77 26
40 14.8 25.2 78 26
56 14.8 41.2 79 26
:l\).d 14.8 6 80 26
13.9 14.8 ·0.9 80 27
18.7 14.6 4.1 81 27
11.7 14.6 ·2.9 81 28
43.7 14.6 29.1 82 28
64 14.6 49.4 83 28
57.2 14.6 42.6 84 28
-10 14.6 25.4 85 28
56 14.6 41.4 86 28
20.8 14.6 6.2 87 28
13.9 14.6 ·0.7 87 29
11.7 18.7 .7 87 30
43.7 18.7 25 88 30
64 18.7 45.3 89 30
57.2 18.7 38.5 90 30
40 18.7 21.3 91 30
56 18.7 37.3 92 30
20.8 18.7 2.1 93 30
13.9 18.7 ·4.8 93 31
43.7 11.7 32 94 31
64 11.7 52.3 95 31
57.2 11.7 45.5 96 31
40 11.7 28.3 97 31
56 11.7 44.3 98 31
20.8 11.7 9.1 99 31
13.9 11.7 2.2 100 31
64 43.7 20.3 101 31
57.2 43.7 13.5 102 31
40 43.7 ·3.7 102 32
56 43.7 12.3 103 32
20.8 43.7 ·22.9 103 33
13.9 43.7 -29.8 103 34
57.2 64 ·6.8 103 35
40 64 -24 103 36
56 64 ·8 103 37
20.8 64 -43.2 103 38
13.9 64 -50.1 103 39
40 57.2 ·17.2 103 40
56 57.2 · 1.2 103 41
20.8 57.2 -36.4 103 42
13.9 57.2 ·43.3 103 43
56 40 16 104 43
20.8 40 -19.2 104 44
Page 3
13.9
20.8
13.9
13.9
40
56
56
20.8
S Statistic = 104 · 48 = 56
Tied Group Value
1 12.3
Time Period
9/26/2000
12/6/2000
3n/2001
6/5/2001
9/5/2001
12111/2001
3/12/2002
6/13/2002
9/1212002
12/11/2002
3/14/2003
6/10/2003
9/1212003
3/4/2004
9/15/2004
3/30/2005
9/27/2005
9/19/2006
0
-26.1
-35.2
-42.1
-6.9
Members
2
104
104
104
104
Observations
There are 0 time periods with multiple data
A= 18
B=0
C=0
D=0
E=2
F=0
a= 12546
b = 44064
C = 612
Group Variance = 696
Z-Score = 2.08477
45
46
47
48
Comparison Level at 95% confidence level= 1.65463 (upward trend)
2.08477 > 1.65463 indicating an upward trend
Page 4
•
•
Mann-Kendall Trend Analysis
Parameter: cis-1,2-Dichloroethene
Well: MW-29
Original Data (Not Transformed)
Non-Detects Replaced with O
Xj Xk Xj -Xk Positives Negatives
2.2 2.5 -0.3 0 1
4.1 2.5 1.6 1
1.9 J 2.5 -0.6 2
2.5 2.5 0 2
4.7 2.5 2.2 2 2
3.4 2.5 0.9 3 2
3.4 2.5 0.9 4 2
3.8 2.5 1.3 5 2
3.9 2.5 1.4 6 2
3.5 2.5 1 7 2
5.8 2.5 3.3 8 2
13.1 2.5 10.6 9 2
8.9 2.5 6.4 10 2
9.8 2.5 7.3 11 2
4.4 2.5 1.9 12 2
4 2.5 1.5 13 2
0.69 J 2.5 -1.81 13 3
4.1 2.2 1.9 14 3
1.9 J 2.2 -0.3 14 4
2.5 2.2 0.3 15 4
4.7 2.2 2.5 16 4
3.4 2.2 1.2 17 4
3.4 2.2 1.2 18 4
3.8 2.2 1.6 19 4
3.9 2.2 1.7 20 4
3.5 2.2 1.3 21 4
5.8 2.2 3.6 22 4
13.1 2.2 10.9 23 4
8.9 2.2 6.7 24 4
9.8 2.2 7.6 25 4
4.4 2.2 2.2 26 4
4 2.2 1.8 27 4
0.69 J 2.2 -1.51 27 5
1.9 J 4.1 -2.2 27 6
2.5 4.1 -1.6 27 7
4.7 4.1 0.6 28 7
3.4 4.1 -0.7 28 8
3.4 4.1 -0.7 28 9
3.8 4.1 -0.3 28 10
3.9 4.1 -0.2 28 11
3.5 4.1 -0.6 28 12
5.8 4.1 1.7 29 12
13.1 4.1 9 30 12
8.9 4.1 4.8 31 12
9.8 4.1 5.7 32 12
4.4 4.1 0.3 33 12
4 4.1 -0.1 33 13
Page 1
• •
0.69J 4.1 -3.41 33 14
2.5 1.9 J 0.6 34 14
4.7 1.9 J 2.8 35 14
3.4 1.9 J 1.5 36 14
3.4 1.9 J 1.5 37 14
3.8 1.9 J 1.9 38 14
3.9 1.9 J 2 39 14
3.5 1.9 J 1.6 40 14
5.8 1.9 J 3.9 41 14
13.1 1.9 J 11.2 42 14
8.9 1.9 J 7 43 14
9.8 1.9 J 7.9 44 14 4.4 1.9 J 2.5 45 14
4 1.9 J 2.1 46 14
0.69J 1.9 J -1.21 46 15
4.7 2.5 2.2 47 15 3.4 2.5 0.9 48 15 3.4 2.5 0.9 49 15
3.8 2.5 1.3 50 15 3.9 2.5 1.4 51 15
3.5 2.5 1 52 15
5.8 2.5 3.3 53 15
13.1 2.5 10.6 54 15
8.9 2.5 6.4 55 15 9.8 2.5 7.3 56 15 4.4 2.5 1.9 57 15
4 2.5 1.5 58 15
0.69J 2.5 -1.81 58 16
3.4 4.7 -1.3 58 17
3.4 4.7 -1.3 58 18 3.8 4.7 -0.9 58 19
3.9 4.7 -0.8 58 20
3.5 4.7 -1.2 58 21
5.8 4.7 1.1 59 21
13.1 4.7 8.4 60 21
8.9 4.7 4.2 61 21
9.8 4.7 5.1 62 21
4.4 4.7 -0.3 62 22
4 4.7 -0.7 62 23
0.69J 4.7 -4.01 62 24
3.4 3.4 0 62 24
3.8 3.4 0.4 63 24
3.9 3.4 0.5 64 24
3.5 3.4 0.1 65 24
5.8 3.4 2.4 66 24
13.1 3.4 9.7 67 24
8.9 3.4 5.5 68 24
9.8 3.4 6.4 69 24
4.4 3.4 1 70 24
4 3.4 0.6 71 24
0.69 J 3.4 -2.71 71 25
3.8 3.4 0.4 72 25
Page 2
•
3.9 3.4 0.5 73 25
3.5 3.4 0.1 74 25
5.8 3.4 2.4 75 25
13.1 3.4 9.7 76 25
8.9 3.4 5.5 77 25
9.8 3.4 6.4 78 25
4.4 3.4 1 79 25
·1 3.4 0.6 80 25
0.69 J 3.4 -2.71 80 26
3.9 3.8 0.1 81 26
3.5 3.8 -0.3 81 27
5.8 3.8 2 82 27
13.1 3.8 9.3 83 27
8.9 3.8 5.1 84 27
9.8 3.8 6 85 27
4.4 3.8 0.6 86 27
4 3.8 0.2 87 27
0.69 J 3.8 -3.11 87 28
3.5 3.9 -0.4 87 29
5.8 3.9 1.9 88 29
13.1 3.9 9.2 89 29
8.9 3.9 5 90 29
9.8 3.9 5.9 91 29
4.4 3.9 0.5 92 29
4 3.9 0.1 93 29
0.69J 3.9 -3.21 93 30
5.8 3.5 2.3 94 30
13.1 3.5 9.6 95 30
8.9 3.5 5.4 96 30
9.8 3.5 6.3 97 30
4.4 3.5 0.9 98 30
4 3.5 0.5 99 30
0.69 J 3.5 -2.81 99 31
13.1 5.8 7.3 100 31
8.9 5.8 3.1 101 31
9.8 5.8 4 102 31
4.4 5.8 -1.4 102 32
4 5.8 -1.8 102 33
0.69 J 5.8 -5.11 102 34
8.9 13.1 -4.2 102 35
9.8 13.1 -3.3 102 36
4.4 13.1 -8.7 102 37
4 13.1 -9.1 102 38
0.69 J 13.1 -12.41 102 39
9.8 8.9 0.9 103 39
4.4 8.9 -4.5 103 40
4 8.9 -4.9 103 41
0.69 J 8.9 -8.21 103 42
4.4 9.8 -5.4 103 43
4 9.8 -5.8 103 44
Page 3
0.69J
4
0.69 J
0.69 J
9.8
4.4
4.4
4
S Statistic = 103 -48 = 55
Tied Group Value
1 2.5
2 3.4
Time Period
9/26/2000
12/7/2000
3/8/2001
6/7/2001
9/5/2001
12/12/2001
3/13/2002
6/13/2002
9/11/2002
12/13/2002
3/13/2003
6/12/2003
9/10/2003
3/3/2004
9/14/2004
3/30/2005
9/28/2005
9/20/2006
-9.11
-0.4
-3.71
-3.31
Members
2
2
103
103
103
103
Observations
There are O time periods with multiple data
A= 36
B=0
C=0
D=0
E=4
F=0
a= 12546
b = 44064
C = 612
Group Variance = 695
Z-Score = 2.04834
45
46
47
48
Comparison Level at 95% confidence level= 1.65463 (upward trend)
2.04834 > 1.65463 indicating an upward trend
Page 4
•
' -•
Mann-Kendall Trend Analysis
Parameter: cis-1,2-Dichloroethene
Well: MW-22A
Original Data (Not Transformed)
Non-Detects Replaced with 0
Xj Xk Xj -Xk Positives Negatives
ND<0 ND 0.95 J -0.95 0 1
ND<0 ND 0.95 J -0.95 0 2
1.3 J 0.95 J 0.35 2
0.68J 0.95 J -0.27 3
ND<0 ND 0.95 J -0.95 4
0.82J 0.95 J -0.13 1 5
1.1 J 0.95 J 0.15 2 5
1.1 J 0.95 J 0.15 3 5
1.3 J 0.95 J 0.35 4 5
1.4 J 0.95 J 0.45 5 5
1.8J 0.95 J 0.85 6 5
2.4 0.95 J 1.45 7 5
2.1 0.95 J 1.15 8 5
2.4 0.95 J 1.45 9 5
2.9 0.95 J 1.95 10 5
1.6 0.95 J 0.65 11 5
1.9 0.95 J 0.95 12 5
ND<0 ND ND<0 ND 0 12 5
1.3 J ND<0 ND 1.3 13 5
0.G8 J ND<0 ND 0.68 14 5
ND<0 ND ND<0 ND 0 14 5
0.82 J ND<0 ND 0.82 15 5
1.1 J ND<0 ND 1.1 16 5
1.1 J ND<0 ND 1.1 17 5
1.3 J ND<0 ND 1.3 18 5
1.4 J ND<0 ND 1.4 19 5
1.8J ND<0 ND 1.8 20 5
2.4 ND<0 ND 2.4 21 5
2.1 ND<0 ND 2.1 22 5
2.4 ND<0 ND 2.4 23 5
2.9 ND<0 ND 2.9 24 5
1.6 ND<0 ND 1.6 25 5
1.9 ND<0 ND 1.9 26 5
1.3 J ND<0 ND 1.3 27 5
0.68J ND<0 ND 0.68 28 5
ND<0 ND ND<0 ND 0 28 5
0.82 J ND<0 ND 0.82 29 5
1.1 J ND<0 ND 1 .1 30 5
1.1 J ND<0 ND 1.1 31 5
1.3 J ND<0 ND 1.3 32 5
1.4 J ND<0 ND 1.4 33 5
1.8J ND<0 ND 1.8 34 5
2.4 ND<0 ND 2.4 35 5
2.1 ND<0 ND 2.1 36 5
2.4 ND<0 ND 2.4 37 5
2.9 ND<0 ND 2.9 38 5
1.6 ND<0 ND 1.6 39 5
Page 1
•
1.9 ND<0 ND 1.9 40 5
0.68J 1.3 J -0.62 40 6
ND<0 ND 1.3 J -1.3 40 7
0.82 J 1.3 J -0.48 40 8
1.1 J 1.3 J -0.2 40 9
1.1 J 1.3 J -0.2 40 10
1.3 J 1.3 J 0 40 10
1.4 J 1.3 J 0.1 41 10
1.8J 1.3 J 0.5 42 10
2.4 1.3 J 1.1 43 10
2.1 1.3 J 0.8 44 10
2.4 1.3 J 1.1 45 10
2.9 1.3 J 1.6 46 10
1.6 1.3 J 0.3 47 10
1.9 1.3 J 0.6 48 10
ND<0 ND 0.68 J -0.68 48 11
0.82J 0.68J 0.14 49 11
1.1 J 0.68 J 0.42 50 11
1.1 J 0.68J 0.42 51 11
1.3 J 0.68J 0.62 52 11
1.4 J 0.68 J 0.72 53 11
1.8 J 0.68 J 1.12 54 11
2.4 0.68J 1.72 55 11
2.1 0.68 J 1.42 56 11
2.4 0.68 J 1.72 57 11
2.9 0.68J 2.22 58 11 1.6 0.68J 0.92 59 11
1.9 0.68 J 1.22 60 11
0.82J ND<0 ND 0.82 61 11
1.1 J ND<0 ND 1.1 62 11
1.1 J ND<0 ND 1.1 63 11
1.3 J ND<0 ND 1.3 64 11
1.4 J ND<0 ND 1.4 65 11
1.8J ND<0 ND 1.8 66 11
2.4 ND<0 ND 2.4 67 11
2.1 ND<0 ND 2.1 68 11
2.4 ND<0 ND 2.4 69 11
2.9 ND<0 ND 2.9 70 11
1.6 ND<0 ND 1.6 71 11
1.9 ND<0 ND 1.9 72 11
1 .1 J 0.82 J 0.28 73 11
1 .1 J 0.82J 0.28 74 11
1.3 J 0.82J 0.48 75 11
1.4 J 0.82 J 0.58 76 11
1.8 J 0.82 J 0.98 77 11
2.4 0.82J 1.58 78 11
2.1 0.82 J 1.28 79 11
2.4 0.82 J 1.58 80 11
2.9 0.82J 2.08 81 11
1.6 0.82 J 0.78 82 11
1.9 0.82J 1.08 83 11
1.1 J 1.1 J 0 83 11
Page 2
•
1.3 J 1.1 J 0.2 84 11
1.4 J 1.1 J 0.3 85 11
1.8 J 1.1 J 0.7 86 11
2.4 1.1 J 1.3 87 11
2.1 1.1 J 1 88 11
2.4 1.1 J 1.3 89 11
2.9 1.1 J 1.8 90 11
i . (j 1.1 J 0.5 91 11
1.9 1.1 J 0.8 92 11
1.3 J 1.1 J 0.2 93 11
1.4 J 1.1 J 0.3 94 11
1.8 J 1.1 J 0.7 95 11
2.4 1.1 J 1.3 96 11
2.1 1.1 J 1 97 11
2.4 1.1 J 1.3 98 11
2.9 1.1 J 1.8 99 11
1.6 1.1 J 0.5 100 11
1.9 1.1 J 0.8 101 11
1.4 J 1.3 J 0.1 102 11
1.8 J 1.3 J 0.5 103 11
2.4 1.3 J 1.1 104 11
2.1 1.3 J 0.8 105 11
2.4 1.3 J 1 .1 106 11
2.9 1.3 J 1.6 107 11
1.6 1.3 J 0.3 108 11
1.9 1.3 J 0.6 109 11
i .c: J 1.4 J 0.4 110 11
2.4 1.4 J 1 111 11
2.1 1.4 J 0.7 112 11
2.4 1.4 J 1 113 11
2.9 1.4 J 1.5 114 11
1.6 1.4 J 0.2 115 11
1.9 1.4 J 0.5 116 11
2.4 1.8 J 0.6 117 11
2.1 1.8 J 0.3 118 11
2.4 1.8 J 0.6 119 11
2.9 1.8 J 1.1 120 11
1.6 1.8 J -0.2 120 12
1.9 1.8 J 0.1 121 12
2.1 2.4 -0.3 121 13
2.4 2.4 0 121 13
2.9 2.4 0.5 122 13
1.6 2.4 -0.8 122 14
1.9 2.4 -0.5 122 15
2.4 2.1 0.3 123 15
2.9 2.1 0.8 124 15
1.6 2.1 -0.5 124 16
1.9 2.1 -0.2 124 17
2.9 2.4 0.5 125 17
1.6 2.4 -0.8 125 18
Page 3
1.9 2.4
1.6 2.9
1.9 2.9
1.9 1.6
S Statistic= 126 -21 = 105
Tied Group Value
1 0
2 1.3
3 1.1
4 2.4
Time Period
9/27/2000
12/712000
3/8/2001
6/712001
9/5/2001
12/12/2001
3/13/2002
6/13/2002
9/11/2002
12/13/2002
3/13/2003
6/11/2003
9/10/2003
3/2/2004
9/14/2004
3/29/2005
9/28/2005
9/20/2006
-0.5
-1.3
-1
0.3
Members
3
2
2
2
125
125
125
126
Observations
1
1
There are 0 time periods with multiple data
A= 120
B=0
C=6
D=0
E = 12
F=0
a= 12546
b = 44064
C = 612
Group Variance = 690.333
Z-Score = 3.95826
19
20
21
21
Comparison Level at 95% confidence level= 1.65463 (upward trend)
3.95826 > 1.65463 indicating an upward trend
Page 4
•
, • !J§,,_;h_
NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Dexter R. Matthews, Director
Mr. Michael Townsend
Remedial Project Manager
Division of Waste Management
March 13, 2007
Superfund Remedial & Site Evaluation Branch
Waste Management Division
US EPA Region IV
61 Forsyth Street, 11th Floor
Atlanta, Georgia 30303
RE: Annual Groundwater Remedial Action
Performance Monitoring Report -2006
General Electric/Shepherd Farm NPL Site
East Flat Rock, Henderson County
Dear Mr. Townsend:
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
The North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NC DENR) Superfund
Section has received the Annual Groundwater Remedial Action Performance Monitoring Report -
2006 for the General Electric/Shepherd Farm National Priority List (NPL) Site. The NC DENR
Superfund Section has reviewed this document and offers the following attached comments.
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this document. If you have any questions, please feel
free to call me at [phone].
Attachment
Sincerely,
D au-i..c{ 13 . IY/. alli.<i {A./ I d r:;,-
David B. Mattison
Environmental Engineer
NC DENR Superfund Section
1646 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1646
Phone [phone] I FAX [phone] I Internet httpl/wastenotnc.org
An Equal Opportunity/ Affirmative Action Employer-Printed on Dual Purpose Recycled Paper
' -' • • Michael Townsend
March 13, 2007
· Page l
GENERAL ELECTRIC/SHEPHERD FARM NPL SITE
Annual Groundwater Remedial Action Performance Monitoring Report-2006
General
GeoTrans, on behalf of General Electric (GE), has requested that the monitoring program be
modified by the following: Removal of Chloroform from the list ofRemedial Target Compounds
or an increase in Remedial Goal to 70 µg/L; and, Change to annual monitoring in accordance with
the Remedial Goal Verification Plan. Before any further consideration of a reduction in sampling
frequency can be made, an evaluation of the performance of the Groundwater Remediation System ·
(GRS) should be conducted. This is in response to two major issues: the operation and maintenance
(O&M) of the GRS; and, the current inability of the GRS to contain the contaminant plume. A work
plan and schedule for evaluating and optimizing the performance of the GRS should be prepared as
soon as possible.
Table of Contents
I. Please correct the page numbering and the page numbers given in the Table of Contents for
Section 3 -Water Quality Monitoring Activities.
Section 1.2 Regulatory History
2. . Please correct the spelling of the. word "biphenyls" in the fourth sentence of Section 1.2.
Section 5 Summary and Conclusions
3. In accordance with the data presented in Table 4-2 and Table 4-6, please correct the second
sentence of the third paragraph of Section 5 to state that the volume of groundwater extracted
and treated by the Groundwater Remediation System (GRS) in Pumping Year (PY) 2006 was
13.1 million gallons.
Figure 3-3 Plan View of September 2006 PCE Measurements at the GE Subsite
4. Please correct the tetrachloroethylene (PCE) values given for performance monitoring wells
MW-27 and MW-27A in Figure 3-3.
Table 3-6 Summary of Statistical Trend Analysis for Metals
5. Please correct the values given for "Total Down" for the contaminant nickel in Table 5-6.
Michael Townsend
March 13, 2007
Page2
•
Appendix D Performance Monitoring Wells Time-Concentration Tables
6. In accordance with the laboratory reports included as Appendix A of the Annual
Groundwater Remedial Action Performance Monitoring Report -2004 (Geo Trans, 2004),
please correct Table D-1 to indicate that the groundwater samples collected at all GE Subsite
performance wells in September 2004 contained no detectable concentrations ofberyllium at
a laboratory detection limit of0.80 µg/L.
7. In accordance with the laboratory reports included as Appendix A of the Annual
Groundwater Remedial Action Performance Monitoring Report -2004 (GeoTrans, 2004),
please correct Table D-1 to indicate that the groundwater samples collected at all GE Subsite
performance wells in September 2004 with the exception of MW-13A and MW-27A
contained no detectable concentrations of lead at a laboratory detection limit of2.9 µg/L.
8. In accordance with the laboratory reports included as Appendix A of the Annual
Groundwater Remedial Action Performance Monitoring Report -2004 (Geo Trans, 2004),
please correct Table D-1 to indicate that the groundwater samples collected at GE Subsite
performance wells MW-3, MW-8, MW-12, MW-12B, MW-14, MW-16 and MW-22A in
September 2004 contained no detectable concentrations of nickel at a laboratory detection
limit of 0.80 µg/L.
9. In accordance with the laboratory reports included as Appendix A of the Annual
Groundwater Remedial Action Performance Monitoring Report -2004 (GeoTrans, 2004),
please correct Table D-2 to indicate that the groundwater samples collected at all Shepherd
Farm Subsite performance wells in September 2004 contained no detectable concentrations
ofberyllium at a laboratory detection limit of0.80 µg/L.
l 0. In. accordance with the laboratory reports included as Appendix A of the Annual
Groundwater Remedial Action Performance Monitoring Report -2004 (GeoTrans, 2004),
please correct Table D-2 to indicate that the groundwater samples collected at Bhepherd
Farm Subsite performance wells MW-64A and MW-66 in September 2004 contained no
detectable concentrations oflead at a laboratory detection limit of2.9 µg/L.
11. In accordance with the laboratory reports included as Appendix A of the Annual
Groundwater Remedial Action Performance Monitoring Report -2004 (GeoTrans, 2004),
please correct Table D-2 to indicate that the groundwater samples collected at Shepherd
Farm Subsite performance wells MW-64A and MW-66 in September 2004 contained no
detectable concentrations of nickel at a laboratory detection limit of 0.80 µg/L.
Michael Townsend
March B, 2007
Page 3
•
Appendix F Performance Monitoring Well Water Quality Statistical Results Examples
12. The statistical analysis of cis-1,2-dicloroethene ( cis-1,2-DCE) water quality results, as given
in Table 3-5, was inadvertently omitted from Appendix F. Please correct this oversight.
13. The statistical analysis of trichloroethene (TCE) water quality results observed at
performance monitoring well MW-29, as given in Table 3-5, was inadvertently omitted from
Appendix F. Please correct this oversight.
www.geotransinc.com
Mr. Michael Townsend
Remedial Project Manager
U.S. EPA Region 4
61 Forsyth Street
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960
Reference: Performance Monitoring
• I 080 Holcomb Bridge Road
Building 100, Suite 190
Roswell, GA 30076
770-642-1000 FAX [phone]
January 31, 2007
SUPtRFUi\1ti SECTION
GE/Shepherd Farm Site, East Flat Rock, NC
GeoTrans Project No. 2204.139.01
Dear Mr. Townsend:
General Electric is actively conducting performance monitoring at the above
referenced site for the groundwater remediation system (GRS) in accordance with the
Remedial Goal Verification Plan (RGVP) (HSI Geo Trans, 2000). Enclosed, for your review,
please find the Annual Groundwater Remedial Action Performance Monitoring Report-2006.
This report provides the results of the surface water, sediment, !,'fOundwater, and treatment
system sampling performed during the sixth year of system operation.
~~ Based on the results of the performance monitoring data, the following modifications
to the monitoring program are recommended.
• Removal of Chloroform from the list of Remedial Target Compounds or an increase in Remedial Goal to 70 µg/L.
The Remedial Target Compound Goals contai11ed i11 the ROD where based on
Federal and StateMCLs current at the time. Since 1995 when the ROD was originally
submitted the North Caroli11a MCL has i11creased from 0.19 µg/L to 70 µg/L in 2003
according to NCDENR Title 15A. There is currently no Federal MCL for chloroform.
Any previous occurrences of ch/orofonn concentrations above 70 µg/L occurred when the method detection limit was above 70 µg/L.
• Change to Annual monitoring in accordance with RGVP.
According to the monitoring schedule contained in the RGVP, sampli11g is to be
reduced from semi-a11nual to annual. We would like approval to continue an11ual
sampling as laid out in the plan Sampling of the influent and ejjluent treatment system
will continue to occur quarterly.
P: \GE\DOCS\EP/:1 \EPl\l 59_NOV06. DOC
•
Thank you for considering these requests. Please feel free lo call me with any
questions you may have.
cc: Barry Hallock (GELS)
David Mattison (NCDENR)
Tom Augspurger (US Fish and Wildlife)
P, \GE\DOCS\EPA\EPAl 59 _NOV06. DOC
Sincerely,
Fa imah Hinds
Staff Scientist
Ge0Trans. ""·
www.geotransinc.com
Mr. Michael Townsend
Remedial Project Manager
U.S. EPA Region 4
61 Forsyth Street
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960
• I 080 Holcomb Bridge Road
Building 100, Suite 190
Roswell, GA 30076
770-642-1000 FAX [phone]
Decemb, ~~:: :-0
2
:
7
~ ~
SUPERFUND SECTION
Reference: Annual Groundwater Remedial Action
Performance Monitoring-September 2006
GE/Shepherd Farm Site, East Flat Rock, NC
Geo Trans Project No. 2204. I 39.0 I
Dear Mr. Townsend:
On behalf of General Electric Lighting Systems (GE), GeoTrans, Inc. (GeoTrans) is
actively conducting performance monitoring at the above referenced site for the groundwater
remediation system (GRS) in accordance with the Remedial Goal Verification Plan (RGVP) (HSI
Geo Trans, 2000). This package contains the letters sent to residents in November and December
with the validated results of the September 2006 sampling. Note that there was no letter sent to the
residents at WW-17. This year the residents were placed on city water and the well was rendered
inaccessible. Currently arrangements are being made with the input of the residents to make the
well accessible for future sampling events.
Please feel free to call Barry Hallock at [phone] or me with any questions you may
have.
cc: Barry Hallock (GELS)
David Mattison (NCDENR)
,~~
Fatimah Hinds
Staff Scientist
r
www.geotransinc.com
Mr. Michael Townsend
Remedial Pioject Manager
U.S. EPA Region 4
61 Forsyth Street
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960
I OilO Holcomb Bridge Ro;_icl
Building I 00, Suite I 'JO
Roswell, GA 30076
770-642-1000 FAX [phone]
May 9,200 ~ ri O W (g ITT\
MAY 1 8 2006 ~
SUPERFUND SECTION
Reference: Response to comments on the Annual Groundwater
Remedial Action Performance Monitoring Report-2005
GE/Shepherd Farm Site, East Flat Rock, NC
Geo Trans Project No. 2204.139.01
Dear Mr. Townsend:
On behalf of General Electric Lighting Company (GE), GeoTrans, Inc. (GeoTrans) is
actively conducting performance monitoring at the above referenced site for the groundwater
remediation system (GRS) in accordance with the Remedial Goal Verification Plan (RGVP) (HSI
Geo Trans, 2000). Enclosed for your review please find the response to comments provided by Mr.
David Mattison of the NCDENR on the Annual Groundwater Remedial Action Performance
Monitoring Report-2005. Replacement pages are included.
Please feel free to contact Barry Hallock at [phone] or myself at 770-642-1000
with any questions you may have.
cc: Barry Hallock (GELS)
David Mattison (NCDENR)
Tom Augspurger (US Fish and Wildlife)
? , \GE\DOCS\ EPA \£pal 5 2 _ Ma y06 . doc
~ili
Fatimah Hinds
Staff Scientist
• •
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
General Electric/Shepherd Farm Site
Annual Groundwater Remedial Action Performance Monitoring Report-2005
Table of Contents
I. Please correct the List of Tables in the Table of Contents to indicate that the title
of Table 4-5 is "Estimated mass removal -September 2005".
Response: Text was corrected as requested.
Section 4.1.2 GRS Operation and Maintenance
2. The fourth sentence of section 4.1.2 refers to a valve at the 'Alzak'. Please revise
this sentence to clarify what the 'Alzak' unit is (i.e. bag filters, etc.)
Response: Text was corrected as requested.
3. The tenth sentence of Section 4.1.2 indicates that a work order was written to
remove RWSF-2 to investigate low pump rates. Please provide the results of
these activities, including any pump cleaning or servicing activities, results once
the RWSF-2 pump was placed back into service, etc.
Response: At the time of the report RWSF-2 was still being investigated. Since that time,
RWSF-2 was found to have a faulty pump and controls, which were replaced. The pump
was monitored closely and pumped 292,000 gallons in February 2006.
4. Section 4.1.2 indicates that recovery well R W-7 is subject to premature corrosion
due to its location and presumably, its proximity to the large wetland near the
General Electric Facility's eastern border. Please state when recovery well RW-7
was placed back into service and detail any additional inspection and maintenance
items to be included to prevent future leaks and other maintenance issues.
Response: Text was corrected as requested.
Section 4.2.2 Mass Removal
5. Please revise the third, fourth, and fifth sentences of Section 4.2.2 in accordance
with Comment #14 below.
Response: Text was corrected as requested.
Section 5.4 Treatment System Monitoring
-6. Please revise the first and second sentences of Section 5.4 in accordance with
Comment #14 below.
•
Response: Despite the changes made as a result of Comment # 14, there were no changes
to the first and second sentences of Section 5.4.
Section 6 Summary and Conclusions
7. In accordance with the data presented in Table 4-2, please correct the second
sentence of the third paragraph of Section 6 to state that the volume of
groundwater extracted and treated by the Groundwater Remediation System
(GRS) in Pumping Year (PY 2005 was 14.3 million gallons).
Response: Text was corrected as requested.
8. Please review the last sentence of the third paragraph of Section 6 in accordance
with Comment #14
Response: Text was corrected as requested .
. Figure 5-2 VOC Mass Removal History of the GRS
9. Please revise Figure 5-2 in accordance with Comment #14 below.
Response: Text was corrected as requested.
Table 3-7 Surface Water Analytical Results for September 2005
I 0. In accordance with the laboratory analytical results submitted as Appendix A,
please correct Table 3-7 to indicate that the surface water sample SW-2 contained
0.741 micrograms per liter (ug/L) tetrachloroethene (PCE) and 51.4 ug/L
manganese.
Response: Text was corrected as requested.
11. In accordance with the laboratory analytical results submitted as Appendix A,
please correct Table 3-7 to indicate that the surface water sample SW-3 contained
0.8 IJ ug/L PCE
Response: Text was corrected as requested.
Table 3-8 Sediment Analytical Results for September 2005
12. In accordance with the laboratory analytical results submitted as Appendix A,
please correct Table 3-8 to indicate that the sediment sample SED-2 contained
97.9 micrograms per kilogram (ug/kg) total polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs).
Response: Text was corrected as requested.
Table 4-4 Influent and Effluent Water Results for the 4th Quarter, 2005
13. In accordance with the laboratory analytical results submitted as Appendix A,
please correct Table 4-4 to indicate that the remediation system effluent water
•
sample contained no detectable concentrations of PCE at a laboratory detection
limit of 1.0 ug/L.
Response: Text was corrected as requested.
Table 4-5 Estimated Mass Removal -September 2005
14. In accordance with the data provided in Table 4-2, please correct the value given
for 'Total Gallons Treated April -September' to be 6,883,787 gallons. Of
course, this change in values means that all subsequent values and calculations
must be adjusted accordingly. Please correct these oversights.
Response: Text was corrected as requested.
Table 4-6 Influent and Effluent Air Results for the 4th Quarter
15. Please correct the value given for 'Percent Reduction' for benzene in Table 4-6.
Response: Text was corrected as requested as well as sentence four and five in Section
4.2.3 Air.
Table 5-5 Summary of Statistical Trend Analysis for VOCs
16. Please correct the values given for 'Total Up' and 'Total Down' for the
contaminant cis-1,2-dichloroethene (cis-1 ,2-DCE) in Table 5-5.
Response: Text was corrected as requested.
17. Please correct Table 5-5 to reflect the statistical analysis results of the
contaminant trichloroethene (TCE) as provided in Appendix F (i.e. Up).
Response: Text was corrected as requested.
18. Please correct the value given for 'Total Up' for the contaminant TCE in Table 5-
5.
Response: Text was corrected as requested.
Table 5-6 Summary of Statistical Trend Analysis for Metals
19. Please correct the value given for 'Total Down' for the contaminant manganese in
Table 5-6.
Response: Text was corrected as requested.
20. Please correct Table 5-6 to reflect the statistical analysis results of the
contaminant nickel as provided in Appendix F (i.e. Up).
Response: Text was corrected as requested.
•
21. Please correct the value given for 'Total Up' for the contaminant nickel in Table
5-6.
Response: Text was corrected as requested.
Table 5-7 Summary of Surface Water Results Since GRG Start Up
22. In accordance with the laboratory analytical results submitted as Appendix A,
please correct Table 5-7 to indicate that in September 2005 surface water sample
SW-3 contained 0.81J ug/L PCE.
Response: Text was corrected as requested.
Table 5-8 Summary of Sediment Results Since GRS Start Up
23. In accordance with the laboratory analytical results submitted as Appendix A,
please correct Table 5-8 to indicate that in September 2005 sediment sample
SED-1 contained 2.1 B ug/kg lead and 1.68 ug/kg nickel.
Response: Text was corrected as requested.
24. _In accordance with the laboratory analytical results submitted as Appendix A,
please correct Table 5-8 to indicate that sediment sample SED-2 contained 97.9
ug/kg total PCBs.
Response: Text was corrected as requested.
Table 5-9 Summary oflnfluent and Effluent Water Results Since GRS Start Up
25. In accordance with the laboratory analytical results submitted as Appendix A;
please correct Table 5-9 to indicate that in September 2005 the remediation
system effluent water sample contained no detectable concentrations of PCE at a
laboratory detection limit of 1.0 ug/L.
Response: Text was corrected as requested.
Appendix C Performance Monitoring Wells Time-Concentration Plots
26. Figure C-15 -Manganese Time Concentration Plots for MW-64 and MW-64A
and Figure C-16 -Manganese Time Concentration Plots for RWSF-1 and MW-66
were inadvertently omitted from Appendix. Please correct these oversights.
Response: Text was corrected as requested.
• •
LIST OF TABLES
1-1. Remediation goals for RTCs in groundwater.
1-2. Remediation goals/POTW effluent limitations and monitoring requirements.
2-1. Bunched Arrowhead wetland piezometer water level measurements.
2-2. Recovery well water level measurements.
2-3. Monitoring well water level measurements.
2-4. Stream flow measurements for September 2005.
3-1. Performance monitoring schedule.
3-2. Performance well network.
3-3. GE Subsite -Performance well analytical results for September 2005.
3-4. Shepherd Farm Subsite -Performance well analytical results for September 2005. 3-5. Residential well monitoring network.
3-6. Residential well analytical results for September 2005.
3-7. Surface water analytical results for September 2005.
3-8. Sediment analytical results for September 2005.
4-1. Measured recovery well pumpage 2005.
4-2. Monthly effluent discharge rate.
4-3. Mass balance check
4-4. Influent and effluent water results for the 4th quarter, 2005.
4-5. Estimated mass removal-September 2005.
4-6. Influent and effluent air results for the 4th quarter, 2005.
5-1. Summary of Bunched Arrowhead wetland piezometer water level measurements.
5-2. Summary of recovery well water level measurements.
5-3. Summary of monitoring well water level measurements.
5-4. Summary of stream flow measurements since GRS start up.
5-5. Summary of statistical trend analysis for VOCs.
5-6. Summary of statistical trend analysis for metals.
5-7. Summary of surface water results since GRS start up.
5-8. Summary of sediment results since GRS start up.
5-9. Summary of influent and effluent water results since GRS start up.
5-10. Summary of influent and effluent air results since GRS start up.
P:IGE\RGVP\Sept05\scpt05rpt2 _rev I .doc
V
• •
4 SUMMARY OF TREATMENT SYSTEM ACTIVITIES
4.1 GRS OPERATION
4.1.] PUMPAGE MEASUREMENTS
Average flow through the GRS for the Pumping Year (PY) was approximately 26.9
gallons per minute (gpm). The average flow rate was 23.4 gpm in April, 23.1 gpm in May,
24.9 gpm in June, 25.4 gpm in July, 43.6 gpm in August and 25. l gpm in September. The
objective is to manage total flow to within a 10% tolerance of the design rate of32 gpm. The
high pump rate found in August is indicative of high water levels at the site activating the
wells a greater frequency of time. Operation and maintenance issues causing the flow rate to
be below 32 gpm are addressed in Section 4.1.2.
Total flow measurements have been collected monthly from all recovery wells and
for the treated effluent exiting the treatment building. Table 4-1 lists the measured pumpage
from each recovery well. Table 4-2 lists the effluent discharge rate from the treatment
building. Under ideal conditions, the sum of the individual recovery wells should equal the
total flow through the treatment building (Table 4-3). The difference between total flow at
the treatment building and the sum of individual recovery wells was 8.6% in April, 0.4% in
May, 3.2% in June, 8.3% in July, -51.0% in August and 1.6% in September. Small
differences of± 5% are within the expected range of deviation and are therefore acceptable.
Larger percent differences are due to the operation and maintenance issues addressed in
Section 4.1.2.
4.1.2 GRS OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
During the second half of the PY, the following adjustments and repairs were
completed:
• Repaired leaks at RW-7.
• Replaced all well locks (including intact locks) and well plugs.
• Requested to have all broken wells repaired.
A high vault alarm caused the system to need to be restarted in June. The discharge pumps
were left on manual which caused the system to shut down due to high and low air in July
but, the system was restarted immediately. The valve at the Alzak created backpressure
P. IG E\RG V P\Sept05\scpt031v12 _rev! .Joe -4-1.
•
causing the system to be shut down for two days in July 2005. The Alzak air scrubber is fed
by groundwater during the week and city water on the weekend. During the weekend prior
to the 25 th of July a power outage was experienced. The system was restarted the following
Monday with everything operational. R W-7 was shut down twice in September for repair. A
work order to fix leaks at R W-7 was initiated in October. Also in October, a work order was
written to remove RWSF-2 to investigate low pump rates. The pump motor and controls
were found to be faulty and were subsequently replaced. The multiple leak repairs at RW-7
can be attributed to the well's location. It is located in the wetlands which is causing parts to
corrode prematurely. As a result the repairs necessary are related to pipe corrosion at
elbows, joints, etc. The well is being monitored routinely in order to correct problems as
they occur. In addition, it appears that the -51 % difference between the total flow at the
wells and the total flow into the treatment building can be attributed to the leaks in R W-7.
The water is being pumped but is leaking out before it makes it to the treatment facility.
4.2 TREATMENT SYSTEM EFFLUENT MONITORING
Extracted groundwater is treated for organic compounds usmg an air stripper.
Treated groundwater is piped to the GE facility for use as process water, pretreated for
metals, and discharged to the POTW. The air effluent from the stripping process is directed
through a GAC unit prior to discharge to the atmosphere. The treatment system water and air
effluent are sampled routinely during operations to ensure proper function of the air stripper
and carbon unit, to ensure remediation goals are met, and to ensure POTW and air emission
requirements are met.
4.2.1 WATER
Influent and effluent water samples from the treatment system were collected on
September 27, 2005. Results are presented in Table 4-4. Laboratory reports are included in
Appendix A. Effluent water samples for VOCs were collected within the treatment building
after treatment by the air stripper. Effluent samples for metals were collected after metals
pretreatment and prior to POTW discharge. Laboratory results show that TCE, 1,2-
dichloroethane, chloroform, PCE, and manganese are above remediation goals at in the GRS-
INF sample. The GRS-EFF samples were non-detect or below remediation goals for all
P. IG EIRGV l'\Sept05\sept05rpt2 _rev 1. doc -4-2.
•
voes and metals.
4.2.2 MASS REMOVAL
Influent water quality measurements (Table 4-4) are used in conjunction with
pumpage rates to calculate the estimated mass removal from the aquifer due to operation of
the GRS. Table 4-5 lists the estimated mass removal for each of the RTes in the second half
of the PY. During the half-year period, 9. 78 pounds of voes and 93.13 pounds of metals
were removed. PeE has the highest estimated mass removal among the voes, totaling 8.27
pounds in the second half of the PY. Among the metals, manganese has the highest
estimated removal totaling 90.77 pounds for the second half of the PY.
4.2.3 AIR
Air influent and effluent samples from the carbon unit were collected on September
30, 2005. Results are presented in Table 4-6. PeE has a continued high removal rate.
Benzene showed a negative value which can be attributed to the high reporting limit used by
the lab. The effluent concentration for benzene was non-detect. Other constituents including
chloroform, 1,2-dichloroethane, trans-1,2-dicholoroethene, and cis-1,2-dichloroethene show
a minimal to moderate removal rate. Vinyl chloride was non-detect in both samples. TeE
showed a moderate increase in concentration from influent to effluent. A voe removal
efficiency criterion for the GAe has been set at 80%. When this criteria is exceeded,
(<80%), the GAe will be replaced within the unit. The removal rate based on these
analytical results was 84%. Historically the GAe does not function as efficiently during the
winter. The removal rate is close enough to the efficiency criterion minimum that the GAe
replacement should be scheduled before the next air sampling event in order to prevent a
lapse in performance. The proximity of the actual removal efficiency rate to the criteria
could explain the increase in TeE. Laboratory reports are included in Appendix A. Air
samples will continue to be sampled semi-annually and will be collected again during the
March sampling event.
P :IGE'\RGVP\Sq,t0furpt05rpt2 _rev I .doc
•
6 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
Groundwater elevations at the site were generally above average in 2005. Recent
rainfall in the area has ended the drought conditions that were present during the last few
years. This, in tum, has increased the water table elevation in the area and, therefore, any
computation of drawdown from the October 2001 baseline, which was taken during the
drought, is relatively meaningless. To produce an accurate drawdown the treatment system
would need to be shut down for an extended period to let the water table recover to its new
high level. This would negate any capture that is currently taking place and is not
recommended.
The Annual Ecological Monitoring Report for 2005 (Ecological Solutions, 2005)
states that it appears that the wetlands are recovering from a long standing drought and that
groundwater extraction from the GRS still appears to have little or no effect on the surficial
wetland system. Clearing of the utility easement along the Large GE Wetland had a direct
impact on the bunched arrowhead population. With the increased sunlight and reduction of
competing species the bunched arrowhead population increased. The next ecological
monitoring event will occur in September 2006.
The GRS has been operational for five full pumping years (from October 2000 to
September 2005). The volume of groundwater extracted and treated by the GRS was 10. 7
million gallons in PY2001, 13.6 million gallons in PY2002, 15.8 million gallons in PY2003,
15.2 million gallons in PY2004, and 14.3 million gallons in PY2005. Groundwater was
extracted at an average rate of 20.3 gpm for PY200 I, 25 .9 gpm for PY2002, 30.0 for
PY2003, 26.2 for PY2004, and 26.9 gpm for PY2005. The GRS removed 9.78 pounds of
VOCs and 93.13 pounds of metals in PY2005.
A statistical trend analysis was completed on the groundwater quality data collected at
the performance monitoring wells. The overall trend in RTC concentrations was downward,
however, some upward trends were observed in some wells for some parameters. The
general increase in cis-1,2-Dichloroethene and Vinyl Chloride along with the corresponding
decrease (at upgradient wells) of PCE and TCE provides indirect evidence of in-situ
reductive dechlorination in the plume. Sufficient quarterly sampling events have occurred so
that the observed trends are statistically significant.
Air emissions are consistently orders of magnitude below North Carolina Air
P :IGEIRG VP\Sept05\sept05rpt2 _rev l . doc . 6-1.
P:\GE\RGVP\SEPT05\T&F\T4-5 xis, landscape voe
45.0 ,,=====:::::-----------------------------, 200.00
i ,semi-Annual
40 _0 +· -L ____ C_u_m_ui_a_tiv_e _ _,__ ___________________
1
180.00
--160.00 35.0 ··!-------------------------
,:,
30.0 +-----------------------/
"' 140.00 > 0 E "' 120.00 a::
"' ti>-.. "' :;; ,:,
--100.00 C: u ::,
0 O >!:.
--80.00 "' > :;::;
.!l! ::,
--60.00 E ::, u
0.0 ,
-1-... 40.00
--20.00
1. 0.00
Mar-01 Sep-01 Mar-02 Sep-02 Mar-03 Sep-03 Mar-04 Sep-04 Mar-05 Sep-05 Mar-06 Sep-06
TITLE:
voe mass removal history of the GRS
LOCATION· GE/Shepherd Farm Site, East Flat Rock, NC
CHECKED;_RTH ___ -j FIGURE· 3 5 Geo Trans DRAl'Tmlee -5 2 0 4 'I] , Inc. FILE: GRSHJSTORY.XLS -
DATE: 11/19/01
Table 3-7.Surface Water Analytical Results for September 2005
Parameter
VOCs (u /L
1,2-Dichloroethane
Benzene
Chlorofonn
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene
T etrachloroethcne
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene
Trichloroethenc
Vinyl chloride
METALS u /L
Lead
Manganese
Nickel
PCB'sTOTAL
U,ND -not detected
J-<letected, estimated result
NC Surface
Water
Standards
99
71.4
470
140000
8.85
3.2
92.4
525
25
50
88
UJ-not detected, Detection Limit approximate
D-<lilution sample
E-exceed calibration limit
B-found in blank
SW-I SW-2
ND (1.0) ND (2.0)
ND (1.0) ND (1.0)
ND (1.0) ND (2.0)
ND (\.0) ND (2.0)
ND (LO) 0.74 J
ND (1.0) ND (2.0)
ND (1.0) ND (2.0)
ND (1.0) ND (1.0)
2.1 8 2.8 B
21.6 5).4
I.I u 1.2 B
ND (0.48) 0.7
SW-3 SW-4 SW-5 SW-6
ND (1.0) ND (1.0) ND (1.0) ND (1.0)
ND (1.0) ND (1.0) ND (1.0) ND (1.0)
ND (1.0) ND (1.0) ND (1.0) ND (1.0) • ND (1.0) ND (1.0) ND (1.0) ND (1.0)
0.81 J ND (1.0) I.I ND (1.0)
ND (1.0) ND (1.0) ND (I.OJ ND (1.0)
ND (1.0) ND (1.0) ND (1.0) ND (1.0)
ND (1.0) ND (1.0) ND (1.0) ND (1.0)
4.1 B
52.0
I.I u
ND (0.48)
•
Table 3-8. Sediment Analytical Results for September 2005.
Parameter
1,2-Dichloroethane
Benzene
Chloroform
cis-1,2-Dich\oroethene
Tetrachlorocthcne
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene
Trichloroethene
Vinyl chloride
METALS (ug/kg)
Lead
Manganese
Nickel
PCB TOTAL (ug/kg)
U,ND -not detected
J-dctcctcd, estimated result
NC Sediment
Standards
1000
UJ-not detected, Detection Limit approximate
D-dilution sample
E-exceed calibration limit
B-found in blank
SED-1
(5.8) ND
(5.8) ND
(5.8) ND
(5.8) ND
(5.8) ND
(5.8) ND
(5.8) ND
(5.8) ND
2.1 B
56.3
1.6 B
(21.0) ND
•
SED-2 SED-3
(5.2) ND (6.6) ND
(5.2) ND (6.6) ND
(5.2) ND (6.6) ND
(5.2) ND (6.6) ND
(5.2) ND (6.6) ND
(5.2) ND (6.6) ND
(5.2) ND (6.6) ND
(5.2) ND (6.6) ND
1.4 B 3.4 13
33.4 189
I. I B 1.9 B
97.9 J 47.7 J
•
Table 4-4. Influent and effluent water results for the 4th quarter, 2005.
Remediation Target Remediation Goal 9/27/2005
Influent Effluent 1
Compounds (ug/L) /,,n/L) lun/Ll
voes
Benzene 1 ND (1.0) ND (1.0)
Chloroform 1 2.1 ND (1.0)
1 ,2 Dichloroethane 1 2.8 ND (1.0)
cis-1,2 Dichloroethene 70 15.7 ND (1.0)
trans-1,2 Dichloroethene 70 0.6 ND (1.0)
Tetrachloroethene 1 144 ND (1.0)
Trichloroethene 2.8 5.1 ND (1.0)
Vinyl Chloride 1 ND (1.0) ND (1.0)
Metals 2
Lead 15 3.0 B 1.2 U
Manganese 50 1580 15.2
Nickel 100 38.2 B 1.4 B
Notes:
1) Effluent sample collected after airstripper for VOCs and after metals pretreatment in the GE plant for metals.
2) Metals effluent samples are taken after use as process water in the GE plant and after metals pretreatment,
therefore, GE metals effluent concentrations do not directly correspond to GRS metals influent concentrations.
U,ND indicates non-detectable levels
The number indicated in parenthesis is the reporting limit
B indicates found in method blank
J indicates an estimated value
Balded values indicate detected concentrations greater than remediation goal.
Table 4-5. Estimated Mass Removal-September 2005.
Total gallons treated since startup:
Total Gallons treated April -September:
Total liters treated April -September:
GRS Influent
Remediation Target GRS Design Influent sampled
Compound Concentration 9/27/05
1-19/L 1-19/L
voes
Benzene 0.4 0
Chloroform 0.6 2.1
1,2-Dichloroethane 12.7 2.8
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene 43.2 15.7
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene 0.2 0.6
Tetrachloroethene 302.2 144
Trichloroethene 12.6 5.1
Vinyl Chloride 0.1 0
Total voes 372.0 170.3
Metals
Lead 15.0 3
Manganese 531.7 1580
Nickel 4.9 38.2
Total Metals 551.6 1621.2
Notes:
Liters per gallon: 3.785411784
Pounds per gram: 0.00220462262184878
69,585,405
6,883,787
26,057,968
April -September
Mass Removed
1-'9
0.00E+00
5.47E+07
7.30E+07
4.09E+08
1.56E+07
3.75E+09
1.33E+08
0.00E+00
4.44E+09
7.82E+07
4.12E+10
9.95E+08
4.22E+10
April -September
Mass Removed
g
-
54.72
72.96
409.11
15.63
3,752.35
132.90
-
4437.7
78.17
41,171.59
995.41
42245.2
Quarterly mass removal is determined by multiplying the GRS influent concentration sampled on 03/02/04 by the total liters treated during the quarter.
Total mass removed ts determined by summing quarterly mass removal estimates.
GRS design influent concetration from the Final Design for Groundwater (HSI GeoTrans, 2000)
•Nitrobenzene, Barium and Beryllium are no longer analyzed. They are not included in the totals since 2000.
Total Mass
April -September Removed Since
Mass Removed September 2000*
lb lb •
-0.06
0.12 0.84
0.16 2.07
0.90 18.40
0.03 0.18
8.27 148.24
0.29 13.00
-0.37
9.78 183.16
0.17 1.39
90.77 776.45
2.19 12.72
93.13 790.56
•
Table 4-6. Influent and effluent air results for the 4th quarter, 2005.
Remediation Target North Carolina
Air Standard 1 Influent
Compounds Samnled on 09/30/05 (lb/yr)
ug/m3 lb/yr
Benzene 8.1 3.8 0.11
Chloroform 290 20 0.56
1,2 Dichloroethane 260 30 0.84
trans-1,2 Dichloroethene NA 7.1 0.20
cis-1,2 Dichloroethene NA 166 4.63
Tetrachloroethene 13000 2120 59.14
Trichloroethene 4000 42 1.17
Vinyl Chloride 26 ND (4.1) ND(0.11)
!Total voes I --I 2388.9 I 66.64
1. Toxic Air Pollutant Procedures; Emission Rates Requiring a Permit 15A NCAC 20.0711
Notes:
ND indicates non-detectable levels
The number indicated in parenthesis is the detection limit
lb/yr computed assuming blower operates at 850 cfm
Effluent non-detect lb/yr computed using detection limit
Percent Reduction computed using half of the detection limit for non-detects
T4-6 xis
•
Effluent Percent
Sampled on 09/30/05 Reduction
ug/m3 lb/yr
ND (5.1) ND(0.14) -34
19 0.53 5
28 0.78 7
5.9 0.16 17
161 4.49 3
41 1.14 98
127 3.54 -202
ND (4.1) ND(0.11) 0
I 381.9 I 10.65 I 84 I
•
Table 5-5. Summary of statistical trend analysis for VOCs
Parameter 1,2-DCA Benzene Chloroform cis-1,2-PCE DCE
I GE Subsite
MW-3 Down
MW-8
MW-12 Up Down Uo
MW-12A Down Down
MW-12B Down Down
MW-13 Down
MW-13A
MW-14 Down Down
MW-14A Down
MW-15
MW-16 Down Down
MW-16A Up
MW-22A Uo Uo
MW-27 Uo Down Down
MW-27A Up Down Up
MW-29 Uo Uo
I Shepherd Farm Subsite
MW-64
MW-64A
MW-66
RWSF-1
ITotal Ue I
:Total Down :
3 I 1 I
Notes:
1,2-Dichloroethane(1,2-DCA)
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene(cis-1,2-DCE)
T etrachloroethene(PC E)
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene(trans-1,2-DCE)
Trichloroethene(TCE)
Up
I 4
2 6
If no statistically significant trend, either upward or downward,
is found there is no trend reported.
T5-5 and 5-6.xls
Down
Down
Up
I 4
9
trans-1,2-TCE Vinyl
DCE Chloride
I
Down
Up
Down
Down
Down
Down
Down
Down
Down
Down Uo
Uo
Up
I
Down
Down
Down
I I 2 I 2 I 12
•
Table 5-6. Summary of statistical trend analysis for Metals
I Parameter I Lead I Manganese
I GE Subsite
MW-3 Down
MW-8 Down
MW-12
MW-12A
MW-12B Down
MW-13
MW-13A
MW-14 Down
MW-14A
MW-15
MW-16
MW-16A Down
MW-22A
MW-27 Up
MW-27A Up Down
MW-29
I Shepherd Farm Subsite
MW-64
MW-64A Down
MW-66 Down
RWSF-1
ITotal ue I 1 I 1
'.Total Down : 1 7
Notes:
1,2-Dichloroethane(1,2-DCA)
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene(cis-1,2-DCE)
Tetrachloroethene(PCE)
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene(trans-1,2-DCE)
Trichloroethene(TCE)
I Nickel
Up
Up
Down
Up
Down
Up
Up
Down
I 5
3
•
I I
I
I
If no statistically significant trend, either upward or downward,
is found there is no trend reported.
T5-5 and 5-6.xls
Table 5-7. Summary of surface water results since GRS start up.
NC Surface
Parameter Water
voes (ug/L)
1,2-Dichloroethane 99
Benzene 71.4
Chloroform 470
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene 140000
T etrachloroethene 8.85
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene 3.2
Trichloroethene 92.4
!Vinyl chloride 525
SVOes (ug/L)
Nitrobenzene 1900
METALS (ug/L)
Barium 1400
Beryllium 0.117
Lead 25
Manganese
Nickel 88
PeB's TOTAL -
NC Surface
Parameter Water
voes (ug/L)
1,2-Dichloroethane 99
Benzene 71.4
Chloroform 470
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene 140000
Tetrachloroethene 8.85
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene 3.2
Trichloroethene 92.4
Vinyl chloride 525
* SW-1 Was not sampled due to dry conditions.
U,ND -not detected
J-detected, estimated result
UJ-oot detected, Detection Limit approximate
D-dilution sample
E-exceed calibration limit
B-found in blank
P:\GE\RGVP\Sept05\T&FIT5-7.xls, Sheet1
Seotember 2000
SW-1 SW-2
(2.0) ND (2.0) ND
(1.0) ND (1.0) ND
(2.0) ND (2.0) ND
(2.0) ND (2.0) ND
(2.0) ND 2.6
(2.0) ND (2.0) ND
(2.0) ND (2.0) ND
(1.0) ND (1.0) ND
(6.0) ND (5.0) ND
16.7 J 118.0 J
0.5 U 0.6 U
1.2 U 4.3 J
43.6 J 11.4 J
2.0 J 19.2 J
(0.5) ND (0.5) ND
Seotember 2000
SW-4 SW-5
(2.0) ND (2.0) ND
(1.0) ND (1.0) ND
(2.0) ND (2.0) ND
(2.0) ND (2.0) ND
0.7 J 2.4
(2.0) ND (2.0) ND
(2.0) ND (2.0) ND
(1.0) ND /1.0l ND
SW-3
(2.0) ND
(1.0) ND
(2.0) ND
(2.0) ND
2.0
(2.0) ND
(2.0) ND
(1.0) ND
(5.0) ND
24.2 J
0.8 U
1.2 U
76.6 J
2.9 U
(0.5) ND
SW-6
(2.0) ND
(1.0) ND
(2.0) ND
(2.0) ND
(2.0) ND
(2.0) ND
(2.0) ND
(1.01 ND
I
Seetember 2001
II
Seetember 2002
I SW-1 I SW-2 I SW-3 sw-1· I SW-2 I SW-3
(2.0) ND (2.0) ND (2.0) ND (2.0) ND (2.0) ND
(1.0) ND (1.0) ND (1.0) ND (1.0) ND (1.0) ND
(2.0) ND (2.0) ND (2.0) ND (2.0) ND (2.0) ND
(2.0) ND (2.0) ND (2.0) ND (2.0) ND (2.0) ND
(2.0) ND 1.1 J 1.6 J 0.57 J 1.3 J
(2.0) ND (2.0) ND (UJ (2.0) ND (2.0) ND (2.0) ND
(2.0) ND (2.0) ND (2.0) ND (2.0) ND (2.0) ND
(1.0) ND (1.0) ND (UJ (1.0) ND (1.0) ND (1.0) ND •
(5.0) ND (5.5) ND (5.5) ND (5.2) ND (5.0) ND
13.2 J 21.8 J 29.0 J 27.1 J 27.7 J
0.22 U 0.22 U 0.22 U 0.26 U 0.26 U
1.9 U 1.4 U 1.4 U 2.8 J 2.9 J
28.1 41.9 131 64.4 40.7
0.80 U 0.80 U 0.80 U 1.1 U 1.1 U
(0.5) ND (0.55) ND (0.5) ND 0.27 J I0.51 ND
I
Seetember 2001
II
Seetember 2002
I SW-4 I SW-5 I SW-6 SW-4 I SW-5 I SW-6
(2.0) ND (2.0) ND (2.0) ND (2.0) ND (2.0) ND (2.0) ND
(1.0) ND (1.0) ND (1.0) ND (1.0) ND (1.0) ND (1.0) ND
(2.0) ND (2.0) ND (2.0) ND (2.0) ND (2.0) ND (2.0) ND
(2.0) ND (2.0) ND (2.0) ND (2.0) ND (2.0) ND (2.0) ND
0.49 J 2.3 0.67 J (2.0) ND 2.6 0.61 J
(2.0) ND (2.0) ND (2.0) ND (2.0) ND (2.0) ND (2.0) ND
(2.0) ND (2.0) ND (2.0) ND (2.0) ND (2.0) ND (2.0) ND
(1.0) ND (1.0) ND (1.0) ND /1.0l ND (1.0) ND /1.0l ND
Table 5-7. Summary of surface water results since GRS start up (continued).
Parameter
voes (ug/L)
1,2-Dichloroethane
Benzene
Chloroform
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene
T etrachloroethene
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene
Trichloroethene
Vinyl chloride
SVOes (ug/L)
Nitrobenzene
METALS (ug/L)
Barium
Beryllium
Lead
Manganese
Nickel
>eB's TOTAL
Parameter
voes (ug/L)
1,2-Dichloroethane
Benzene
Chloroform
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene
Tetrachloroethene
trans-1,2-Oichloroethene
Trichloroethene
~in~I chloride
99
71.4
470
140000
8.85
3.2
92.4
525
1900
1400
0.117
25
88
NC Surface
Water
99
71.4
470
140000
8.85
3.2
92.4
525
NA-not sampled, dropped from list per EPA, NCONR
U,NO -not detected
J-detected, estimated result
UJ-oot detected, Detection limit approximate
O-dUution sample
E-exceed calibration limit
B-found in blank
P:IGEIRGVP\Sept05\T&F\T5-7.xrs, Sheet1
(2.0) ND
(1.0) ND
(2.0) ND
(2.0) ND
(2.0) ND
(2.0) ND
(2.0) ND
(1.0) ND
(5.3) ND
31.3 J
0.3 U
4.0 J
37.6
3.2 J
/0.52) ND
SW-4
(2.0) ND
(1.0) ND
(2.0) ND
(2.0) ND
1.2 J
(2.0) ND
(2.0) ND
(1.0l ND
(2.0) ND
(1.0) ND
(2.0) ND
(2.0) ND
0.9 J
(2.0) ND
(2.0) ND
(1.0) ND
(5.3) ND
20.8 J
0.3 U
1.2 U
34.9
1.1 U
10.52\ ND
Seotember 2003
SW-5
(2.0) ND
(1.0) ND
(2.0) ND
(2.0) ND
1.8 J
(2.0) ND
(2.0) ND
/1.0l ND
(2.0) ND
(1.0) ND
(2.0) ND
(2.0) ND
1.3 J
(2.0) ND
(2.0) ND
(1.0) ND
(5.2) ND
30.8 J
0.3 U
1.2 U
71.4
1.1 U
10.51 l ND
SW-6
(2.0) ND
(1.0) ND
(2.0) ND
(2.0) ND
0.6 J
(2.0) ND
(2.0) ND
f1.0l ND
I
(2.0) ND
(1.0) ND
(2.0) ND
(2.0) ND
(2.0) ND
(2.0) ND
(2.0) ND
(1.0) ND
(5.1) ND
21.2 B
0.3 U
1.2 U
58.3 U
0.8 B
/0.51) ND
SW-4
(2.0) ND
(1.0) ND
(2.0) ND
(2.0) ND
(2.0) ND
(2.0) ND
(2.0) ND
{1.0l ND
I
(2.0) ND
(1.0) ND
(2.0) ND
(2.0) ND
(2.0) ND
(2.0) ND
(2.0) ND
(1.0) ND
(5.1) ND
26.8 B
0.3 U
1.2 U
89.1
1.3 B
10.511 ND
SeE!tember 2004
I SW-5
(2.0) ND
(1.0) ND
(2.0) ND
(2.0) ND
0.7 J
(2.0) ND
(2.0) ND
(1.0l ND
(2.0) ND
(1.0) ND
(2.0) ND
(2.0) ND
1.1 J
(2.0) ND
(2.0) ND
(1.0) ND
(5.1) ND
39.3 B
0.3 U
1.2 U
139.0
1.6 B
/0.51l ND
SW-6
(2.0) ND
(1.0) ND
(2.0) ND
(2.0) ND
0.9 J
(2.0) ND
(2.0) ND
f1.0) ND
II
(1.0) ND
(1.0) ND
(1.0) ND
(1.0) ND
(1.0) ND
(1.0) ND
(1.0) ND
(1.0) ND
NA
NA
NA
2.1 B
21.6
1.1 U
/0.48\ ND
SW-4
(1.0) ND
(1.0) ND
(1.0) ND
(1.0) ND
(1.0) ND
(1.0) ND
(1.0) ND
/1.0l ND
I
(1.0) ND
(1.0) ND
(1.0) ND
(1.0) ND
0.74 J
(1.0) ND
(1.0) ND
(1.0) ND
NA
NA
NA
2.8 B
51.4
1.2 B
0.7
Seetember 2005
I SW-5
(1.0) ND
(1.0) ND
(1.0) ND
(1.0) ND
1.1
(1.0) ND
(1.0) ND
(1.0l ND
(1.0) ND
(1.0) ND
(1.0) ND
(1.0) ND
0.81 J
(1.0) ND
(1.0) ND
(1.0) ND
NA
NA
NA
4.1 B
52.0
1.1 U
(0.48) ND
SW-6
(1.0) ND
(1.0) ND
(1.0) ND
(1.0) ND
(1.0) ND
(1.0) ND
(1.0) ND
{1.0) ND
I
Table 5-8. Summary of sediment results since GRS start up.
Parameter
voes (ug/kg)
1,2-Dichloroethane
Benzene
Chloroform
cis-1,2-0ichloroethene
Tetrachloroethene
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene
Trichloroethene
Vinyl chloride
SVOCs (ug/kg)
Nitrobenzene
METALS (ug/kg)
Barium
Beryllium
lead
Manganese
Nickel
PCB TOTAL fua/kal
U,ND -not detected
J-detected, estimated result
NC Sediment
Standards
1000
UJ-not detected. Detection Limit approximate
0-dilution sample
E-exceed calibration limit
B-found in blank
SED-1
(7.5) ND
(7.5) ND
(7.5) ND
(7.5) ND
(7.5) ND
(7.5) ND
(7.5) ND
(7.5) ND
(480.0) ND
23.8 J
0.19 U
2.2 J
23.0 J
2.3 J
148.0l ND
P:\GE\RGVP\Sept05\T&F\T3-8 and 5-8.xls, Compiled
Sentember 2000
SED-2 SED-3 SED-1
(7.0) ND (6.3) ND (7.5) UJ
(7.0) ND (6.3) ND (7.5) UJ
(7.0) ND (6.3) ND (7.5) UJ
(7.0) ND (6.3) ND (7.5) UJ
(7.0) ND (6.3) ND (7.5) UJ
(7.0) ND (6.3) ND (7.5) UJ
(7.0) ND (6.3) ND (7.5) UJ
(7.0) ND (6.3) ND (7.5) UJ
(480.0) ND (470.0) ND (360.0) ND
32.7 19.5 J 35.2
0.4 J 0.17 U 0.34 U
3.1 J 3.8 J 5.4 J
73.9 J 150.0 J 105.0
3.1 J 1.7 J 4.6 J
238.0 90.7 (36.0l ND
Sentember 2001 Seotember 2002
SED-2 SED-3 SE0-1 SE0-2 SED-3
(7.0) UJ (6.3) UJ (6.6) NO (5.5) ND (6.9) ND
(7.0) UJ (6.3) UJ (6.6) ND (5.5) ND (6.9) ND
(7.0) UJ (6.3) UJ (6.6) ND (5.5) ND (6.9) ND
(7.0) UJ (6.3) UJ (6.6) ND (5.5) ND (6.9) ND
(7.0) UJ (6.3) UJ (6.6) ND (5.5) ND (6.9) ND
(7.0) UJ (6.3) UJ (6.6) ND (5.5) ND (6.9) ND
(7.0) UJ (6.3) UJ (6.6) ND (5.5) ND (6.9) ND
(7.0) UJ (6.3) UJ (6.6) ND (5.5) ND (6.9) ND •
(510.0) ND (440.0) ND (360.0) ND (200.0) ND (210.0) ND
19.5 U 25.9 10.3 J 13.1 J 14.3 J
0.2 U 0.23 U 0.027 U 0.033 U 0.032 U
2.2 J 4.0 J 2.3 J 3.5 J 2.4 J
44.4 233 J 37.9 J 33.3 J 102.0 J
2.0 J 2.8 U 1.5 J 1.3 J 1.6 J
346 87.2 f42.0l ND 217 32.1
•
Table 5-8. Summary of sediment results since GRS start up (cont.).
Parameter
voes (ug/kg)
1,2-Dichloroethane
Benzene
Chloroform
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene
Tetrachloroethene
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene
Trichloroethene
Vinyl chloride
SVOCs (ug/kg)
Nitrobenzene
METALS (ug/kg)
Barium
Beryllium
Lead
Manganese
Nickel
PCB TOTAL (ua/kn\
U,ND-not detected
J-detected, estimated result
NC
Sediment
Standards
1000
UJ-not detected, Detection Umit approximate
[)-dilution sample
E-exceed calibration limit
8-found in blank
SED-1
(7.2) ND
(7.2) ND
(7.2) ND
(7.2) ND
(7.2) ND
(7.2) ND
(7.2) ND
(7.2) ND
(240.0) ND
17.3 J
0.038 U
2.6 U
82.5 J
1.8 J
(24.0l ND
P:\GE\RGVP\Sept05\T&F\T3-8 and 5-8.x:ls, Compiled
Sentember 2003
SED-2
(9.3) ND
(9.3) ND
(9.3) ND
(9.3) ND
7.7 J
(9.3) ND
(9.3) ND
(9.3) ND
(210.0) ND
14.0 J
0.035 J
8.2 J
49.4 J
0.9 J
374
SED-3
(7.2) ND
(7.2) ND
(7.2) ND
(7.2) ND
(7.2) ND
(7.2) ND
(7.2) ND
(7.2) ND
(240.0) ND
17.2 J
0.037 U
35.6
124 J
2.5 J
52.4
September 2004 Seotember 2005
SW-1 SW-2 SW-3 SED-1 SED-2 SED-3
(8.7) ND (12.0) ND (16.0) ND (5.8) ND (5.2) ND (6.6) ND
(8.7) ND (12.0) ND (16.0) ND (5.8) ND (5.2) ND (6.6) ND
(8.7) ND (12.0) ND (16.0) ND (5.8) ND (5.2) ND (6.6) ND
(8.7) ND (12.0) ND (16.0) ND (5.8) ND (5.2) ND (6.6) ND
(8.7) ND 11.8 J (16.0) ND (5.8) ND (5.2) ND (6.6) ND
(8.7) ND (12.0) ND (16.0) ND (5.6) ND (5.2) ND (6.6) ND
(8.7) ND (12.0) ND (16.0) ND (5.8) ND (5.2) ND (6.6) ND
(8.7) ND (12.0) ND (16.0) ND (5.8) ND (5.2) ND (6.6) ND •
(210.0) ND (200.0) ND (220.0) ND
17.0 B 23.5 B 37.6
0.14 BU 0.22 B 0.31 B
3.0 B 2.4 B 25.5 2.1 B 1.4 B 3.4 B
47.7 68.1 169 56.3 33.4 189.0
1.9 B 1.8 B 4.6 B 1.6 B 1.1 B 1.9 B
(21.01 ND 113 59.9 (21.01 ND 97.9 J 47.7 J
Table 5-9. Summary of influent and effluent water results since GRS startup.
Remediation Target Remediation 12/7/2000 3/15/2001 6/6/2001 9/5/2001
Influent Effluent 1 Influent Effluent Influent Effluent Influent Effluent
Compounds Goal {ug/L) {ua/U {ua/U {un/LI lun/LI lun/LI lun/U {ua/LI lua/L\
voes
Benzene 1 0.85J ND (1) ND (5) ND (1) 1.4 ND (1) 1.4 ND (1)
Chloroform 1 1.3 J ND (2) 3.1 ND (2) 1.6J ND (2) 4.4 ND (2)
1,2 Dichloroethane 1 4.3 ND (2) 7.9 ND (2) 6.2 ND (2) 14.3 ND (2)
cis-1,2 Dichloroethene 70 41.7 ND (2) 45 ND (2) 61.1 ND (2) 95.7 ND (2)
trans-1,2 Dichloroethene 70 1.1 J ND (2) ND (10) ND (2) 1.4J ND (2) 1.6 ND (2)
Tetrachloroethene 1 427 ND (2) 272 ND (2) 292 ND (2) 559 ND (2)
Trichloroethene 2.8 9.7 ND (2) 25.3 ND (2) 23.8 ND (2) 38.7 ND (2)
Vinyl Chloride 1 ND (1) ND (1) ND (5.0) ND (1) 1.4 ND (1) 3.6 ND (1)
svoc
Nitro benzene 10 ND (5) ND (5) ND (5.5) ND (5) ND (5.5) ND (5) 2.8 ND (5)
Meta/s2
Barium 2000 61.5 J 1.6 J 95.1J 4.48 64.88 0.948 206 11.1 J
Beryllium 4 .22 U .22 U 0.68U 0.37U 0.22U 0.22U 1.1 U 0.22 U
Lead 15 2.2 U 1.5 U 3.9U 1.6U 1.68 1.2U 9.6 1.2 U
Manganese 50 30.4 1.4 U 857 38.8 154 2.88 2230 J 105 J
Nickel 100 .80 U .80 U 12.3J 1.6U 3.08 O.BOU 32.2J 3.0 J
Notes:
1) Effluent sample collected after airstripper for voes and SVOC and after metals pretreatment in the GE plant for metals.
2) Metals effluent samples are taken after use as process water in the GE plant and after metals pretreatment,
therefore, GE metals effluent concentrations do not directly correspond to GRS metals influent concentrations.
U,ND indicates non-detectable levels
The number indicated in parenthesis is the reporting limit
B indicates found in method blank
J indicates an estimated value
Balded values indicate detected concentrations greater than remediation goal.
P:\GE\RGVP\Sept05\T&F\T5-9 INF-EFFWat00-05.xls, Combined00-05
10/18/2001
Influent Effluent
lua/Ll {ua/Ll
ND (5) ND (1)
ND (10) ND (2)
ND (10) ND (2)
29.2 ND (2) • ND (10) ND (2)
177 ND (2)
19.4 ND (2)
ND (5) ND (1)
ND (5) ND (5)
90.4 J 157 J
0.37 U 0.36 U
1.9 J 7.0
1090 1420
17.2 J 38.3 J •
Table 5-9. Summary of influent and effluent water results since GRS startup (continued).
Remediation Target Remediation 12/11/2001 3/13/2002 6/11/2002 9/25/2002
Influent Effluent 1 Influent Effluent Influent Effluent Influent Effluent Compounds Goal (ug/L) Cua/LI Cua/L) Cua/LI Cua/LI Cua/LI lua/L\ lua/L\ lua/Ll
voes
Benzene 1 ND (5.0) ND (1) ND (5.0) ND (1.0) ND (5.0) ND (1.0) ND (5.0) ND (1.0)
Chloroform 1 ND (10) ND (2) 2.9 J ND (2.0) ND (10.0) ND (2.0) ND (10.0) ND (2.0)
1,2 Dichloroethane 1 ND (10) ND (2) 7.7 J ND (2.0) 6.2 J ND (2.0) ND (10.0) ND (2.0)
cis-1,2 Dichloroethene 70 33.7 ND (2) 39.9 ND (2.0) 35.7 ND (2.0) 27.8 ND (2.0)
trans-1,2 Dichloroethene 70 ND (10) ND (2) ND (10.0) ND (2.0) ND (10.0) ND (2.0) ND (10.0) ND (2.0)
Tetrachloroethene 1 208 ND (2) 308 ND (2.0) 267 ND (2.0) 223 ND (2.0)
Trichloroethene 2.8 18.6 ND (2) 19.7 ND (2.0) 21.5 ND (2.0) 20.7 ND (2.0)
Vinyl Chloride 1 ND (5.0) ND (1) ND (5.0) ND (1.0) ND (5.0) ND (1.0) ND (5.0) ND (1.0)
SVOC
Nitro benzene 10 ND (5) ND (5) NA NA NA NA ND (5.0) 1.2 J
Metals'
Barium 2000 71.4 J 5.4 J 132 J 3.5 J 84 J 0.49 U 84.9 J 0.49 U
Beryllium 4 0.22 U 0.22 U 0.62 J 0.22 U 0.26 U 0.26 U 0.26 U 0.26 U
Lead 15 3.8 U 25.9 2.5 J 1.6 J 2.8 J 1.2 U 3.5 U 2.4 U
Manganese 50 608J 28.2J 1290 47.6 952 15.2 896 11.9 J
Nickel 100 10.2 J 2.1J 20.4 J 12.7 J 16.4 J 1.1 U 16.5 J 1.8 J
Notes:
1) Effluent sample collected after airstripper for VOCs and SVOC and after metals pretreatment in the GE plant for metals.
2) Metals effluent samples are taken after use as process water in the GE plant and after metals pretreatment,
therefore, GE metals effluent concentrations do not directly correspond to GRS metals influent concentrations.
U,ND indicates non-detectable levels
The number indicated in parenthesis is the reporting limit
B indicates found in method blank
J indicates an estimated value
Balded values indicate detected concentrations greater than remediation goal.
P:IGE\RGVP\Sept05\T&F\T5-9 INF-EFFWat00-05.xls, Combined00-05
12/10/2002
Influent Effluent 1
lua/L\ lua/Ll
ND (5.0) ND (1.0)
ND (10.0) ND (2.0)
3.3 J ND (2.0)
28.7 ND (2.0) • ND (10.0) ND (2.0)
198 ND (2.0)
20.0 ND (2.0)
ND (5.0) ND (1.0)
----
59.2 J 17.4 J
0.26 U 0.26 U
1.2 U 1.2 U
322 3.8 J
4.2 J 1.1 U •
Table 5-9. Summary of influent and effluent water results since GRS startup (continued).
3/14/2003 6/12/2003 9/9/2003 3/2/2004 Remediation Target Remediation Influent Effluent Influent Effluent Influent Effluent 1 Influent Effluent 1
Compounds Goal (ug/L) lun/L\ lua/Ll , .. n/LI '"" /LI '"n/LI 1 .. n/LI '""/LI '""/L\
voes
Benzene 1 ND (1.0) ND (1.0) ND (5.0) ND (1.0) ND (5.0) ND (1.0) ND (5.0) ND (1.0)
Chloroform 1 1.1 J ND (2.0) ND (10.0) ND (2.0) ND (10.0) ND (2.0) ND (10.0) ND (2.0)
1,2 Dichloroethane 1 2.2 ND (2.0) 3.4 ND (2.0) 2.6 ND (2.0) ND (10.0) ND (2.0)
cis-1,2 Dichloroethene 70 21 ND (2.0) 24.4 ND (2.0) 30.4 ND (2.0) 34 ND (2.0)
trans-1,2 Dichloroethene 70 2.4 ND (2.0) ND (10.0) ND (2.0) ND (10.0) ND (2.0) ND (10.0) ND (2.0)
Tetrachloroethene 1 189 ND (2.0) 216 0.51 J 207 ND (2.0) 241 ND (2.0)
Trichloroethane 2.8 18.7 ND (2.0) 16.9 ND (2.0) 24.3 ND (2.0) 25.3 ND (2.0)
Vinyl Chloride 1 1.2 ND (1.0) ND (5.0) ND (1.0) ND (5.0) ND (1.0) ND (5.0) ND (1.0)
SVOC
Nitrobenzene 10 NA NA NA NA ND (5.0) ND (5.0) NA NA
Metals 2
Barium 2000 54.3 J 0.49 U 65.3 J 5.7 J 60.4 J 1.8 J 70.1 J 1.9 J
Beryllium 4 0.26 U 0.26 U 0.26 U 0.26 U 0.26 U 0.26 U .30 U 0.30 U
Lead 15 3.3 J 1.2 U 1.2 U 1.2 U 1.9 U 1.2 U 5 1.6 U
Manganese 50 664 4.2 J 1030 152 951 31 1290 21.1
Nickel 100 15.1 J 1.1 U 18.5 J 2.2 J 14.8 J 1.1 U 20.6 J 2.1 J
Notes:
1) Effluent sample collected after airstripper for VOCs and SVOC and after metals pretreatment in the GE plant for metals.
2) Metals effluent samples are taken after use as process water in the GE plant and after metals pretreatment,
therefore, GE metals effluent concentrations do not directly correspond to GRS metals influent concentrations.
U,ND indicates non-detectable levels
The number indicated in parenthesis is the reporting limit
B indicates found in method blank
J indicates an estimated value
Balded values indicate detected concentrations greater than remediation goal.
P:\GE\RGVP\Sept05\T&F\T5-9 INF-EFFWato0-05.xls, Combined00-05
9/16/2004
Influent Effluent 1
'""/LI '""/Li
ND (1.0) ND (1.0)
1.9 J ND (2.0)
2.7 ND (2.0)
18.1 ND (2.0) • ND (2.0) ND (2.0)
187 ND (2.0)
22.9 ND (2.0)
0.64 J ND (1.0)
ND (5.0) ND (5.1)
71.4 B 1.3 B
0.30 U 0.30 U
1.2 U 1.2 U
1460 64.6
18.3 B BB •
Table 5-9. Summary of influent and effluent water results since GRS startup (continued).
Remediation Target Remediation 9/27/2005
Influent Effluent Compounds Goal (ug/L) tuo/Ll tua/Ll
voes
Benzene 1 ND (1.0) ND (1.0)
Chloroform 1 2.1 ND (1.0)
1,2 Dichloroethane 1 2.8 ND (1.0)
cis-1,2 Dichloroethene 70 15.7 ND (1.0)
trans-1,2 Dichloroethene 70 0.6 ND (1.0)
T etrachloroethene 1 144 ND (1.0)
Trichloroethene 2.8 5.1 ND (1.0)
Vinyl Chloride 1 ND (1.0) ND (1.0)
Metals'
Lead 15 3.0 B 1.2 U
Manganese 50 1580 15.2
Nickel 100 38.2 B 1.4 B
Notes:
1) Effluent sample collected after airstripper for VOCs and SVOC and after metals pretreatment in the GE plant for metals.
2) Metals effluent samples are taken after use as process water in the GE plant and after metals pretreatment,
therefore, GE metals effluent concentrations do not directly correspond to GRS metals influent concentrations.
U,ND indicates non-detectable levels
The number indicated in parenthesis is the reporting limit
B indicates found in method blank
J indicates an estimated value
Balded values indicate detected concentrations greater than remediation goal.
P:\GE\RGVP\Septo5\T&FIT5-9 INF-EFFWato0-05.xls, Combined00-05
•
•
•
g
0
~
• .
~
• -
• ..
-•
-•
Dec-O5
Aug-O5
Apr-O5
Dec-O4
Aug-O4
Apr-O4
Dec-OJ
Aug-OJ
Apr-OJ
Dec-O2
Aug-O2
Apr-O2
Dec-O1
Jul-O1
Mar-O1
Nov-OO
Jul-OO
Mar-OO
Nov-99
Jul-99
Mar-99
Nov-98
Jul-98
Mar-98
Nov-97
Jul-97
(716r1) UO!ll!.llUa:>uoo
"' 'I' s:: :I!
0 0 0
~
•
-
-
• --•
• ..
0 0
~
-
-
•
Dec-O5
Aug-O5
• Apr-O5
Dec-O4
Aug-O4
• Apr-O4
Dec-OJ -Aug-OJ -Apr-OJ
Dec-O2
Aug-O2
Apr-O2
Dec-O1
Jul-O1
Mar-O1
Nov-OO
Jul-OO
Mar-OO
Nov-99
Jul-99
Mar-99
Nov-98
Jul-98
Mar-98
Nov-97
Jul-97
(116r1) UO!ll!.llUa:>uoo
0 'f ! :3: i
~ .,,,
" "' -' u..
Cl)
:3: 0::
~ <2
~ 0
0.
" .Q
" ~ C: "' u " 0 u
"' E -"' ~ "' " "' OJ)
" "' ~
.,-,
' u
"' ~ ::,
. !:!) u..
•
0 0 0 -
-
0 0 -
--
-
--
-
~
• -
• ,_
• • -
~
Dec-05
Aug-05
Apr-05
Dec-04
Aug-04
Apr-04
Dec-03
Aug-03
Apr-03
Dec-02
Aug-02
Apr-02
Dec-01 c( ...
Jul-01 'I' ~
Mar-01 ~
Nov-00
Jul-00
Mar-00
Nov-99
Jul-99
Mar-99
Nov-98
Jul-98
Mar-98
Nov-97
Jul-97
0 0 0 -
• ..
4
• • -· -
I
""' -• --
i
•
0 0 -
Dec-05
Aug-05
Apr-05
Dec-04
Aug-04
Apr-04
Dec-03
Aug-03
Apr-03
Dec-02
Aug-02
Apr-02
Dec-01
Jul-01
Mar-01
Nov-00
Jul-00
Mar-00
Nov-99
Jul-99
Mar-99
Nov-98
Jul-98
Mar-98
Nov-97
Jul-97
(7/611) UO!JeJJUa:>UO:)
.,:
"St 'O I ' ::: ;;, !
-0 " " "St 'O ~ I ;;,
~
<2
er, -.2 c_
C: _2
c5 ~ = u u C: 0 u
OJ
E -OJ er,
" C: " co C:
" ;;,
'° ' u
OJ ~
:, ' CO I c:I
•
Mann-Kendall Trend Analysis
Parameter: Trichloroethene
Well: MW-12
Original Data (Not Transformed)
Non-Detects Replaced with 1/2 DL
Xj Xk Xj-Xk Positives Negatives
8.9J 9.7 -0.8 0 1
5.2 9.7 -4.5 0 2
7J 9.7 -2.7 0 3
8.2J 9.7 -1.5 0 4
6.8 9.7 -2.9 0 5
6.1 9.7 -36 0 6
8.9 9.7 -0.8 0 7
12.1 9.7 2.4 1 7
9.7 J 9.7 0 1 7
12.5 9.7 2.8 2 7
43.1 9.7 33.4 3 7
46.6 9.7 36.9 4 7
60 9.7 50.3 5 7
28 9.7 18.3 6 7
54.3 9.7 44.6 7 7
10.3 9.7 0.6 8 7
5.2 8.9J -3.7 8 8
7J 8.9J -1.9 8 9
8.2 J 8.9J -0.7 8 10
6.8 8.9 J -2.1 8 11
6.1 8.9 J -2.8 8 12
8.9 8.9J 0 8 12
12.1 8.9J 3.2 9 12
9.7 J 8.9J 0.8 10 12
12.5 8.9J 3.6 11 12
43.1 8.9J 342 12 12
46.6 8.9J 37.7 13 12
60 8.9J 51.1 14 12
28 8.9J 19.1 15 12
54.3 8.9J 45.4 16 12
10.3 8.9J 1.4 17 12
7J 5.2 1.8 18 12
8.2 J 5.2 3 19 12
6.8 5.2 1.6 20 12
6.1 5.2 0.9 21 12
8.9 5.2 3.7 22 12
12.1 5.2 6.9 23 12
9.7 J 5.2 4.5 24 12
12.5 5.2 7.3 25 12
43.1 5.2 37.9 26 12
46.6 5.2 41.4 27 12
60 5.2 54.8 28 12
28 5.2 22.8 29 12
54.3 5.2 49.1 30 12
10.3 5.2 5.1 31 12
8.2 J 7J 1.2 32 12
6.8 7J -0.2 32 13
6.1 7J -0.9 32 14
8.9 7J 1.9 33 14
12.1 7J 5.1 34 14
9.7 J 7J 2.7 35 14
12.5 7J 5.5 36 14
43.1 7J 36.1 37 14
46.6 7J 39.6 38 14
60 7J 53 39 14
28 7J 21 40 14
54.3 7J 47.3 41 14
10.3 7J 3.3 42 14
6.8 8.2J -1.4 42 15
Page 1
•
6.1 8.2J -2.1 42 16
8.9 8.2J 0.7 43 16
12.1 8.2J 3.9 44 16
9.7 J 8.2J 1.5 45 16
12.5 8.2 J 4.3 46 16
43.1 8.2 J 34.9 47 16
46.6 8.2J 38.4 48 16
60 8.2J 51.8 49 16
28 8.2J 19.8 50 16
54.3 8.2J 46.1 51 16
10.3 8.2 J 2.1 52 16
6.1 6.8 -0.7 52 17
8.9 6.8 2.1 53 17
12.1 6.8 5.3 54 17
9.7 J 6.8 2.9 55 17
12.5 6.8 5.7 56 17
43.1 6.8 36.3 57 17
46.6 6.8 39.8 58 17
60 6.8 53.2 59 17
28 6.8 21.2 60 17
54.3 6.8 47.5 61 17
10.3 6.8 3.5 62 17
8.9 6.1 2.8 63 17
12.1 6.1 6 64 17
9.7 J 6.1 3.6 65 17
12.5 6.1 6.4 66 17
43.1 6.1 37 67 17
46.6 6.1 40.5 68 17
60 6.1 53.9 69 17
28 6.1 21.9 70 17
54.3 6.1 48.2 71 17
10.3 6.1 4.2 72 17
12.1 8.9 3.2 73 17
9.7 J 8.9 0.8 74 17
12.5 8.9 3.6 75 17
43.1 8.9 34.2 76 17
46.6 8.9 37.7 77 17
60 8.9 51.1 78 17
28 8.9 19.1 79 17
54.3 8.9 45.4 80 17
10.3 8.9 1.4 81 17
9.7 J 12.1 -2.4 81 18
12.5 12.1 0.4 82 18
43.1 · 12.1 31 83 18
46.6 12.1 34.5 84 18
60 12.1 47.9 85 18
28 12.1 '15_9 86 18
54.3 12.1 42.2 87 18
10.3 12.1 -1.8 87 19
12.5 9.7 J 2.8 88 19
43.1 9.7 J 33.4 89 19
46.6 9.7 J 36.9 90 19
60 9.7 J 50.3 91 19
28 9.7 J 18.3 92 19
54.3 9.7 J 44.6 93 19
10.3 9.7 J 0.6 94 19
43.1 12.5 30.6 95 19
46.6 12.5 34.1 96 19
60 12.5 47.5 97 19
28 .12.5 15.5 98 19
54.3 12.5 41.8 99 19
10.3 12.5 -2.2 99 20
46.6 43.1 3.5 100 20
60 43.1 16.9 101 20
Page 2
28 43.1
54.3 43.1
10.3 43.1
60 46.6
28 46.6
54.3 46.6
10.3 46.6
28 60
54.3 60
10.3 60
54.3 28
10.3 28
10.3 54.3
S Statistic = 105 -29 = 76
Tied Group
1
2
Time Period
9/26/2000
12/6/2000
3/7/2001
6/5/2001
9/5/2001
12/11/2001
3/12/2002
6/13/2002
9/12/2002
12/11/2002
3/14/2003
6/10/2003
9/12/2003
3/4/2004
9/15/2004
3/30/2005
9/27/2005
Value
9.7
8.9
•
-15.1
11.2
-32.8
13.4
-18.6
7.7
-36.3
-32
-5.7
-49.7
26.3
-17.7
-44
Members
2
2
Observations
There are 0 time periods with multiple data
A= 36
8=0
C=0
0=0
E=4
F=0
a= 10608
b = 36720
C=544
Group Variance= 587.333
Z-Score = 3.0947
101
102
102
103
103
104
104
104
104
104
105
105
105
Comparison Level at 95% confidence level= 1.65463 (upward trend)
3.0947 > 1.65463 indicating an upward trend
Page 3
21
21
22
22
23
23
24
25
26
27
27
28
29
•
•
Mann-Kendall Trend Analysis
Parameter: Trichloroethene
Well: RWSF-1
Original Data (Not Transformed)
Non-Detects Replaced with 1/2 DL
Xj Xk Xj-Xk Positives Negatives
ND<1 ND ND<1 NO 0 0 0
ND<1 ND ND<l NO 0 0 0
ND<1 ND ND<1 ND 0 0 0
N0<1 ND ND<1 ND 0 0 0
ND<1 ND ND<1 ND 0 0 0
N0<1 NO ND<1 ND 0 0 0
ND<1 ND ND<1 ND 0 0 0
ND<1 ND ND<1 ND 0 0 0
ND<1 ND ND<1 ND 0 0 0
ND<1 ND ND<1 ND 0 0 0
ND<1 ND ND<1 ND 0 0 0
0.91 J ND<1 ND -0.09 0
ND<1 ND N0<1 ND 0 0
ND<O ND<1 ND -1 0 2
ND<O ND<l ND -1 0 3
ND<0.5 ND ND<1 ND -0.5 0 4
ND<1 ND ND<1 ND 0 0 4
ND<1 ND ND<1 ND 0 0 4
ND<1 ND ND<1 NO 0 0 4
N0<1 NO ND<1 ND 0 0 4
ND<1 ND ND<1 ND 0 0 4
ND<1 ND ND<1 ND 0 0 4
ND<1 ND ND<1 ND 0 0 4
ND<1 ND ND<1 ND 0 0 4
ND<1 NO ND<1 ND 0 0 4
ND<1 ND ND<1 ND 0 0 4
0.91 J ND<1 ND ·0.09 0 5
ND<1ND ND<l ND 0 0 5
ND<D ND<1 ND -1 0 6
ND<D ND<1 ND -1 0 7
ND<0.5 ND ND<1 ND -0.5 0 8
ND<1 ND ND<1 ND 0 0 8
ND<1 ND N□<1 ND 0 0 8
ND<1 ND N0<1 NO 0 0 8
ND<1 ND ND<l NO 0 0 8
ND<1 ND ND<1 NO 0 0 8
ND<1 ND N0<1 NO 0 0 8
ND<1 ND ND<1 ND 0 0 8
ND<1 ND ND<1 ND 0 0 8
ND<1 ND ND<1 NO 0 0 8
0.91 J ND<1 ND -0.09 0 9
ND<1 ND ND<1 ND 0 0 9
ND<0 N0<1 NO -1 0 10
ND<0 ND<1 NO -1 0 11
ND<0.5 NO N0<1 NO -0.5 0 12
ND<1 ND N0<1 NO 0 0 12
ND<1 ND ND<1 ND 0 0 12
ND<1 ND ND<1 ND 0 0 12
ND<1 ND ND<1 ND 0 0 12
ND<1 ND ND<1 ND 0 0 12
ND<1 ND ND<1 ND 0 0 12
ND<1 ND N0<1 NO 0 0 12
N0<1 NO N0<1 NO 0 0 12
0.91 J ND<1 ND -0.09 0 13
ND<1 ND ND<1 ND 0 0 13
ND<0 N0<1 ND -1 0 14
ND<0 ND<1 NO -1 0 15
ND<0.5 ND ND<1 ND -0.5 0 16
ND<1 ND ND<1 ND 0 0 16
Page 1
ND<1 ND ND<1 ND 0 0 16
ND<1ND ND<1 ND 0 0 16
ND<1 ND ND<1 ND 0 0 16
ND<1 ND ND<1 ND 0 0 16
ND<1 ND ND<1 NO 0 0 16
ND<1 ND ND<1 ND 0 0 16
0.91 J ND<1 ND -0.09 0 17
ND<1 ND ND<1 ND 0 0 17
ND<O ND<1 ND -1 0 18
ND<O ND<1 ND -1 0 19
ND<0.5 ND ND<1 ND -0.5 0 20
ND<1 ND ND<1 ND 0 0 20
ND<1 ND ND<1 ND 0 0 20
ND<1 ND ND<1 ND 0 0 20
ND<1 ND ND<1 ND 0 0 20
ND<1 ND ND<1 ND 0 0 20
ND<1 ND ND<1 ND 0 0 20
0.91 J ND<1 ND -0.09 0 21
ND<1 ND ND<l ND 0 0 21
ND<O ND<l ND -1 0 22
ND<O ND<1 ND -1 0 23
ND<0.5 ND ND<1 ND -0.5 0 24
ND<1 ND ND<1 ND 0 0 24
ND<1 ND ND<1 ND 0 0 24
ND<l ND ND<1 ND 0 0 24
ND<1 ND ND<1 ND 0 0 24
ND<1 ND ND<1 ND 0 0 24
0.91 J ND<l ND -0.09 0 25
ND<1 ND ND<1 ND 0 0 25
ND<O ND<l ND -1 0 26
ND<O ND<1 ND -1 0 27
ND<0.5 ND ND<1 ND -0.5 0 28
ND<1 ND ND<1 ND 0 0 28
ND<1 ND ND<1 ND 0 0 28
ND<1 NO ND<1 ND 0 0 28
ND<1 ND ND<1 ND 0 0 28
0.91 J ND<1 ND -0.09 0 29
ND<1 ND ND<1 ND 0 0 29
ND<O ND<1 ND -1 0 30
ND<O ND<1 ND -1 0 31
ND<0.5 ND ND<1 ND -0.5 0 32
ND<1 ND ND<1 ND 0 0 32
ND<1 ND ND<1 ND 0 0 32
ND<1 ND ND<1 ND 0 0 32
0.91 J ND<1 ND -0.09 0 33
ND<1 ND ND<1 ND 0 0 33
ND<O ND<1 ND -1 0 34
ND<O ND<1 ND -1 0 35
ND<0.5 ND ND<1 ND -0.5 0 36
ND<1 ND N0<1 ND 0 0 36
ND<l ND ND<1 ND 0 0 36
0.91 J N0<1 NO -0.09 0 37
ND<1 ND N0<1 ND 0 0 37
ND<O ND<1 ND -1 0 38
ND<O ND<1 ND -1 0 39
ND<0.5 ND ND<1 ND -0.5 0 40
ND<1 ND ND<1 ND 0 0 40
0.91 J ND<1 ND -0.09 0 41
ND<l ND ND<1 ND 0 0 41
ND<O ND<1 ND -1 0 42
ND<O ND<1 ND -1 0 43
ND<0.5 ND ND<1 ND -0.5 0 44
0.91 J ND<1 ND -0.09 0 45
ND<1 ND ND<1 ND 0 0 45
Page 2
ND<O ND<1 ND
ND<O ND<1 ND
ND<0.5 ND ND<1 ND
ND<1 ND 0.91 J
ND<O 0.91 J
ND<O 0.91 J
ND<0.5 ND 0.91 J
ND<O ND<1 ND
ND<O ND<1 ND
ND<D.5 ND NDo:::1 ND
ND<O ND<O
ND.:::0.5 ND ND<O
ND<0.5 ND ND<O
S Statistic = 3 -54 = -51
Tied Group
1
2
Time Period
9/26/2000
12/5/2000
3/14/2001
6/5/2001
9/4/2001
12/11/2001
3/12/2002
6/11/2002
9/10/2002
12/11/2002
3/14/2003
6/12/2003
9/10/2003
3/4/2004
9/14/2004
3/31/2005
9/28/2005
Value
0
•
-1
-1
-0.5
0.09
-0.91
-0.91
-0.41
-1
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
0.5
Members
13
2
Observations
There a~e 0 time periods with multiple data
A= 4854
B=O
C = 1716
0=0
E = 158
F=O
a= 10608
b = 36720
C=544
Group Variance= 319.667
Z-Score = -2.79654
0
0
0
1
2
3
Comparison Level at 95% confidence level = -1.65463 (downward trend)
-2-79654 < -1.65463 indicating a downward trend
Page 3
46
47
48
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
54
54
54
•
•
Mann-Kendall Trend Analysis
Parameter: Trichloroethane
Well: MW-14
Original Data (Not Transformed)
Non-Detects Replaced with 1/2 DL
Xj Xk Xj · Xk Positives Negatives
201 203 -2 0 1
103 203 -100 0 2
69.2 203 -133.8 0 3
67.7 203 -135.3 0 4
66.7 203 -136.3 0 5
126 203 -77 0 6
93 203 -110 0 7
93.2 203 -109.8 0 8
85.5 203 -117.5 0 9
51.4 203 -151.6 0 10
79.2 203 -123.8 0 11
53 203 -150 0 12
38.7 203 -164.3 0 13
31.4 203 -171.6 0 14
225 203 22 14
81.4 203 -121.6 15
103 201 -98 16
69.2 201 -131.8 17
67.7 201 -133.3 18
66.7 201 -134.3 19
126 201 -75 20
93 201 -108 21
93.2 201 -107.8 22
85.5 201 -115.5 23
51.4 201 -149.6 24
79.2 201 -121.8 25
53 201 -148 26
38.7 201 -162.3 27
31.4 201 -169.6 28
225 201 24 2 28
81.4 201 -119.6 2 29
69.2 103 -33.8 2 30
67.7 103 -35.3 2 31
66.7 103 -38.3 2 32
126 103 23 3 32
93 103 -10 3 33
93.2 103 -9.8 3 34
85.5 103 -17.5 3 35
51.4 103 -51.6 3 36
79.2 103 -23.8 3 37
53 103 -50 3 38
38.7 103 -64.3 3 39
31.4 103 -71.6 3 40
225 103 122 4 40
81.4 103 -21.6 4 41
67.7 69.2 -1.5 4 42
66.7 69.2 -2.5 4 43
126 69.2 56.8 5 43
93 692 23.8 6 43
93.2 69.2 24 7 43
85.5 69.2 16.3 8 43
51.4 69.2 -17.8 8 44
79.2 69.2 10 9 44
53 69.2 -16.2 9 45
38.7 69.2 -30.5 9 46
31.4 69.2 -37.8 9 47
225 69.2 155.8 10 47
81.4 69.2 12.2 11 47
66.7 67.7 -1 11 48
Page 1
• •
126 67.7 58.3 12 48
93 67.7 25.3 13 48
93.2 67.7 25.5 14 48
85.5 67.7 17.8 15 48
51.4 67.7 -16.3 15 49
79.2 67.7 11.5 16 49
53 67.7 -14.7 16 50
38.7 67.7 -29 16 51
31.4 67.7 -36.3 16 52
225 67.7 157.3 17 52
81.4 67.7 13.7 18 52
126 66.7 59.3 19 52
93 66.7 26.3 20 52
93.2 66.7 26.5 21 52
85.5 66.7 18.8 22 52
51.4 66.7 -15.3 22 53
79.2 66.7 12.5 23 53
53 66.7 -13.7 23 54
38.7 66.7 -28 23 55
31.4 66.7 -35.3 23 56
225 66.7 158.3 24 56
81.4 66.7 14.7 25 56
93 126 -33 25 57
93.2 126 -32.8 25 58
85.5 126 -40.5 25 59
51.4 126 -74.6 25 60
79.2 126 -46.8 25 61
53 126 -73 25 62
38.7 126 -87.3 25 63
31.4 126 -94.6 25 64
225 126 99 26 64
81.4 126 -44.6 26 65
93.2 93 0.2 27 65
85.5 93 -7.5 27 66
51.4 93 -41.6 27 67
79.2 93 -13.8 27 68
53 93 -40 27 69
38.7 93 -54.3 27 70
31.4 93 -61.6 27 71
225 93 132 28 71
81.4 93 -11.6 28 72
85.5 93.2 -7.7 28 73
51.4 93.2 -41.8 28 74
79.2 93.2 -14 28 75
53 93.2 -40.2 28 76
38.7 93.2 -54.5 28 77
31.4 93.2 -61.8 28 78
225 93.2 131.8 29 78
81.4 93.2 -11.8 29 79
51.4 85.5 -34.1 29 80
79.2 85.5 -6.3 29 81
53 85.5 -32.5 29 82
38.7 ·85.5 -46.8 29 83
31.4 85.5 -54.1 29 84
225 85.5 139.5 30 84
81.4 85.5 -4.1 30 85
79.2 51.4 27.8 31 85
53 51.4 1.6 32 85
38.7 51.4 -12.7 32 86
31.4 51.4 -20 32 87
225 51.4 173.6 33 87
81.4 51.4 30 34 87
53 79.2 -26.2 34 88
38.7 79.2 -40.5 34 89
Page 2
31.4 79.2
225 79.2
81.4 79.2
38.7 53
31.4 53
225 53
81.4 53
31.4 38.7
225 38.7
81.4 38.7
225 31.4
81.4 31.4
81.4 225
S Statistic = 42 -94 = -52
Tied Group
Time Period
9/25/2000
12/5/2000
3/9/2001
6/12/2001
9/5/2001
12/11/2001
3/13/2002
6/12/2002
9/11/2002
12/12/2002
3/12/2003
6/12/2003
9/11/2003
3/3/2004
9/15/2004
3/30/2005
9/29/2005
Value
-47.8
145.8
2.2
-14.3
-21.6
172
28.4
-7.3
186.3
42.7
193.6
50
-143.6
Members
Observations
There are O time periods with multiple data
A=O
8=0
C=0
D=O
E=0
F=O
a"" 10608
b = 36720
C = 544
Group Variance = 589.333
Z-Score = -2.10082
34
35
36
36
36
37
38
38
39
40
41
42
42
Comparison Level at 95% confidence level= -1.65463 (downward trend)
-2.10082 < -1.65463 indicating a downward trend
Page 3
90
90
90
91
92
92
92
93
93
93
93
93
94
•
• •
Mann-Kendall Trend Analysis
Parameter: Trichloroethene
Well: MW-27
Original Data (Not Transformed)
Non-Detects Replaced with 1/2 DL
Xj Xk Xj-Xk Positives Negatives
14.1 15.7 -1.6 0 1
10.6 15.7 -5.1 0 2
11.3 15.7 -4.4 0 3
7.8 15.7 -7.9 0 4
6.9 15.7 -8.8 0 5
6.9 15.7 -8.8 0 6
7.3 15.7 -8.4 0 7
7 15.7 -8.7 0 8
4.7 15.7 -11 0 9
5.6 15.7 -10.1 0 10
8.8 15.7 -6.9 0 11
7.4 15.7 -8.3 0 12
5 15.7 -10.7 0 13
4.3 15.7 -11.4 0 14
7.7 15.7 -8 0 15
12.1 15.7 -3.6 0 16
10.6 14.1 -3.5 0 17
11.3 14.1 -2.8 0 18
7.8 14.1 -6.3 0 19
6.9 14.1 -7.2 0 20
6.9 14.1 -7.2 0 21
7.3 14.1 -6.8 0 22
7 14.1 -7.1 0 23
4.7 14.1 -9.4 0 24
5.6 14.1 -8.5 0 25
8.8 14.1 -5.3 0 26
7.4 14.1 -6.7 0 27
5 14.1 -9.1 0 28
4.3 14.1 -9.8 0 29
7.7 14.1 -6.4 0 30
12.1 14.1 -2 0 31
11.3 10.6 0.7 31
7.8 10.6 -2.8 32
6.9 10.6 -3.7 33
6.9 10.6 -3.7 34
7.3 10.6 -3.3 35
7 10.6 -3.6 36
4.7 10.6 -5.9 37
5.6 10.6 -5 38
8.8 10.6 -1.8 39
7.4 10.6 -3.2 40
5 10.6 -5.6 41
4.3 10.6 -6.3 42
7.7 10.6 -2.9 43
12.1 10.6 1.5 2 43
7.8 11.3 -3.5 2 44
6.9 11.3 -4.4 2 45
6.9 11.3 -4.4 2 46
7.3 11.3 -4 2 47
7 11.3 -4.3 2 48
4.7 11.3 -6.6 2 49
5.6 11.3 -5.7 2 50
8.8 11.3 -2.5 2 51
7.4 11.3 -3.9 2 52
5 11.3 -6.3 2 53
4.3 11.3 -7 2 54
7.7 11.3 -3.6 2 55
12.1 11.3 0.8 3 55
6.9 7.8 -0.9 3 56
Page 1
•
6.9 7.8 -0.9 3 57
7.3 7.8 -0.5 3 58
7 7.8 -0.8 3 59
4.7 7.8 ·3.1 3 60
5.6 7.8 -2.2 3 61
8.8 7.8 4 61
7.4 7.8 -0.4 4 62
5 7.8 -2.8 4 63
4.3 7.8 -3.5 4 64
7.7 7.8 -0.1 4 65
12.1 7.8 4.3 5 65
6.9 6.9 0 5 65
7.3 6.9 0.4 6 65
7 6.9 0.1 7 65
4.7 6.9 -2.2 7 66
5.6 6.9 -1.3 7 67
8.8 6.9 1.9 8 67
7.4 6.9 0.5 9 67
5 6.9 -1.9 9 68
4.3 6.9 -2.6 9 69
7.7 6.9 0.8 10 69
12.1 6.9 5.2 11 69
7.3 6.9 0.4 12 69
7 6.9 0.1 13 69
4.7 6.9 -2.2 13 70
5.6 6.9 -1.3 13 71
8.8 6.9 1.9 14 71
7.4 6.9 0.5 15 71
5 6.9 -1.9 15 72
4.3 6.9 -2.6 15 73
7.7 6.9 0.8 16 73
12.1 6.9 5.2 17 73
7 7.3 -0.3 17 74
4.7 7.3 -2.6 17 75
5.6 7.3 -1.7 17 76
8.8 7.3 1.5 18 76
7.4 7.3 0.1 19 76
5 7.3 -2.3 19 77
4.3 7.3 -3 19 78
7.7 7.3 0.4 20 78
12.1 7.3 4.8 21 78
4.7 7 -2.3 21 79
5.6 7 -1.4 21 80
8.8 7 1.8 22 80
7.4 7 0.4 23 80
5 7 -2 23 81
4.3 7 -2.7 23 82
7.7 7 0.7 24 82
12.1 7 5.1 25 82
5.6 4.7 0.9 26 82
8.8 4.7 4.1 27 82
7.4 4.7 2.7 28 82
5 4.7 0.3 29 82
4.3 4.7 -0.4 29· 83
7.7 4.7 3 30 83
12.1 4.7 7.4 31 83
8.8 5.6 3.2 32 83
7.4 5.6 1.8 33 83
5 5.6 -0.6 33 84
4.3 5.6 -1.3 33 85
7.7 5.6 2.1 34 85
12.1 5.6 6.5 35 85
7.4 8.8 -1.4 35 86
5 8.8 -3.8 35 87
Page 2
4.3 8.8
7.7 8.8
12.1 8.8
5 7.4
4.3 7.4
7.7 7.4
12.1 7.4
4.3 5
7.7 5
12.1 5
7.7 4.3
12.1 4.3
12.1 7.7
S Statistic = 43 -92 = -49
Tied Group
Time Period
9/25/2000
12/6/2000
3/9/2001
6/12/2001
9/5/2001
12/11/2001
3/11/2002
6/12/2002
9/12/2002
12/12/2002
3/12/2003
6/11/2003
9/11/2003
3/2/2004
9/15/2004
3129/2005
9/28/2005
Value
6.9
-4.5
-1.1
3.3
-2.4
-3.1
0.3
4.7
-0.7
2.7
7.1
3.4
7.8
4.4
Members
2
Observations
There are 0 time periods with multiple data
A= 18
8=0
C=O
D=O
E=2
F=O
a= 10608
b = 36720
C = 544
Group Variance= 588.333
Z-Score = -1.97893
35
35
36
36
36
37
38
38
39
40
41
42
43
Comparison Level at 95% confidence level = -1.65463 (downward trend)
-t .97893 < -1.65463 indicating a downward trend
Page 3
88
89
89
90
91
91
91
92
92
92
92
92
92
•
• •
Mann-Kendall Trend Analysis
Parameter: Trichloroethene
Well: MW-13A
Original Data (Not Transformed)
Non-Detects Replaced with 1 /2 DL
Xj Xk Xj · Xk Positives Negatives
7.6J 6.95 J 0.65 0
ND<1 ND 6.95 J -5.95 1
4.8 J 6.95 J -2.15 2
6.9J 6.95 J -0.05 3
5.3J 6.95 J -1.65 1 4
7.3J 6.95J 0.35 2 4
6.BJ 6.95J -0.15 2 5
6.9J 6.95 J -0.05 2 6
6.8J 6.95 J -0.15 2 7
6.4 6.95 J -0.55 2 8
6.5J 6.95 J -0.45 2 9
5.7 J 6.95 J -1.25 2 10
6J 6.95 J -0.95 2 11
4.4 6.95J -2.55 2 12
3.7 J 6.95J -3.25 2 13
4.8 6.95J -2.15 2 14
ND<1 ND 7.6 J -6.6 2 15
4.BJ 7.6 J -2.8 2 16
6.9J 7.6 J -0.7 2 17
5.3J 7.6J -2.3 2 18
7.3J 7.6J -0.3 2 19
6.8 J 7.6J -0.8 2 20
6.9J 7.6J -0.7 2 21
6.BJ 7.6J -0.8 2 22
6.4 7.6 J -1.2 2 23
6.5 J 7.6 J -1.1 2 24
5.7 J 7.6 J -1.9 2 25
6J 7.6 J -1.6 2 26
4.4 7.6J -3.2 2 27
3.7 J 7.6J -3.9 2 28
4.8 7.6J -2.8 2 29
4.BJ ND<1 ND 3.8 3 29
6.9J ND<1 ND 5.9 4 29
5.3J ND<1 ND 4.3 5 29
7.3J ND<1 ND 6.3 6 29
6.BJ ND<1 ND 5.8 7 29
6.9J N0<1 ND 5.9 8 29
6.8 J ND<1 ND 5.8 9 29
6.4 ND<1 ND 5.4 10 29
6.5 J ND<1 ND 5.5 11 29
5.7 J ND<1 ND 4.7 12 29
6J ND<1 ND 5 13 29
4.4 ND<1 ND 3.4 14 29
3.7 J ND<1 ND 2.7 15 29
4.8 ND<1 ND 3.8 16 29
6.9 J 4.BJ 2.1 17 29
5.3J 4.BJ 0.5 18 29
7.3J 4.BJ 2.5 19 29
6.8 J 4.BJ 2 20 29
6.9J 4.BJ 2.1 21 29
6.8J 4.8 J 2 22 29
6.4 4.8 J 1.6 23 29
6.5 J 4.8 J 1.7 24 29
5.7 J 4.8 J 0.9 25 29
6J 4.8 J 1.2 26 29
4.4 4.8 J -0.4 26 30
3.7 J 4.BJ -1.1 26 31
4.8 4.BJ 0 26 31
5.3J 6.9J -1.6 26 32
Page 1
•
7.3J 6.9J 0.4 27 32
6.8 J 6.9J -0.1 27 33
6.9J 6.9J 0 27 33
6.8J 6.9J -0.1 27 34
6.4 6.9J -0.5 27 35
6.5J 6.9J -0.4 27 36
5.7 J 6.9J -1.2 27 37
6J 6.9J -0.9 27 38
4.4 6.9J -2.5 27 39
3.7 J 6.9J -3.2 27 40
4.8 6.9J -2.1 27 41
7.3J 5.3J 2 28 41
6.8J 5.3J 1.5 29 41
6.9J 5.3J 1.6 30 41
6.8 J 5.3J 1.5 31 41
6.4 5.3J 1.1 32 41
6.5J 5.3J 1.2 33 41
5.7 J 5.3J 0.4 34 41
6J 5.3J 0.7 35 41
4.4 5.3J -0.9 35 42
3.7 J 5.3J -1.6 35 43
4.B· 5.3J -0.5 35 44
6.8J 7.3J -0.5 35 45
6.9J 7.3J -0.4 35 46
6.8 J 7.3J -0.5 35 47
6.4 7.3J -0.9 35 48
6.5 J 7.3J -0.8 35 49
5.7 J 7.3J -1.6 35 50
6J 7.3J -1.3 35 51
4.4 7.3J -2.9 35 52
3.7 J 7.3J -3.6 35 53
4.8 7.3J -2.5 35 54
6.9J 6.8 J 0.1 38 54
6.8 J 6.8 J 0 38 54
6.4 6.8 J -0.4 36 55
6.5 J 6.8 J -0.3 36 56
5.7 J 6.8J -1.1 36 57
6J 6.8J -0.B 36 58
4.4 6.BJ -2.4 36 59
3.7 J 6.8J -3.1 36 60
4.8 6.8 J -2 36 61
6.8J 6.9J -0.1 36 62
6.4 6.9J -0.5 36 63
6.5 J 6.9J -0.4 36 64
5.7 J 6.9J -1.2 36 65 ·
6J 6.9J -0.9 36 66
4.4 6.9J -2.5 36 67
3.7 J 6.9J -3.2 36 68
4.8 6.9J -2.1 36 69
6.4 6.8 J -0.4 36 70
6.5 J 6.8 J -0.3 36 71
5.7 J 6.8J -1.1 36 72
6J 6.BJ -0.8 36 73
4.4 6.BJ -2.4 36 74
3.7 J 6.8J -3.1 36 75
4.8 6.8J -2 36 76
6.5J 6.4 0.1 37 76
5.7 J 6.4 -0.7 37 77
6J 6.4 -0.4 37 78
4.4 6.4 -2 37 79
3.7 J 6.4 -2.7 37 80
4.8 6.4 -1.6 37 81
5.7 J 6.5 J -0.8 37 82
6J 6.5 J -0.5 37 83
Page 2
4.4 6.5 J
3.7 J 6.5 J
4.8 6.5J
6J 5.7 J
4.4 5.7 J
3.7 J 5.7 J
4.8 5.7 J
4.4 6J
3.7 J 6J
4.8 6J
3.7 J 4.4
4,8 4.4
4.8 3.7 J
S Statistic = 40 -93 = -53
Tied Group
2
3
Time Period
9/26/2000
12/712000
3/8/2001
6/6/2001
9/5/2001
12/12/2001
3/13/2002
6/12/2002
9/10/2002
12/13/2002
3/13/2003
6/10/2003
911112003
31312004
9/14/2004
3/30/2005
9/27/2005
Value
4.8
6.9
6.8
-2.1
·2.8
-1.7
0.3
-1.3
-2
-0.9
-1.6
-2.3
-1.2
-0.7
0.4
1.1
Members
2
2
2
Observations
There are 0 time periods with multiple data
A= 54
BaO
C=O
D=O
Ea6
FcO
a= 10608
b = 36720
C=544
Group Variance= 586.333
Z-Score = -2.14749
37
37
37
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
39
40
Comparison Level at 95% confidence level"' -1.65463 (downward trend)
•2.14749 < -1.65463 indicating a downward trend
Page 3
84
85
86
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
93
93
•
•
Mann-Kendall Trend Analysis
Parameter: Trichloroethene
Well: MW-64A
Original Data (Not Transformed)
Non-Detects Replaced with 1/2 DL
Xj Xk Xj-Xk Positives Negatives
ND<1 ND ND<1 ND 0 0 0
ND<1 ND ND<1 ND 0 0 0
ND<1 ND ND<1 ND 0 0 0
ND<1 ND ND<1 ND 0 0 0
ND<1 ND N0<1 NO 0 0 0
ND<1 ND ND<1 ND 0 0 0
ND<1 ND N0<1 NO 0 0 0
ND<1 ND ND<1 ND 0 0 0
ND<1 ND ND<1 ND 0 0 0
ND<1 ND ND<1 ND 0 0 0
ND<1 ND ND<1 ND 0 0 0
ND<1 ND ND<1 ND 0 0 0
ND<1 NO ND<1 ND 0 0 0
ND<O ND<1 ND -1 0 1
ND<O ND<1 ND -1 0 2
O.SSJ ND<1 ND -0.45 0 3
ND<1 ND N□<1 ND 0 0 3
ND<1 ND ND<1 ND 0 0 3
ND<1 ND ND<1 ND 0 0 3
ND<1 ND ND<1 ND 0 0 3
ND<1 ND ND<1 ND 0 0 3
ND<1 ND ND<1 ND 0 0 3
ND<1 ND . ND<1 ND 0 0 3
ND<1 ND ND<1 ND 0 0 3
ND<1 ND ND<1 ND 0 0 3
N0<1 ND ND<1 ND 0 0 3
ND<1 ND ND<1 ND 0 0 3
ND<1 ND ND<1 ND 0 0 3
ND<O ND<l NO -1 0 4
ND<O N0<1 ND -1 0 5
0.55 J ND<1 ND -0.45 0 6
ND<1 ND ND<1 ND 0 0 6
ND<1 ND ND<l ND 0 0 6
ND<1 ND ND<1 ND 0 0 6
ND<1 ND ND<1 ND 0 0 6
ND<1 ND ND<1 ND 0 0 6
ND<1 NO ND<1 ND 0 0 6
N0<1 ND ND<1 ND 0 0 6
ND<l ND ND<1 ND 0 0 6
ND<1 ND N0<1 NO 0 0 6
ND<1 ND ND<1 NO 0 0 6
ND<1 ND ND<1 ND 0 0 6
ND<O ND<1 ND -1 0 7
ND<O ND<1 ND -1 0 8
0.55 J ND<1 ND -0.45 0 9
N0<1 NO N □<1 ND 0 0 9
ND<1 ND ND<1 ND 0 0 9
N□<1 NO N□<1 NO 0 0 9
N0<1 NO N0<1 ND 0 0 9
ND<1 ND N0<1 NO 0 0 9
ND<1 ND ND<1 ND 0 0 9
N□<1 ND ND<1 ND 0 0 9
ND<l NO ND<1 ND 0 0 9
ND<1 NO N0<1 NO 0 0 9
ND<lND ND<1 ND 0 0 9
ND<O N0<1 ND -1 0 10
ND<O N0<1 NO -1 0 11
0.55J ND<l NO -0.45 0 12
N0<1 NO N0<1 NO 0 0 12
Page 1
• •
N0<1 ND ND<1 ND 0 0 12
ND<1 ND N0<1 ND 0 0 12
ND<1 ND ND<1 ND 0 0 12
N0<1 ND ND<1 NO 0 0 12
ND<1 ND ND<1 ND 0 0 12
ND<1 ND ND<1 NO 0 0 12
ND<1 NO ND<1 ND 0 0 12
ND<1 ND ND<:1 ND 0 0 12
ND<O ND<1 ND -1 0 13
ND<O ND<1 ND -1 0 14
0.55 J N0<1 ND -0.45 0 15
ND<1 ND ND<:1 ND 0 0 15
ND<1 ND ND<1 NO 0 0 15
ND<1 ND ND<1 NO 0 0 15
ND<:1 ND ND<:1 ND 0 0 15
ND<1 NO ND<1 ND 0 0 15
ND<1 NO ND<1 ND 0 0 15
ND<1 ND ND<1 ND 0 0 15
ND<1 ND ND<:1 ND 0 0 15
ND<O ND<:1 ND -1 0 16
ND<O ND<1 ND -1 0 17
0.55 J ND<1 NO -0.45 0 18
ND<1 ND ND<1 ND 0 0 18
ND<1 ND ND<:1 ND 0 0 18
ND<1 ND ND<1 ND 0 0 18
ND<1 ND ND<1 ND 0 0 18
ND<:1 ND ND<1 ND 0 0 18
N0<1 ND ND<1 ND 0 0 18
ND<1 ND ND<l NO 0 0 18
ND<O ND<:1 ND -1 0 19
ND<O ND<:1 NO -1 0 20
0.55 J ND<:1 ND -0.45 0 21
ND<1 NO ND<1 ND 0 0 21
ND<1 NO ND<1 ND 0 0 21
ND<1 ND ND<:1 ND 0 0 21
N0<1 ND ND<1 NO 0 0 21
ND<1 ND ND<1 ND 0 0 21
ND<1 ND ND<1 ND 0 0 21
ND<O ND<:1 ND -1 0 22
ND<O ND<:1 ND -1 0 23
0.55 J ND<l ND -0.45 0 24
N0<1 ND N0<1 ND 0 0 24
ND<1 ND ND<1 ND 0 0 24
ND<:1 ND ND<:1 ND 0 0 24
ND<:1 ND ND<:1 NO 0 0 24
ND<1 ND ND<1 ND 0 0 24
ND<O ND<1 NO -1 0 25
ND<O ND<:1 ND -1 0 26
0.55 J ND<:1 ND -0.45 0 27
N0<1 ND N0<1 ND 0 0 27
ND<1 ND ND<:1 ND 0 0 27
ND<1 ND ND<1 ND 0 0 27
ND<1 ND ND<1 NO 0 0 27
ND<O N0<1 NO -1 0 28
ND<O ND<1 NO -1 0 29
0.55 J ND<1 NO -0.45 0 30
ND<1 ND N0<1 ND 0 0 30
ND<1 ND ND<1 ND 0 0 30
ND<1 ND ND<1 ND 0 0 30
ND<O N0<1 ND' -1 0 31
ND<O ND<1 ND -1 0 32
0.55 J ND<1 NO -0.45 0 33
ND<1 ND ND<1 ND 0 0 33
ND<1 ND ND<1 ND 0 0 33
Page 2
ND<O ND<1 ND
ND<O ND<1 ND
0.55 J ND<1 ND
ND<1 ND ND<1 ND
ND<O ND<1 ND
ND<O ND<1 ND
0.55 J ND<1 ND
ND<O ND<1 ND
ND<D N0<1 ND
0.55 J ND<1 ND
ND<O ND<O
0.55 J ND<O
0.55 J ND<O
S Statistic = 2 -42 = -40
Tied Group
2
Time Period
9/27/2000
12/5/2000
3/14/2001
6/5/2001
9/4/2001
12/12/2001
3/12/2002
6/11/2002
9/10/2002
12/11/2002
3/15/2003
6/10/2003
9/9/2003
3/4/2004
9/14/2004
3/31/2005
9/27/2005
Value
1
0
•
-1
-1
-0.45
0
-1
-1
-0.45
-1
-1
-0.45
0
0.55
0.55
Members
14
2
Observations
There are 0 time periods with multiple data
A= 6024
8=0
C = 2184
D=O
E = 184
F=D
a= 10608
b = 36720
C =-544
Group Variance= 254.667
Z-Score = -2.44387
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
Comparison Level at 95% confidence level= -1.65463 (downward trend)
-2.44387 < -1.65463 indicating a downward trend
Page 3
34
35
36
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
42
42
42
•
• •
Mann-Kendall Trend Analysis
Parameter: Trichloroethene
Well: MW-14A
Original Data (Not Transformed)
Non-Detects Replaced with 1/2 DL
Xj Xk Xj • Xk Positives Negatives
46.5 36.5 10 1 0
42.9 365 6.4 2 0
49.1 36.5 12.6 3 0
42.4 36.5 5.9 4 0
42.7 36.5 6.2 5 0
42.1 36.5 5.6 6 0
51.7 36.5 15.2 7 0
59.2 36.5 22.7 8 0
42.5 36.5 6 9 0
32.7 36.5 -3.8 9
39.2 36.5 2.7 10
40.7 36.5 4.2 11
42.1 36.5 5.6 12
28.4 36.5 -8.1 12 2
17 36.5 -19.5 12 3
21 36.5 -15.5 12 4
42.9 46.5 -3.6 12 5
49.1 46.5 2.6 13 5
42.4 46.5 -4.1 13 6
42.7 46.5 -3.8 13 7
42.1 46.5 -4.4 13 8
51.7 46.5 5.2 14 8
59.2 46.5 12.7 15 8
42.5 46.5 -4 15 9
32.7 46.5 -13.8 15 10
39.2 46.5 -7.3 15 11
40.7 46.5 -5.8 15 12
42.1 46.5 -4.4 15 13
28.4 46.5 -18.1 15 14
17 46.5 -29.5 15 15
21 46.5 -25.5 15 16
49.1 42.9 6.2 16 16
42.4 42.9 -0.5 16 17
42.7 42.9 -0.2 16 18
42.1 42.9 -0.8 16 19
51.7 42.9 8.8 17 19
59.2 42.9 16.3 18 19
42.5 42.9 -0.4 18 20
32.7 42.9 -10.2 18 21
39.2 42.9 -3.7 18 22
40.7 42.9 -2.2 18 23
42.1 42.9 -0.8 18 24
28.4 42.9 -14.5 18 25
17 42.9 -25.9 18 26
21 42.9 -21.9 18 27
42.4 49.1 -6.7 18 28
42.7 49.1 -6.4 18 29
42.1 49.1 -7 18 30
51.7 49.1 2.6 19 30
59.2 49.1 10.1 20 30
42.5 49.1 -6.6 20 31
32.7 49.1 -16.4 20 32
39.2 49.1 -9.9 20 33
40.7 49.1 -8.4 20 34
42.1 49.1 -7 20 35
28.4 49.1 -20.7 20 36
17 49.1 -32.1 20 37
21 49.1 -28.1 20 38
42.7 42.4 0.3 21 38
Page 1
• •
42.1 42.4 ·0.3 21 39
51.7 42.4 9.3 22 39
59.2 42.4 16.8 23 39
42.5 42.4 0.1 24 39
32.7 42.4 -9.7 24 40
39.2 42.4 -3.2 24 41
40.7 42.4 -1.7 24 42
42.1 42.4 -0.3 24 43
28.4 42.4 ·14 24 44
17 42.4 -25.4 24 45
21 42.4 -21.4 24 46
42.1 42.7 -0.6 24 47
51.7 42.7 9 25 47
59.2 42.7 16.5 26 47
42.5 42.7 -0.2 26 48
32.7 42.7 ·10 26 49
39.2 42.7 -3.5 26 50
40.7 42.7 ·2 26 51
42.1 42.7 -0.6 26 52
28.4 42.7 -14.3 26 53
17 42.7 -25.7 26 54
21 42.7 -21.7 26 55
51.7 42.1 9.6 27 55
59.2 42.1 17.1 28 55
42.5 42.1 0.4 29 55
32.7 42.1 -9.4 29 56
39.2 42.1 -2.9 29 57
40.7 42.1 -1.4 29 58
42.1 42.1 0 29 58
28.4 42.1 -13.7 29 59
17 42.1 -25.1 29 60
21 42.1 -21.1 29 61
59.2 51.7 7.5 30 61
42.5 51.7 -9.2 30 62
32.7 51.7 -19 30 63
39.2 51.7 -12.5 . 30 64
40.7 51.7 ·11 30 65
42.1 51.7 -9.6 30 66
28.4 51.7 -23.3 30 67 17 51.7 -34.7 30 68 21 51.7 -30.7 30 69
42.5 59.2 -16.7 30 70
32.7 59.2 -26.5 30 71
39.2 59.2 -20 30 72
40.7 592 -18.5 30 73
42.1 59.2 -17.1 30 74
28.4 59.2 ·30.8 30 75
17 59.2 -42.2 30 76
21 59.2 -38.2 30 77
32.7 42.5 -9.8 30 78
39.2 42.5 -3.3 30 79
40.7 42.5 -1.8 30 80
42.1 42.5 -0.4 30 81
28.4 42.5 -14.1 30 82
17 42.5 -25.5 30 83
21 42.5 -21.5 30 84
39.2 32.7 6.5 31 84
40.7 32.7 8 32 84
42.1 32.7 9.4 33 84
28.4 32.7 ·4.3 33 85
17 32.7 -15.7 33 86
21 32.7 -11.7 33 87
40.7 39.2 1.5 34 87
42.1 39.2 2.9 35 87
Page 2
28.4 39.2
17 39.2
21 39.2
42.1 40.7
28.4 40.7
17 40.7
21 40.7
28.4 42.1
17 42.1
21 42.1
17 28.4
21 28.4
21 17
S Statistic= 37 -98 = -61
Tied Group
Time Period
9/25/2000
12/5/2000
3/9/2001
6/12/2001
9/4/2001
12/11/2001
3/13/2002
6/12/2002
9/11/2002
12/12/2002
3/12/2003
6/12/2003
9/11/2003
3/3/2004
9/15/2004
3130/2005
9/29/2005
Value
42.1
•
-10.8
-22.2
-18.2
1.4
·12.3
-23.7
-19.7
-13.7
-25.1
-21.1
-11.4
-7.4
4
Members
2
Observations
There are 0 time periods with multiple data
A= 18
B=O
C:O
0=0
E=2
F=O
a= 10608
b = 36720
C = 544
Group Variance= 588.333
Z-Score = -2.47366
35
35
35
36
36
36
36
36
36
36
36
36
37
Comparison Level at 95% confidence level= -1.65463 (downward trend)
-2.47366 < -1.65463 indicating a downward trend
Page 3
. 88
89
90
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
98
•
• •
Mann-Kendall Trend Analysis
Parameter: Trichloroethene
Well: MW-13
Original Data (Not Transformed)
Non-Detects Replaced with 1/2 DL
Xj Xk Xj-Xk Positives Negatives
ND<1 ND 1.4 J -0.4 0 1
5.3 1.4 J 3.9 1
1.1 J 1.4 J -0.3 2
N0<1 NO 1.4 J -0.4 3
ND<1 ND 1.4 J -0.4 4
0.78J 1.4 J -0.62 5
1.1 J 1.4 J -0.3 6
1.1 J 1.4 J -0.3 7
0.79J 1.4 J -0.61 8
0.95 J 1.4 J -0.45 9
0.66J 1.4 J -0.74 10
O.SBJ 1.4J -0.82 11
0.55 J 1.4 J -0.85 1 12
1.5 J 1.4J 0.1 2 12
1.4J -0.4 2 13
NDc::0.5 ND 1.4J -0.9 2 14
5.3 NDc::1 ND 4.3 3 14
1.1 J ND<l ND 0.1 4 14
ND<1 ND NDc::1 ND 0 4 14
ND<1 ND NDc::1 ND 0 4 14
0.78 J ND<1 ND -0.22 4 15
1.1 J ND<:1 ND 0.1 5 15
1.1 J NDc::1 ND 0.1 6 15
0.79J NDc::1 ND -0.21 6 16
0.95 J ND<1 ND -0.05 6 17
0.66J NDc::1 ND -0.34 6 18
0.58J NDc::1 ND -0.42 6 19
0.55 J NDc::1 ND -0.45 6 20
1.5 J NDc::1 ND 0.5 7 20
NDc::1 ND 0 7 20
NOc::0.5 ND NDc::1 ND -0.5 7 21
1.1 J 5.3 -4.2 7 22
NDc::1 ND 5.3 -4.3 7 23
ND<1 ND 5.3 -4.3 7 24
0.78J 5.3 -4.52 7 25
1.1 J 5.3 -4.2 7 26
1.1J 5.3 -4.2 7 27
0.79J 5.3 -4.51 7 28
0.95 J 5.3 -4.35 7 29
0.66 J 5.3 -4.64 7 30
0.58 J 5.3 -4.72 7 31
0.55 J 5.3 -4.75 7 32
1.5 J 5.3 -3.8 7 33
5.3 -4.3 7 34
NDc::0.5 ND 5.3 -4.8 7 35
NDc::1 ND 1.1 J -0.1 7 36
NDc::1 ND 1.1 J -0.1 7 37
0.78 J 1.1 J -0.32 7 36
1.1 J 1.1 J 0 7 36
1.1 J 1.1 J 0 7 38
0.79J 1.1 J ·0.31 7 39
0.95 J 1.1 J ·0.15 7 40
0.66J 1.1 J ·0.44 7 41
0.58J 1.1 J ·0.52 7 42
0.55 J 1.1 J -0.55 7 43
1.5 J 1.1 J 0.4 8 43
1 1.1 J ·0.1 8 44
ND<0.5 NO 1.1 J -0.6 8 45
N0<1 ND N0<1 NO 0 8 45
Page 1
•
0.78 J ND<1 ND -0.22 8 46
1.1 J ND<1 NO 0.1 9 46
1.1 J ND<1 ND 0.1 10 46
0.79J ND<1 ND -0.21 10 47
0.95J N□<1 ND -0.05 10 48
0.66J ND<1 ND -0.34 10 49
0.SBJ ND<1 ND -0.42 10 50
0.55 J ND<1 ND -0.45 10 51
1.5 J ND<1 ND 0.5 11 51
1 ND<1 ND 0 11 51
ND<0.5 ND N0<1 ND -0.5 11 52
0.78 J ND<1 ND -0.22 11 53
1.1 J ND<1 ND 0.1 12 53
1.1 J ND<1 ND 0.1 13 53
0.79J ND<1 ND -0.21 13 54
0.95 J ND<1 ND -0.05 13 55
0.66J ND<1 ND -0.34 13 56
0.58J ND<1 ND -0.42 13 57
0.55 J ND<1 ND -0.45 13 58
1.5 J ND<1 ND 0.5 14 58
ND<1 ND 0 14 58
ND<0.5 ND ND<1 ND -0.5 14 59
1.1 J 0.78 J 0.32 15 59
1.1 J 0.78 J 0.32 16 59
0.79J 0.78J 0.01 17 59
0.95 J 0.78J 0.17 18 59
0.66 J 0.78J -0.12 18 60
0.58 J 0.78J -0.2 18 61
0.55J 0.78J -0.23 18 62
1.5 J 0.78 J 0.72 19 62
0.78 J 0.22 20 62
N□<0.5 ND 0.78 J -0.28 20 63
1.1 J 1.1 J 0 20 63
0.79J 1.1 J -0.31 20 64
0.95 J 1.1 J -0.15 20 65
0.66J 1.1 J -0.44 20 66
0.58J 1.1 J -0.52 20 67
0.55 J 1.1 J -0.55 20 68
1.5 J 1.1 J 0.4 21 68
1 1.1 J -0.1 21 69
ND<0.5 ND 1.1 J -0.6 21 70
0.79 J 1.1 J -0.31 21 71
0.95 J 1.1 J -0.15 21 72
0.66J 1.1 J -0.44 21 73
0.58 J 1.1 J -0.52 21 74
0.55 J 1.1 J -0.55 21 75
1.5 J 1.1 J 0.4 22 75
1 1.1 J -0.1 22 76
ND<0.5 ND 1.1 J -0.6 22 77
0.95 J 0.79J 0.16 23 77
0.66J 0.79J -0.13 23 78
0.58J 0.79J -0.21 23 79
0.55 J 0.79 J -0.24 23 80
1.5 J 0.79J 0.71 24 80
0.79J 0.21 25 80
ND<0.5 ND 0.79J -0.29 25 81
0.66J 0.95 J -0.29 25 82
0.58J 0.95 J -0.37 25 83
0.55 J 0.95 J -0.4 25 84
1.5 J 0.95 J 0.55 26 84
1 0.95 J 0.05 27 84
ND<0.5 ND 0.95J -0.45 27 85
0.58J 0.66J -0.08 27 86.
0.55J 0.66J -0.11 27 87
Page 2
1.5J 0.66J
0.66J
ND<0.5 ND 0.66J
0.55 J 0.58J
1.5 J 0.58J
0.58 J
ND<0.5 ND 0.58 J
1.5 J 0.55 J
0.55 J
ND<0.5 ND 0.55 J
1.5 J
ND<0.5 ND 1.5 J
ND<0.5 ND
S Statistic= 33 -94 = -61
Tied Group
1
2
Time Period
9/27/2000
1'2J7/2000
3/8/2001
6/6/2001
9/5/2001
12/11/2001
3/13/2002
6/12/2002
9/11/2002
12/13/2002
:Y13/2003
6/10/2003
9/11/2003
3/3/2004
9/14/2004
3/30/2005
9/27/2005
Value
1.1
•
0.84
0.34
·0.16
-0.03
0.92
0.42
-0.08
0.95
0.45
·0.05
-0.5
-1
-0.5
Members
4
3
Observations
There are 0 time periods with multiple data
A= 222
BcO
C" 30
□=0
E = 18
F=O
a= 10608
b = 36720
C = 544
Group Variance= 577
Z-Score = -2.49783
28
29
29
29
30
31
31
32
33
33
33
33
33
Comparison Level at 95% confidence level = -1.65463 (downward trend)
-2.49783 < -1.65463 indicating a downward trend
Page 3
•
87
87
88
89
89
89
90
90
90
91
92
93
94
• •
Mann-Kendall Trend Analysis
Parameter: Trichloroethene
Well: MW-64
Original Data (Not Transformed)
Non-Detects Replaced with 1/2 DL
Xj Xk Xj • Xk Positives Negatives
ND<1 ND ND<1 ND 0 0 0
ND<1 ND N0<1 NO 0 0 0
NDo:::1 ND ND<1 ND 0 0 0
ND<1 ND ND<1 ND 0 0 0
ND<1 ND ND<1 ND 0 0 0
ND<1 ND ND<:1 ND 0 0 0
ND<1 ND ND<:1 ND 0 0 0
ND<1 ND ND<1 ND 0 0 0
N0<1 NO ND<1 ND 0 0 0
ND<1 ND ND<1 ND 0 0 0
ND<1 ND ND<1 NO 0 0 0
ND<1 ND N0<1 ND 0 0 0
ND<1 ND ND<1 ND 0 0 0
ND<O ND<l ND -1 0
ND<O ND<1 ND -1 0 2
ND<0.5 ND ND<1 ND -0.5 0 3
ND<:1 NO ND<1 ND 0 0 3
ND<1 ND ND<:1 ND 0 0 3
ND<l NO ND<:1 ND 0 0 3
ND<1 ND N0<1 ND 0 0 3
ND<1 ND ND<1ND 0 0 3
ND<1 ND ND<1 NO 0 0 3
ND<1 ND ND<1 ND 0 0 3
ND<1 ND ND<1 ND 0 0 3
ND<1 ND ND<:1 ND 0 0 3
ND<1 ND ND<1 ND 0 0 3
ND<1 ND ND<1 ND 0 0 3
ND<1 ND ND<l ND 0 0 3
ND<O ND<1 ND -1 0 4
ND<O ND<1 ND -1 0 5
ND.:::0.5 NO ND<1 ND -0.5 0 6
ND<1 ND ND<l ND 0 0 6
ND<:1 ND ND<1 ND 0 0 6
ND<l ND ND<:1 ND 0 0 6
ND<1 ND ND<l ND 0 0 6
ND<1 ND ND<1 ND 0 0 6
ND<1 NO ND<1 ND 0 0 6
ND<:1 ND ND<:1 ND 0 0 6
ND<l NO ND<1 ND 0 0 6
ND<:1 ND ND<1 ND 0 0 6
ND<:1 ND ND<1 ND 0 0 6
ND<1ND ND<1 ND 0 0 6
ND<O N0<1 NO -1 0 7
ND<O ND<l NO -1 0 8'
ND<0.5 ND ND<1 ND -0.5 0 9
ND<1 ND ND<1 ND 0 0 9
ND<1 ND ND<1 ND 0 0 9
ND<1 ND ND<1 ND 0 0 9
ND<1 ND ND<1 ND 0 0 9
N0<1 NO N0<1 ND 0 0 9
ND<1 ND ND<1 ND 0 0 9
ND<1 ND N0<1 NO 0 0 9
ND<1 ND ND<1 ND 0 0 9
ND<1 ND ND<1 ND 0 0 9
ND<1 ND ND<1 ND 0 0 9
ND<O ND<1 ND -1 0 10
ND<O ND<1 ND -1 0 11
ND<0.5 ND ND<1 ND -0.5 0 12
ND<1 NO ND<1 ND 0 0 12
Page 1
• •
ND<1 ND ND<1 ND 0 0 12
ND<1ND ND<1 ND 0 0 12
ND<1 ND N0<1 NO 0 0 12
ND<1 ND ND<1 ND 0 0 12
ND<1 ND N0<1 ND 0 0 12
ND<1 ND ND<1 ND 0 0 12
ND<1 ND ND<1 ND 0 0 12
ND<1 ND ND<1 ND 0 0 12
ND<O ND<1 ND -1 0 13
ND<O· ND<1 ND -1 0 14
ND<0.5 ND ND<1 ND -0.5 0 15
ND<1 ND ND<1 ND 0 0 15
ND<1 NO ND<1 ND 0 0 15
ND<1 ND ND<1 ND 0 0 15
ND<1 ND ND<1 ND 0 0 15
ND<1 ND ND<1 ND 0 0 15
ND<1 ND ND<l ND 0 0 15
ND<1 ND ND<1 ND 0 0 15
ND<1 ND ND<1 NO 0 0 15
ND<O ND<1 ND -1 0 16
ND<O ND<1 ND -1 0 17
ND<0.5 NO ND<1 ND -0.5 0 18
ND<1 ND ND<1 ND 0 0 18
ND<1 NO ND<1 ND · 0 0 18
ND<1 ND ND<1 ND 0 0 18
ND<1 ND ND<1 ND 0 0 18
ND<1 ND N0<1 ND 0 0 18
ND<1 ND ND<1 ND 0 0 18
ND<1 ND ND<1 ND 0 0 18
ND<D N0<1 NO -1 0 19
ND<O ND<1 NO -1 0 20
ND<0.5 ND N0<1 NO -0.5 0 21
ND<1 ND ND<1 ND o· 0 21
ND<1 ND ND<1 ND 0 0 21
ND<1 ND ND<1 ND 0 0 21
ND<1 NO ND<1 ND 0 0 21
ND<1 ND ND<1 ND 0 0 21
ND<1 ND ND<1 ND 0 0 21
ND<D ND<1 ND -1 0 22
ND<O ND<1 ND -1 0 23
ND<0.5 ND ND<1 ND -0.5 0 24
ND<1 ND ND<1 ND 0 0 24
ND<1 ND ND<1 ND 0 0 24
ND<1 ND ND<1 ND 0 0 24
ND<1 ND ND<1 ND 0 0 24
ND<1 ND ND<1 ND 0 0 24
ND<O ND<1 ND -1 0 25
ND<O ND<1 ND -1 0 26
NDo:::0.5 ND ND<1 ND -0.5 0 27
ND<1 NO ND<1 ND 0 0 27
ND<1 NO N0<1 ND 0 0 27
ND<1 ND N0<1 ND 0 0 27
ND<1 ND ND<1 ND 0 0 27
ND<O ND<1 ND -1 0 28
ND<O ND<1 ND -1 0 29
ND<0.5 ND ND<1 ND -0.5 0 30
ND<1 ND ND<1 ND 0 0 30
N0<1 ND ND<1 ND 0 0 30
ND<1 ND ND<1 ND 0 0 30
ND<O ND<1 ND -1 0 31
ND<O ND<l NO -1 0 32
ND<0.5 ND ND<1 NO -0.5 0 33
ND<1 ND ND<1 ND 0 0 33
ND<1 ND ND<1 ND 0 0 33
Page2
ND<O ND<1 ND
ND<O ND<1 ND
ND<0.5 ND ND<1 ND
ND<1 NO ND<1 ND
ND<O ND<1 ND
ND<O ND<1 ND
ND<0.5 ND ND<1 ND
ND<O ND<1 NO
ND<O ND<1 NO
ND<0.5 ND ND<1 ND
ND<O ND<O
ND<0.5 ND ND<O
ND<0.5 ND ND<O
S Statistic = 2 -42 = -40
Tied Group
1
2
Time Period
9/28/2000
12/7/2000
3/14/2001
6/5/2001
9/5/2001
12/11/2001
3/12/2002
6/11/2002
9/10/2002
12/13/2002
3/15/2003
6/10/2003
9/9/2003
3/4/2004
9/14/2004
3/31/2005
9/27/2005
Value
1
0
-1
-1
-0.5
0
-1
-1
-0.5
-1
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
0.5
Members
14
2
Observations
There are O time periods with multiple data
A= 6024
B=0
C = 2184
□=0
E = 184
F=0
a= 10608
b = 36720
C = 544
Group Variance= 254.667
Z-Score = -2.44387
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
Comparison Level at 95% confidence level = -1.65463 (downward trend)
-2.44387 < -1.65463 indicating a downward trend
Page 3·
•
34
35
36
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
42
42
42
• •
Mann-Kendall Trend Analysis
Parameter: Trichloroethene
Well: MW-15
Original Data (Not Transformed)
Non-Detects Replaced with 1/2 DL
Xj Xk Xj-Xk Positives Negatives
ND<1 ND ND<1 ND 0 0 0
ND<1 ND N0<1 NO 0 0 0
ND<1 ND ND<1 ND 0 0 0
ND<1 ND N0<1 ND 0 0 0
ND<1 ND ND<1 ND 0 0 0
ND<1 ND ND<1 NO 0 0 0
N0<1 ND ND<l ND 0 0 0
ND<1 ND ND<1 ND 0 0 0
ND<1 ND ND<:1 NO 0 0 0
ND<1 ND ND<l NO 0 0 0
ND<1 ND ND<1 ND 0 0 0
N0<1 ND ND<1 ND 0 0 0
ND<1 ND ND<1 ND 0 0 0
ND<O ND<1 ND -1 0 1
ND<O ND<:1 ND -1 0 2
ND<0.5 ND ND<1 ND -0.5 0 3
ND<1 ND ND<1 ND 0 0 3
ND<1 ND ND<1 ND 0 0 3
ND<1 ND ND<1 ND 0 0 3
ND<1 ND ND<1 ND 0 0 3
ND.:::1 ND ND<:1 ND 0 0 3
NDc::1 ND ND<:1 ND 0 0 3
ND<1 ND ND<1 ND 0 0 3
ND<1 ND ND<1 ND 0 0 3
ND<1 ND ND<1 ND 0 0 3
ND<:1 ND ND<:1 ND 0 0 3
ND<1 ND ND<1 ND 0 0 3
ND<1 ND ND<1 ND 0 0 3
ND<O N0<1 ND -1 0 4
ND<O ND<1 ND -1 0 5
ND<0.5 ND ND<1 ND -0.5 0 6
ND<:1 ND N0<1 ND 0 0 6
ND<1 ND N0<1 ND 0 0 6
ND<:1 ND ND<1 ND 0 0 6
ND<1 ND ND<:1 ND 0 0 6
ND<1 ND N0<1 NO 0 0 6
ND<1 NO ND<1 NO 0 0 6
ND<1 ND ND<1 ND 0 0 6
ND<1 NO ND<:1 NO 0 0 6
ND<1 ND ND<1 ND 0 0 6
N0<:1 NO ND<1 ND 0 0 6
ND<1 ND ND<1 ND 0 0 6
ND<O ND<1 ND -1 0 7
ND<O ND<1 ND -1 0 B
ND<0.5 NO N0<1 ND -0.5 0 9
ND<1 ND ND<1 ND 0 0 9
ND<1 ND ND<1 ND 0 0 9
ND<1 NO ND<1 NO 0 0 9
N0<1 NO N0<1 NO 0 0 9
N0<1 NO ND<1 ND 0 0 9
ND<1 ND N0<1 ND 0 0 9
N0<1 NO N0<1 NO 0 0 9
ND<1 ND ND<1 ND 0 0 9
ND<1 ND ND<1 ND 0 0 9
N0<1 NO ND<1 ND 0 0 9
ND<O N0<1 NO -1 0 10
ND<O ND<1 ND -1 0 11
ND<0.5 ND ND<1 ND -0.5 0 12
ND<1 ND ND<1 ND 0 0 12
Page 1
• •
ND<1NO ND<1 ND 0 0 12
ND<1 ND N0<1 ND 0 0 12
ND<1 ND ND<1 ND 0 0 12
ND<1 ND ND<1 ND 0 0 12
ND<1 ND ND<1 ND 0 0 12
ND<1 NO ND<1 NO 0 0 12
ND<1ND ND<1 NO 0 0 12
ND<1 ND ND<1 NO 0 0 12
ND<D ND<1 ND -1 0 13
ND<O ND<1 ND -1 0 14
ND<0.5 ND ND<1 ND -0.5 0 15
ND<1 ND ND<1 ND 0 0 15
N0<1 ND ND<1 ND 0 0 15
ND<1 ND ND<1 ND 0 0 15
ND<1 ND ND<1 ND 0 0 15
ND<1 NO ND<1 ND 0 0 15
ND<1 NO ND<1 ND 0 0 15
ND<1 NO ND<1 ND 0 0 15
ND<1 ND ND<1 ND 0 0 15
ND<O ND<1 ND -1 0 16
ND<O ND<1 ND -1 0 17
ND<0.5 ND ND<1 ND -0.5 0 18
ND<1 ND ND<1 ND 0 0 18
ND<1 ND ND<1 ND 0 0 18
ND<1 ND ND<1 ND 0 0 18
ND<l ND ND<1 NO 0 0 18
ND<1 ND ND<1 ND 0 0 18
ND<1 ND ND<1 ND 0 0 18
ND<1 ND ND<1 ND 0 0 18
ND<O ND<1 ND -1 0 19
ND<O ND<1 ND -1 0 20
ND<0.5 ND ND<1 ND -0.5 0 21
N0<1 ND ND<1 NO 0 0 21
N0<1 ND ND<1 NO 0 0 21
ND<1 ND ND<1 NO 0 0 21
ND<1 ND ND<1 NO 0 0 21
ND<1 ND ND<1 ND 0 0 21
ND<1 ND ND<1 ND 0 0 21
ND<O ND<1 ND -1 0 22
ND<O ND<1 ND -1 0 23
ND<0.5 ND ND<1 ND -0.5 0 24
ND<l ND ND<1 ND 0 0 24
ND<1 NO ND<1 NO 0 0 24
ND<1 NO ND<1 ND 0 0 24
ND<1 ND ND<1 ND 0 0 24
ND<1 ND ND<1 ND 0 0 24
ND<O ND<1 ND -1 0 25
ND<O N0<1 ND -1 0 26
ND<0.5 NO ND<1 ND -0.5 0 27
ND<1 ND N0<1 NO 0 0 27
ND<l NO ND<1 NO 0 0 27
N0<1 NO ND<1 NO 0 0 27
ND<1 ND N0<1 NO 0 0 27
ND<O ND<1 ND -1 0 28
ND<O ND<1 ND -1 0 29
ND<0.5 NO ND<1 NO -0.5 0 30
ND<1 ND ND<1 ND 0 0 30
ND<1 ND ND<1 ND 0 0 30
ND<l ND ND<1 ND 0 0 30
ND<O ND<1 NO -1 0 31
ND<O ND<1 ND -1 0 32
ND<0.5 ND ND<1 ND -0.5 0 33
ND<1 ND ND<1 ND 0 0 33
N0<1 ND ND<l ND 0 0 33
Page 2
ND<O ND<1 ND
ND<0 ND<1 ND
ND<0.5 ND ND<1 ND
ND<1 ND ND<1 ND
ND<O ND<1 ND
ND<O ND<1 ND
ND<0.5 ND ND<1 ND
NDc::O ND<1 ND
ND<:O ND<1 ND
ND<0.5 ND NOc::1 ND
ND<0 ND<O
ND<0.5 NO NOc::O
NDc::0.5 ND NDc::O
S Statistic = 2 -42 = -40
Tied Group
1
2
Time Period
9/26/2000
12/7/2000
3/7/2001
6/6/2001
9/5/2001
12/11/2001
3/11/2002
6/11/2002
9/11/2002
12/12/2002
3/13/2003
6/11/2003
9/10/2003
3/2/2004
9/14/2004
3/29/2005
9/28/2005
Value
0
-1
-1
-0.5
0
-1
-1
·0.5
-1
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
0.5
Members
14
2
Observations
There are O time periods with multiple data
A= 6024
B=O
C = 2184
D=0
E = 184
F=O
a= 10608
b = 36720
C=544
Group Variance= 254.667
Z-Score = -2.44387
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
Comparison Level at 95% confidence level= -1.65463 (downward trend)
-2.44387 < -1.65463 indicating a downward trend
Page3
•
34
35
36
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
42
42
42
•
Mann-Kendall Trend Analysis
Parameter: Trichloroethene
Well: MW-3
Original Data (Not Transformed)
Non-Detects Replaced with 1/2 DL
Xj Xk Xj-Xk Positives Negatives
4.2 1.9J 2.3 1 0
4.8 1.9J 2.9 2 0
4.4 1.9J 2.5 3 0
1.8 J 1.9J -0.1 3
2.5 1.9J 0.6 4
4.8 1.9J 2.9 5
3.4 1.9 J 1.5 6
3.7 1.9 J 1.8 7
2.7 1.9 J 0.8 8 1
1.2J 1.9J -0.7 8 2
1.1 J 1.9J -0.8 8 3
1.3 J 1.9J -0.6 8 4
1 J 1.9J -0.9 8 5
0.7 J 1.9J -1.2 8 6
ND<O 1.9J -1.9 8 7
ND<0.5 ND 1.9 J -1.4 8 8
4.8 4.2 0.6 9 8
4.4 4.2 0.2 10 8
1.8 J 4.2 -2.4 10 9
2.5 4.2 -1.7 10 10
4.8 4.2 0.6 11 10
3.4 4.2 -0.8 11 11
3.7 4.2 -0.5 11 12
2.7 4.2 -1.5 11 13
1.2J 4.2 -3 11 14
1.1 J 4.2 -3.1 11 15
1.3 J 4.2 -2.9 11 16
1 J 4.2 -3.2 11 17
0.7 J 4.2 -3.5 11 18
ND<O 4.2 -4.2 11 19
ND<0.5 NO 4.2 -3.7 11 20
4.4 4.8 -0.4 11 21
1.8 J 4.8 -3 11 22
2.5 4.8 -2.3 11 23
4.8 4.8 0 11 23
3.4 4.8 -1.4 11 24
3.7 4.8 -1.1 11 25
2.7 4.8 -2.1 11 26
1.2J 4.8 -3.6 11 27
UJ 4.8 -3.7 11 28
1.3J 4.8 -3.5 11 29
1 J 4.8 -3.8 11 30
0.7 J 4.8 -4.1 11 31
ND<O 4.8 -4.8 11 32
ND<0.5 ND 4.8 -4.3 11 33
1.8 J 4.4 -2.6 11 34
2.5 4.4 -1.9 11 35
48 4.4 0.4 12 35
3.4 4.4 -1 12 36
3.7 4.4 -0.7 12 37
2.7 4.4 -1.7 12 38
1.2 J 4.4 -3.2 12 39
1.1 J 4.4 -3.3 12 40
1.3 J 4.4 -3.1 12 41
1 J 4.4 -3.4 12 42
0.7 J 4.4 -3.7 12 43
ND<O 4.4 -4.4 12 44
ND<0.5 ND 4.4 -3.9 12 45
2.5 1.BJ 0.7 13 45
Page 1
•
4.8 1.8J 3 14 45
3.4 1.8 J 1.6 15 45
3.7 1.8 J 1.9 16 45
2.7 1.8 J 0.9 17 45
1.2 J 1.8 J -0.6 17 46
1.1 J 1.8 J -0.7 17 47
1.3 J 1.8 J -0.5 17 48
1 J 1.8 J -0.8 17 49
0.7 J 1.8 J ·1.1 17 50
ND<O 1.8 J -1.8 17 51
ND<0.5 NO 1.8J -1.3 17 52
4.8 2.5 2.3 18 52
3.4 2.5 0.9 19 52
3.7 2.5 1.2 20 52
2.7 2.5 0.2 21 52
1.2J 2.5 -1.3 21 53
1.1 J 2.5 -1.4 21 54
1.3J 2.5 -1.2 21 55
1 J 2.5 -1.5 21 56
0.7 J 2.5 -1.8 21 57
ND<O 2.5 ·2.5 21 58
ND<0.5 ND 2.5 ·2 21 59
3.4 4.8 -1.4 21 60
3.7 4.8 -1.1 21 61
2.7 4.8 -2.1 21 62
1.2J 4.8 -3.6 21 63
1.1 J 4.8 -3.7 21 64
1.3J 4.8 -3.5 21 65
1 J 4.8 -3.8 21 66
0.7 J 4.8 -4.1 21 67
ND<O 4.8 -4.8 21 68
ND<0.5 ND 4.8 -4.3 21 69
3.7 3.4 0.3 22 69
2.7 3.4 -0.7 22 70
1.2J 3.4 ·2.2 22 7,1
1.1 J 3.4 ·2.3 22 72
1.3 J 3.4 -2.1 22 73
1 J 3.4 -2.4 22 74
0.7 J 3.4 ·2.7 22 75
NDo:::O 3.4 -3.4 22 76
ND<0.5 NO 3.4 -2.9 22 77
2.7 3.7 -1 22 78
1.2 J 3.7 -2.5 22 79
1.1 J 3.7 ·2.6 22 80
1.3J 3.7 -2.4 22 81
1 J 3.7 -2.7 22 82
0.7 J 3.7 .3 22 83
ND<O 3.7 -3.7 22 84
ND<0.5 ND 3.7 ·3.2 22 85
1.2 J 2.7 -1.5 22 86
1.1 J 2.7 -1.6 22 87
1.3 J 2.7 -1.4 22 88
1 J 2.7 -1.7 22 89
0.7 J 2.7 ·2 22 90
ND<O 2.7 -2.7 22 91
ND<0.5 ND 2.7 -2.2 22 92
1.1 J 1.2J -0.1 22 93
1.3J 1.2J 0.1 23 93
1 J 1.2J -0.2 23 94
0.7 J 1.2J ·0.5 23 95
ND<O 1.2J ·1.2 23 96
ND<0.5 ND 1.2 J -0.7 23 97
1.3J 1.1 J 0.2 24 97
1 J 1.1 J ·-0.1 24 98
Page 2
0.7 J 1.1 J
ND<O 1.1 J
ND<0.5 ND 1.1 J
1 J 1.3J
0.7 J 1.3J
ND<O 1.3J
ND<0.5 ND 1.3 J
0.7 J 1 J
ND<O 1 J
ND<0.5 ND 1 J
ND<O 0.7 J
ND<D.5 NO 0.7 J
ND<0.5 ND ND<D
S Statistic = 25 -11 o = -85
Tied Group
Time Period
9/26/2000
12/5/2000
3/9/2001
Gn/2001
9/6/2001
12/12/2001
3/11/2002
6/11/2002
9/11/2002
12/12/2002
3/11/2003
6/11/2003
9/11/2003
3/2/2004
9/14/2004
3/29/2005
9/28/2005
Value
4.8
-0.4
-1.1
-0.6
-0.3
-0.6
-1.3
-0.8
-0.3
-1
-0.5
-0.7
-0.2
0.5
Members
2
Observations
1
There are 0 time periods with multiple data
A= 18
8=0
C=0
0=0
E=2
F=O
a= 10608
b = 36720
C = 544
Group Variance= 588.333
Z-Score = -3.46312
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
25
Comparison Level at 95% confidence level = -1.65463 (downward trend)
-3.46312 < -1.65463 indicating a downward trend
Page 3
•
99
100
101 .
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
110
• •
Mann-Kendall Trend Analysis
Parameter: Trichloroethene
Well: MW-12B
Original Data (Not Transformed)
Non-Detects Replaced with 1/2 DL
Xj Xk Xj-Xk Positives Negatives
11.3 11.4 -0.1 0 1
92 11.4 -2.2 0 2
10.6 11.4 ·0.8 0 3
10.1 11.4 -1.3 0 4
9.3 11.4 -2.1 0 5
9.3 11.4 -2.1 0 6
9.9 11.4 -1.5 0 7
8.2 11.4 -3.2 0 8
12.9 11.4 1.5 1 8
6.2 11.4 -5.2 9
5.5 11.4 -5.9 10
6.6 11.4 -4.8 11
6.8 11.4 -4.6 12
6.1 11.4 -5.3 13
5.3 11.4 -6.1 14
4.7 11.4 -6.7 15
9.2 11.3 -2.1 16
10.6 11.3 -0.7 17
10.1 11.3 -1.2 18
9.3 11.3 ·2 19
9.3 11.3 -2 20
9.9 11.3 -1.4 21
8.2 11.3 -3.1 1 22
12.9 11.3 1.6 2 22
6.2 11.3 -5.1 2 23
5.5 11.3 -5.8 2 24
6.6 11.3 -4.7 2 25
6.8 11.3 -4.5 2 26
6.1 11.3 -5.2 2 27
5.3 11.3 ·6 2 28
4.7 11.3 ·6.6 2 29
10.6 9.2 1.4 3 29
10.1 9.2 0.9 4 29
9.3 9.2 0.1 5 29
9.3 9.2 0.1 6 29
9.9 9.2 0.7 7 29
8.2 9.2 -1 7 30
12.9 9.2 3.7 8 30
6.2 9.2 ·3 8 31
5.5 9.2 -3.7 8 32
6.6 9.2 -2.6 8 33
6.8 9.2 -2.4 8 34
6.1 9.2 -3.1 8 35
5.3 9.2 -3.9 8 36
4.7 9.2 -4.5 8 37
10.1 10.6 -0.5 8 38
9.3 10.6 -1.3 8 39
9.3 10.6 -1.3 8 40
9.9 10.6 -0.7 8 41
8.2 10.6 -2.4 8 42
12.9 10.6 2.3 9 42
6.2 10.6 -4.4 9 43
5.5 10.6 -5.1 9 44
6.6 10.6 ·4 9 45
6.8 10.6 ·3.8 9 46
6.1 10.6 -4.5 9 47
5.3 10.6 -5.3 9 48
4.7 10.6 -5.9 9 49
9.3 10.1 ·0.8 9 50
Page 1
• •
9.3 10.1 ·0.8 9 51
9.9 10.1 -0.2 9 52
8.2 10.1 -1.9 9 53
12.9 10.1 2.8 10 53
62 10.1 ·3.9 10 54
5.5 10.1 ·4.6 10 55
6.6 10.1 ·3.5 10 56
6.8 10.1 -3.3 10 57
6.1 10.1 ·4 10 . 58
5.3 10.1 -4.8 10 59
4.7 10.1 .5.4 10 60
9.3 9.3 0 10 60
9.9 9.3 0.6 11 60
8.2 9.3 -1.1 11 61
12.9 9.3 3.6 12 61
6.2 9.3 -3.1 12 62
5.5 9.3 -3.8 12 63
6.6 9.3 -2.7 12 64
6.8 9.3 ·2.5 12 65
6.1 9.3 -3.2 12 66
5.3 9.3 ·4 12 67
4,7 9.3 -4.~ 12 68
9.9 9.3 0.6 13 68
8.2 9.3 -1.1 13 69
12.9 9.3 3.6 14 69
6.2 9.3 -3.1 14 70
5.5 9.3 -3.8 14 71
6.6 9.3 -2.7 14 72
6.8 9.3 -2.5 14 73
6.1 9.3 -3.2 14 74
5.3 9.3 .4 14 75
4.7 9.3 ·4.6 14 76
8.2 9.9 -1.7 14 77
12.9 9.9 3 15 77
6.2 9.9 -3.7 15 78
5.5 9.9 -4.4 15 79
6.6 9.9 ·3.3 15 80
6.8 9.9 -3.1 15 81
6.1 9.9 -3.8 15 82
5.3 9.9 -4.6 15 83
4.7 9.9 -5.2 15 84
12.9 8.2 4.7 16 84
6.2 8.2 ·2 16 85
5.5 8.2 ·2.7 16 86
6.6 8.2 -1.6 16 87
6.8 8.2 -1.4 16 88
6.1 8.2 -2.1 16 89
5.3 8.2 -2.9 16 90
4.7 8.2 -3.5 16 91
6.2 12.9 -6.7 16 92
5.5 12.9 -7.4 16 93
6.6 12.9 -6.3 16 94
6.8 12.9 -6.1 16 95
6.1 1?,9 -6.8 16 96
5.3 12.9 -7.6 16 97 4,7 12.9 -8.2 16 98
5.5 6.2 ·0.7 16 99
6.6 6.2 0.4 17 99
6.8 6.2 0.6 18 99
6.1 6.2 ·0.1 18 100
5.3 6.2 co.9 18 101
4.7 6.2 -1.5 18 102
6.6 5.5 1.1 19 102
6.8 5.5 1.3 20 102
Page 2
6.1 5.5
5.3 5.5
4.7 5.5
6.8 6.6
6.1 6.6
5.3 6.6
4.7 6.6
6.1 6.8
5.3 6.8
4.7 6.8
5.3 6.1
4.7 6.1
4.7 5.3
S Statistic = 22 -113 = -91
Tied Group
1
Time Period
9/26/2000
12fl/2000
3/7/2001
sn12001
9/6/2001
12/12/2001
3/12/2002
6/13/2002
9/12/2002
12/11/2002
3/11/2003
6/10/2003
9/12/2003
3/4/2004
9/16/2004
3/30/2005
9/27/2005
Value
9.3
0.6
-0.2
-0.8
0.2
-0.5
-1.3
-1.9
-0.7
-1.5
-2.1
-0.8
-1.4
-0.6
Members
2
Observations
There are 0 time periods with multiple data
A= 18
8=0
C=0
D=0
E=2
F=O
a= 10608
b = 36720
C = 544
Group Variance= 588.333
Z-Score = -3.71049
21
21
21
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
Comparison Level at 95% confidence level= -1.65463 (downward trend)
-3. 71049 < -1.65463 indicating a downward trend
Page 3
102
103
104
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
•
• •
Mann-Kendall Trend Analysis
Parameter: Nickel
Well: MW-14
Original Data (Not Transformed)
Non-Detects Replaced with 1/2 DL
Xj Xk Xj-Xk Positives Negatives
0.8 UJ 1.2 J ·0.4 0 1
0.94 U 1.2J -0.26 0 2
1 U 1.2J -0.2 0 3
08U 1.2J -0.4 0 4
0.99J 1.2J -0.21 0 5
0.8 U 1.2J -0.4 0 6
uu 1.2J -0.1 0 7
1.1 U 1.2 J -0.1 0 8
1.1 U 1.2 J -0.1 0 9
1.1 U 1.2 J -0.1 0 10
1.1 U 1.2 J -0.1 0 11
1.1 U 1.2 J -0.1 0 12
1.1 U 1.2 J -0.1 0 13
1.1 U 1.2J -0.1 0 14
1.2 B 1.2J 0 0 14
1.1 U 1.2J -0.1 0 15
0.94 U 0.8 UJ 0.14 1 15
1 U 0.8 UJ 0.2 2 15
0.8 U 0.8 UJ 0 2 15
0.99 J 0.8 UJ 0.19 3 15
0.8 U 0.8 UJ 0 3 15
1.1 U 0.8 UJ 0.3 4 15
1.1 U 0.8 UJ 0.3 5 15
1.1 U 0.8 UJ 0.3 6 15
1.1 U 0.8 UJ 0.3 7 15
1.1 U 0.8 UJ 0.3 8 15
1.1 U 0.8 UJ 0.3 9 15
1.1 U 0.8 UJ 0.3 10 15
1.1 U 0.8 UJ 0.3 11 15
1.2 B 0.8 UJ 0.4 12 15
1.1 U 0.8 UJ 0.3 13 15
1 U 0.94 U 0.06 14 15
0.8 U 0.94 U -0.14 14 16
0.99J 0.94 U 0.05 15 16
0.8 U 0.94 U -0.14 15 17
1.1 U 0.94 U 0.16 16 17
1.1 U 0.94 U 0.16 17 17
1.1 U 0.94 U 0.16 18 17
1.1 U 0.94 U 0.16 19 17
1.1 U 0.94 U 0.16 20 17
1.1 U 0.94 U 0.16 21 17
1.1 U 0.94 U 0.16 22 17
1.1 u 0.94 U 0.16 23 17
1.28 0.94 U 0.26 24 17
1.1 U 0.94 U 0.16 25 17
0.8 U 1 U -0.2 25 18
0.99J 1 U -0.01 25 19
0.8 U 1 U -0.2 25 20
1.1 U 1 U 0.1 26 20
1.1 U 1 U 0.1 27 20
1.1 U 1 U 0.1 28 20
1.1 U 1 U 0.1 29 20
1.1 U 1 U 0.1 30 20
1.1 U 1 U 0.1 31 20
1.1 U 1 U 0.1 32 20
1.1 U 1 U 0.1 33 20
1.2 B 1 U 0.2 34 20
1.1 U 1 U 0.1 35 20
0.99J 08U 0.19 36 20
Page 1
• •
0.8 U 0.8 U 0 36 20
1.1 U 08U 0.3 37 20
1.1 U 0.8 U 0.3 38 20
1.1 U 0.8 U 0.3 39 20
1.1 U 0.8 U 0.3 40 20
1.1 U 0.8 U 0.3 41 20
1.1 U 0.8 U 0.3 42 20
1.1 U 0.8 U 0.3 43 20
1.1 U 0.8 U 0.3 44 20
1.2 B 0.8 U 0.4 45 20
1.1 U 0.8 U 0.3 46 20
0.8 U 0.99J -0.19 46 21
1.1 U 0.99J 0.11 47 21
1.1 U 0.99J 0.11 48 21
1.1 U 0.99J 0.11 49 21
1.1 U 0.99J 0.11 50 21
1.1 U 0.99J 0.11 51 21
1.1 U 0.99J 0.11 52 21
1.1 U 0.99J 0.11 53 21
1.1 U 0.99J 0.11 54 21
1.2 B 0.99 J 0.21 55 21
1.1 U 0.99 J 0.11 56 21
1.1 U 0.8 U 0.3 57 21
1.1 U 0.8 U 0.3 58 21
1.1 U 0.8 U 0.3 59 21
1.1 U 0.8 U 0.3 60 21
1.1 U 0.8 U 0.3 61 21
uu 0.8 U 0.3 62 21
1.1 U 0.8 U 0.3 63 21
1.1 U 0.8 U 0.3 64 21
1.28 0.8 U 0.4 65 21
1.1 U 0.8 U 0.3 66 21
1.1 U 1.1 U 0 66 21
1.1 U 1.1 U 0 66 21
1.1 U 1.1 U 0 66 21
1.1 U 1.1 U 0 66 21
1.1 U 1.1 U 0 66 21
1.1 U 1.1 U 0 66 21
1.1 U 1.1 U 0 66 21
1.2 B 1.1 U 0.1 67 21
1.1 U 1.1 U 0 67 21
1.1 U 1.1 U 0 67 21
1.1 U 1.1 U 0 67 21
1.1 U 1.1 U 0 67 21
1.1 U 1.1 U 0 67 21
1.1 U 1.1 U 0 67 21
1.1 U 1.1 U 0 67 21
1.2 B 1.1 U 0.1 68 21
1.1 U 1.1 U 0 68 21
1.1 U 1.1 U 0 68 21
1.1 U 1.1 U 0 68 21
1.1 U 1.1 U 0 68 21
1.1 U 1.1 U 0 68 21
1.1 U 1.1 U 0 68 21
1.2B 1.1 U 0.1 69 21
1.1 U 1.1 U 0 69 21
1.1 U uu 0 69 21
1.1 U 1.1 U 0 69 21
1.1 U uu 0 69 21
1.1 U 1.1 U 0 69 21
1.2 B 1.1 U 0.1 70 21
1.1 U 1.1 U 0 70 21
1.1 U 1.1 U 0 70 21
1.1 U 1.1 U 0 70 21
Page 2
1.1 U 1.1 U
1.2 B 1.1 U
1.1 U 1.1 U
1.1 U 1.1 U
1.1 U 1.1 U
1.2 B 1.1 U
1.1 U 1.1 U
1.1 U 1.1 U
1.2 B uu
1.1 U 1.1 U
1.2 B 1.1 U
1.1 U 1.1 U
1.1 U 1.28
S Statistic= 74 -22 = 52
Tied Group
1
2
3
Time Period
9/25/2000
12/5/2000
3/9/2001
6/12/2001
9/5/2001
12/11/2001
3/13/2002
6/12/2002
9/11/2002
12/12/2002
3/12/2003
6/12/2003
9/11/2003
3/3/2004
9/15/2004
3/30/2005
9/29/2005
Value
1.2
0.8
1.1
0
0.1
0
0
0
0.1
0
0
0 1
0
0.1
0
-0.1
Members
2
3
9
Observations
There are O time periods with multiple data
A= 1740
B=O
C = 510
0=0
E = 80
F=O
a= 10608
b = 36720
C=544
Group Variance= 492.667
• Z-Score = 2.2977
70
71
71
71
71
72
72
72
73
73
74
74
74
Comparison Level at 95% confidence level= 1.65463 (upward trend)
2.2977 > 1.65463 indicating an upward trend
Page 3
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
22
•
•
Mann-Kendall Trend Analysis
Parameter: Nickel
Well: MW-22A
Original Data (Not Transformed)
Non-Detects Replaced with 1/2 DL
Xj Xk Xj-Xk Positives Negatives
0.8 U 2.3 U -1.5 0 1
0.8 U 2.3 U -1.5 0 2
0.8 U 2.3 U -1.5 0 3
0.8 U 2.3 U -1.5 0 4
0.8 U 2.3 U -1.5 0 5
0.8 U 23U -1.5 0 6
1.1 U 2.3 U -1.2 0 7
1.1 U 2.3 U -1.2 0 8
1.1 U 2.3 U -1.2 0 9
1.1 U 2.3 U -1.2 0 10
1.1 U 2.3 U -1.2 0 11
1.1 U 2.3 U -1.2 0 12
1.1 U 2.3 U -1.2 0 13
1.1 U 2.3 U -1.2 0 14
1.1 U 2.3 U -1.2 0 15
1.1 U 2.3 U -1.2 0 16
0.8 U 0.8 U 0 0 16
0.8 U 0.8 U 0 0 16
0.8 U 0.8 U 0 0 16
0.8 U 0.8 U 0 0 16
0.8 U 0.8 U 0 0 16
1.1 U 0.8 U 0.3 16
1.1 U 0.8 U 0.3 2 16
1.1 U 0.8 U 0.3 3 16
1.1 U 0.8 U 0.3 4 16
1.1 U 0.8 U 0.3 5 16
1.1 U 0.8 U 0.3 6 16
1.1 U 0.8 U 0.3 7 16
1.1 U 0.8 U 0.3 8 16
1.1 U 0.8 U 0.3 9 16
1.1 U 0.8 U 0.3 10 16
0.8 U 0.8 U 0 10 16
0.8 U 0.8 U 0 10 16
0.8 U 0.8 U 0 10 16
0.8 U 0.8 U 0 10 16
1.1 U 0.8 U 0.3 11 16
1.1 U 0.8 U 0.3 12 16
1.1 U 0.8 U 0.3 . 13 16
1.1 U 0.8 U 0.3 14 16
1.1 u 0.8 U 0.3 15 16
1.1 U 0.8 U 0.3 16 16
1.1 U 0.8 U 0.3 17 16
1.1 U 0.8 U 0.3 18 16
1.1 U 0.8 U 0.3 19 16
1.1 U 0.8 U 0.3 20 16
0.8 U 0.8 U 0 20 16
0.8 U 0.8 U 0 20 16
0.8 U 0.8 U 0 20 16
1.1 U 0.8 U 0.3 21 16
1.1 U 0.8 U 0.3 22 16
1.1 U 0.8 U 0.3 23 16
1.1 U a.au 0.3 24 16
1.1 U 0.8 U 0.3 25 16
1.1 U 0.8 U 0.3 26 16
1.1 U 0.8 U 0.3 27 16
1.1 U 0.8 U 0.3 28 16
1.1 U 0.8 U 0.3 29 16
1.1 U 0.8 U 0.3 30 16
0.8 U 0.8 U 0 30 16
Page 1
• •
0.8 U 0.8 U 0 30 16
1.1 U 0.8 U 0.3 31 16
1.1U 0.8 U 0.3 32 16
1.1 U 0.8 U 0.3 33 16
1.1 u 0.8 U 0.3 34 16
1.1 U 0.8 U 0.3 35 16
1.1 U 0.8 U 0.3 36 16
1.1 U 0.8 U 0.3 37 16
1.1 U 0.8 U 0.3 38 16
1.1 U 0.8 U 0.3 39 16
1.1 U 0.8 U 0.3 40 16
0.8 U 0.8 U 0 40 16
1.1 U 0.8 U 0.3 41 16
1.1 u 0.8 U 0.3 42 16
1.1 U 0.8 U 0.3 43 16
1.1 U 0.8 U 0.3 44 16
1.1 U 0.8 U 0.3 45 16
1.1 U 0.8 U 0.3 46 16
1.1 U 0.8 U 0.3 47 16
1.1 U 0.8 U 0.3 48 16
1.1 u 0.8 U 0.3 49 16
1.1 U 0.8 U 0.3 50 16
1.1 U 0.8 U 0.3 51 16
1.1 U 0.8 U 0.3 52 16
1.1 U 0.8 U 0.3 53 16
1.1 U 0.8 U 0.3 54 16
1.1 U 0.8 U 0.3 55 16
1.1 U 0.8 U 0.3 56 16
1.1 U 0.8 U 0.3 57 16
1.1 U 0.8 U 0.3 58 16
1.1 U 0.8 U 0.3 59 16
1.1 U 0.8 U 0.3 60 16
1.1 U 1.1 U 0 60 16
1.1 U 1.1 U 0 60 16
1.1 U 1.1 U 0 60 16
1.1 U 1.1 u 0 60 16
1.1 U 1.1 U 0 60 16
1.1 U 1.1 U 0 60 16
1.1 U 1.1 U 0 60 16
1.1 U 1.1 U 0 60 16
1.1 U 1.1 U 0 60 16
1.1 U 1.1 U 0 60 16
1.1 U 1.1 U 0 60 16
1.1 U 1.1 U 0 60 16
1.1 U 1.1 U 0 60 16
1.1 U 1.1 U 0 60 16
1.1 U 1.1 U 0 60 16
1.1 U 1.1 U 0 60 16
1.1 U 1.1 U 0 60 16
1.1 U 1.1 U 0 60 16
1.1 U 1.1 U 0 60 16
1.1 U 1.1 U 0 60 16
1.1 U 1.1 U 0 60 16
1.1 U 1.1 U 0 60 16
1.1 U 1.1 U 0 60 16
1.1 U 1.1 u 0 60 16
1.1 U 1.1 U 0 60 16
1.1 U 1.1 U 0 60 16
1.1 U 1.1 u 0 60 16
1.1 U 1.1 U 0 60 16
1.1 U uu 0 60 16
1.1 U 1.1 U 0 60 16
1.1 U 1.1 U 0 60 16
1.1 U 1.1 U 0 60 16
Page2
1.1 U 1.1 U
1.1 U 1.1 U
1.1 U 1.1 U
1.1 U 1.1 U
1.1 U 1.1 U
1.1 U 1.1 U
1.1 U 1.1 U
1.1 U 1.1 U
1.1 U 1.1 U
1.1 U 1.1 U
uu 1.1 U
1.1 U 1.1 U
1.1 U 1.1 U
S Statistic = 60 -16 = 44
Tied Group
·1
2
Time Period
9/27/2000
12/7/2000
3/8/2001
617/2001
9/5/2001
12/12/2001
3/13/2002
6/13/2002
9/11/2002
12/13/2002
3/13/2003
6/11/2003
9/10/2003
3/2/2004
9/14/2004
3/29/2005
9/28/2005
Value
0.8
1.1
•
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Members
6
10
Observations
There are 0 time periods with multiple data
A= 2760
B=O
C = 840
D=O
E = 120
F=O
a= 10608
b = 36720
C = 544
Group Variance ""436
Z-Score = 2.05933
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
Comparison Level at 95% confidence level= 1.65463 (upward trend)
2.05933 > 1.65463 indicating an upward trend
•
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
Page 3
•
Mann-Kendall Trend Analysis
Parameter: Nickel
Well: MW-64A
Origina! Data {Not Transformed)
Non-Detects Replaced with 1/2 DL
Xj Xk Xj-Xk Positives Negatives
0.8 UJ 3.95 U -3.15 0 1
0.97 J 3.95 U -2.98 0 2
0.8 U 3.95 U -3.15 0 3
0.8 U 3.95 U -3.15 0 4
0.8 U 3.95 U -3.15 0 5
0.8 U 3.95 U -3.15 0 6
1.1 U 3.95 U -2.85 0 7
1.1 U 395 U -2.85 0 8
1.1 U 3.95 U -2.85 0 9
1.1 U 3.95 U -2.85 0 10
1.1 U 3.95 U -2.85 0 11
1.1 U 3.95 U -2.85 0 12
1.1 U 3.95 U -2.85 0 13
1.1 U 3.95 U -2.85 0 14
1.1 U 3.95 U -2.85 0 15
10.7 B 3.95 U 6.75 15
0.97 J 0.8 UJ 0.17 2 15
0.8 U 0.8 UJ 0 2 15
0.8 U 0.8 UJ 0 2 15
0.8 U 0.8 UJ 0 2 15
0.8 U 0.8 UJ 0 2 15
1.1 U 0.8 UJ 0.3 3 15
1.1 U 0.8 UJ 0.3 4 15
1.1 U 0.8 UJ 0.3 5 15
1.1 U 0.8 UJ 0.3 6 15
1.1 U 0.8 UJ 0.3 7 15
1.1 U 08 UJ 03 8 15
1.1 U 0.8 UJ 03 9 15
1.1 U 0.8 UJ 0.3 10 15
1.1 U 0.8 UJ 0.3 11 15
10.7 B 0.8 UJ 9.9 12 15
0.8 U 0.97 J -0.17 12 16
0.8 U 0.97 J -0.17 12 17
0.8 U 0.97 J -0.17 12 18
0.8 U 0.97 J -0.17 12 19
1.1 U 0.97 J 0.13 13 19
1.1 U 0.97 J 0.13 14 19
1.1 U 0.97 J 0.13 15 19
1.1 U 0.97 J 0.13 16 19
1.1 U 0.97 J 0.13 17 19
1.1 U 0.97 J 0.13 18 19
1.1 U 0.97 J 0.13 19 19
1.1 U 0.97 J 0.13 20 19
1.1 U 0.97 J 0.13 21 19
10.7 B 0.97 J 9.73 22 19
0.8 U 0.8 U 0 22 19
0.8 U 0.8 U 0 22 19
0.8 U 0.8 U 0 22 19
1.1 U 0.8 U 0.3 23 19
1.1 U 0.8 U 0.3 24 19
1.1 U 0.8 U 0.3 25 19
1.1 U 0.8 U 0.3 26 19
1.1 U 0.8 U 0.3 27 19
1.1 U 0.8 U 0.3 28 19
1.1 U 0.8 U 0.3 29 19
1.1 U 0.8 U 0.3 30 19
1.1 U 0.8 U 0.3 31 19
10.7 B 0.8 U 9.9 32 19
0.8 U 0.8 U 0 32 19
Page 1
• •
0.8 U 0.8 U 0 32 19
1.1 u 0.8 U 0.3 33 19
1.1 U 0.8 U 0.3 34 19
1.1 U 0.8 U 0.3 35 19
1.1 U 0.8 U 0.3 36 19
1.1 U 0.8 U 0.3 37 19
1.1 U 0.8 U 0.3 38 19
1.1 U 0.8 U 0.3 39 19
1.1 U 0.8 U 0.3 40 19
1.1 U 0.8 U 0.3 41 19
10.7 B 0.8 U 9.9 42 19
0.8 U 0.8 U 0 42 19
1.1 U 0.8 U 0.3 43 19
1.1 U 0.8 U 0.3 44 19
1.1 U 0.8 U 0.3 45 19
1.1 u 0.8 U 0.3 46 19
1.1 U 0.8 U 0.3 47 19
1.1 U 0.8 U 0.3 48 19
1.1 U 0.8 U 0.3 49 19
1.1 U 0.8 U 0.3 50 19
1.1 U 0.8 U 0.3 51 19
10.7 B 0.8 U 99 52 19
1.1 U 0.8 U 0.3 53 19
1.1 U 0.8 U 0.3 54 19
1.1 U 0.8 U 0.3 55 19
1.1 U 0.8 U 0.3 56 19
1.1 U 0.8 U 0.3 57 19
1.1 U 0.8 U 0.3 58 19
1.1 U 0.8 U 0.3 59 19
1.1 U 0.8 U 0.3 60 19
1.1 U 0.8 U 0.3 61 19
10.7 8 0.8 U 9.9 62 19
1.1 U 1.1 U 0 62 19
1.1 U uu 0 62 19
1.1 U 1.1 U 0 62 19
1.1 U 1.1 U 0 62 19
1.1 U 1.1 U 0 62 19
1.1 U 1.1 U 0 62 19
1.1 U 1.1 U 0 62 19
1.1 U 1.1 U 0 62 19
10.7 B 1.1 U 9.6 63 19
1.1 U 1.1 U 0 63 19
1.1 U 1.1 U 0 63 19
1.1 U 1.1 u 0 63 19
1.1 U 1.1 U 0 63 19
1.1 U 1.1 U 0 63 19
1.1 U 1.1 U 0 63 19
1.1 U 1.1 U 0 63 19
_10.7 B 1.1 U 9.6 64 19
1.1 U 1.1 U 0 64 19
1.1 U 1.1 U 0 64 19
1.1 U 1.1 U 0 64 19
1.1 U 1.1 u 0 64 19
1.1 U 1.1 U 0 64 19
1.1 U 1.1 U 0 64 19
10.7 B 1.1 U 9.6 65 19
1.1 U 1.1 U 0 65 19
1.1 U 1.1 U 0 65 19
1.1 U 1.1 U 0 65 19
1.1 U 1.1 U 0 65 19
1.1 U 1.1 U 0 65 19
10.7 B 1.1 U 9.6 66 19
1.1 U 1.1 U 0 66 19
1.1 U 1.1 U 0 66 19
Page 2
1.1 u 1.1 U
1.1 U 1.1 U
10.7 B 1.1 U
1.1 U 1.1 U
1.1 U 1.1 U
1.1 U 1.1 U
10.7 B 1.1 U
1.1 u 1.1 U
1.1 U 1.1 U
10.7 B 1.1 U
1.1 U 1.1 U
10.7 B 1.1 U
10.7 B 1.1 U
S Statistic= 71 -19 c:= 52
Tied Group
1
2
Time Period
9/27/2000
12/5/2000
3/14/2001
6/5/2001
9/4/2001
12/12/2001
3/12/2002
6/11/2002
9/10/2002
12/11/2002
3/15/2003
6/10/2003
9/9/2003
3/4/2004
9/14/2004
3/31/2005
9/27/2005
Value
0.8
1.1
0
0
9.6
0
0
0
9.6
0
0
9.6
0
9.6
9.6
Members
5
9
Observations
There are 0 time periods with multiple data
A= 1956
B=0
C = 564
D=O
E = 92
F=0
a= 10608
b = 36720
C=544
Group Variance= 480.667
Z-Score = 2.32621
66
66
67
67
67
67
68
68
68
69
69
70
71
Comparison Level at 95% confidence level = 1.65463 (upward trend)
2.32621 > 1.65463 indicating an upward trend
Page 3
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
•
• •
Mann-Kendall Trend Analysis
Parameter: Nickel
Well: MW-64
Original Data (Not Transformed)
Non-Detects Replaced with 1/2 DL
Xj Xk Xj-Xk Positives Negatives
0.8 U 5.4 U -4.6 0 1
1.2 J 5.4U -4.2 0 2
0.8 U 5.4U -4.6 0 3
0.8 U 5.4U -4.6 0 4
0.8 U 5.4U -4.6 0 5
1.5 J 5.4U -3.9 0 6
1.1 u 5.4U -4.3 0 7
1.1 U 5.4U -4.3 0 8
1.1 U 5.4U -4.3 0 9
1.1 U 5.4U -4.3 0 10
1.1 U 5.4U -4.3 0 11
11 J 5.4 U 5.6 11
1.1 J 5.4U -4.3 12
5.8 B 5.4 U 0.4 2 12
2.5 B 5.4 U -2.9 2 13
1.8B 5.4 U -3.6 2 14
1.2J 0.8 U 0.4 3 14
0.8 U 0.8 U 0 3 14
0.8 U 0.8 U 0 3 14
0.8 U 0.8 U 0 3 14
1.SJ 0.8 U 0.7 4 14
1.1 U 0.8 U 0.3 5 14
1.1 U 0.8 U 0.3 6 14
1.1 U 0.8 U 0.3 7 14
1.1 U 0.8 U 0.3 8 14
1.1 U 0.8 U 0.3 9 14
11 J 0.8 U 10.2 10 14
1.1 J 0.8 U 0.3 11 14
5.8 B 0.8 U 5 12 14
2.5 B 0.8 U 1.7 13 14
1.8 B 0.8 U 14 14
0.8 U 1.2J -0.4 14 15
0.8 U 1.2J -0.4 14 16
0.8 U 1.2J -0.4 14 17
1.5 J 1.2J 0.3 15 17
1.1 U 1.2J -0.1 15 18
1.1 U 1.2J -0.1 15 19
1.1 U 1.2 J -0.1 15 20
1.1 U 1.2 J -0.1 15 21
1.1 U 1.2 J -0.1 15 22
11 J 1.2 J 9.8 16 22
UJ 1.2 J -0.1 16 23
5.8 B 1.2 J 4.6 17 23
2.5 B 1.2 J 1.3 18 23
1.8 B 1.2 J 0.6 19 23
0.8 U 0.8 U 0 19 23
0.8 U 0.8 U 0 19 23
1.5 J 0.8 U 0.7 20 23
1.1 U 0.8 U 0.3 21 23
1.1 U 0.8 U 0.3 22 23
1.1 U 0.8 U 0.3 23 23
1.1 U 0.8 U 0.3 24 23
1.1 U 0.8 U 0.3 25 23
11 J 0.8 U 10.2 26 23
1.1 J 0.8 U 0.3 27 23
5.8 B 0.8 U 5 28 23
2.5 B 0.8 U 1.7 29 23
1.8B 0.8 U 30 23
0.8 U 0.8 U 0 30 23
Page 1
• •
1.SJ 0.8 U 0.7 31 23
1.1 U 0.8 U 0.3 32 23
1.1 U 0.8 U 0.3 33 23
1.1 U 0.8 U 0.3 34 23
1.1 U 0.8 U 0.3 35 23
1.1 U 0.8 U 0.3 36 23
11 J 0.8 U 10.2 37 23
1.1 J 0.8 U 0.3 38 23
5.8 ~ . 0.8 U 5 39 23
2.5 B 0.8 U 1. 7 40 23
1.8 B 0.8 U 41 23
1.5 J 0.8 U 0.7 42 23
1.1 U 0.8 U 0.3 43 23
1.1 U 0.8 U 0.3 44 23
1.1 U 0.8 U 0.3 45 23
1.1 U 0.8 U 0.3 46 23
1.1 U 0.8 U 0.3 47 23
11 J 0.8 U 10.2 48 23
1.1 J 0.8 U 0.3 49 23
5.8 B 0.8 U 5 50 23
2.5 B 0.8 U 1.7 51 23
1.8B 0.8 U 52 23
1.1 U 1.5 J -0.4 52 24
1.1 U 1.SJ -0.4 52 25
1.1 U 1.5 J -0.4 52 26
1.1 U 1.5 J -0.4 52 27
1.1 U 1.5 J -0.4 52 28
11 J 1.5 J 9.5 53 28
1.1 J 1.5 J -0.4 53 29
5.8 B 1.5 J 4.3 54 29
2.5 B 1.5 J 55 29
1.88 1.5 J 0.3 56 29
1.1 U 1.1 U 0 56 29
1.1.U 1.1 U 0 56 29
1.1 U 1.1 U 0 56 29
1.1 U 1.1 U 0 56 29
11 J 1.1 U 9.9 57 29
1.1 J 1.1 U 0 57 29
5.8 B 1.1 U 4.7 58 29
2.5 B 1.1 U 1.4 59 · 29
1.88 1.1 U 0.7 60 29
1.1 U 1.1 U 0 60 29
1.1 U 1.1 U 0 60 29
1.1 U 1.1 U 0 60 29
11 J 1.1 u 9.9 61 29
1.1 J 1.1 U 0 61 29
5.8 B 1.1 U 4.7 62 29
2.5 B 1.1 U 1.4 63 29
1.8 B 1.1 U 0.7 64 29
1.1 U 1.1 U 0 64 29
1.1 U 1.1 U 0 64 29
11 J 1.1 U 9.9 65 29
1.1 J 1.1 U 0 65 29 s.a· a 1.1 U 4.7 66 29
2.5 B 1.1 U 1.4 67 29
1.88 1.1 U 0.7 68 29
1.1 U 1.1 U 0 68 29
11 J 1.1 U 9.9 69 29
1.1 J 1.1 U 0 69 29
5.8 B 1.1 U 4.7 70 29
2.5 B 1.1 U 1.4 71 29
1.88 1.1 U 0.7 72 29
11 J 1.1 U 9.9 73 29
1.1 J 1.1 U 0 73 29
Page2
5.8 B 1.1 U
2.5 B 1.1 U
1.8B 1.1 U
1.1 J 11 J
5.8 B 11 J
2.5 B 11 J
1.88 11 J
5.8 B 1.1 J
2.5 B 1.1 J
1.8 B 1.1 J
2.5 B 5.8 B
1.8 B 5.8 B
1.8 B 2.5 B
S Statistic = 79 -36 = 43
Tied Group
1
2
Time Period
9/28/2000
12/7/2000
3/14/2001
61512001
91512001
12/11/2001
3/12/2002
6/11/2002
9/10/2002
12/13/2002
3/15/2003
6/10/2003
9/9/2003
3/4/2004
9/14/2004
3/31/2005
9/27/2005
Value
0.8
1.1
•
4.7
1.4
0.7
-9.9
-5.2
-8.5
-9.2
4.7
1.4
0.7
-3.3
-4
-0.7
Members
4
6
Observations
There are 0 time periods with multiple data
A= 666
B=O
C = 144
0=0
E = 42
F=D
8=10608
b = 36720
C=544
Group Variance= 552.333
Z-Score = 1.7871
74
75
76
76
76
76
76
77
78
79
79
79
79
Comparison Level at 95% confidence level= 1.65463 (upward trend)
1.7871 > 1.65463 indicating an upward trend
Page 3
29
29
29
30
31
32
33
33
33
33
34
35
36
•
• •
Mann-Kendall Trend Analysis
Parameter: Nickel
Well: MW-16
Original Data (Not Transformed)
Non-Detects Replaced with 1/2 DL
Xj Xk Xj-Xk Positives Negatives
0.95 J 2.-1 J -1.15 0 1
0.8 U 2.1 J -1.3 0 2
0.8 U 2.1 J -1.3 0 3
0.8 U 2.1 J -1.3 0 4
0.8 U 2.1 J -1.3 0 5
0.8 U 2.1 J -1.3 0 6
1.1 U 2.1 J -1 0 7
1.1 U 2.1 J -1 0 8
1.1 U 2.1 J -1 0 9
1.1 U 2.1 J -1 0 10
1.1 U 2.1 J -1 0 11
1.1 U 2.1 J -1 0 12
1.1 U 2.1 J -1 0 13
uu 2.1 J -1 0 14
1.1 U 2.1 J -1 0 15
1.1 U 2.1 J -1 0 16
0.8 U 0.95 J -0.15 0 17
0.8 U 0.95 J -0.15 0 18
0.8 U 0.95 J -0.15 0 19
0.8 U 0.95 J -0.15 0 20
0.8 U 0.95 J -0.15 0 21
1.1 U 0.95 J 0.15 1 21
1.1 U 0.95J 0.15 2 21
1.1 U 0.95J 0.15 3 21
1.1 U 0.95J 0.15 4 21
1.1 U 0.95J 0.15 5 21
1.1 U 0.95J 0.15 6 21
1.1 U 0.95 J 0.15 7 21
1.1 U 0.95 J 0.15 8 21
1.1 U 0.95 J 0.15 9 21
1.1 U 0.95 J 0.15 10 21
0.8 U 0.8 U 0 10 21
0.8 U 0.8 U 0 10 21
0.8 U 0.8 U 0 10 21
0.8 U 0.8 U 0 10 21
1.1 U 0.8 U 0.3 11 21
1.1 U 0.8 U 0.3 12 21
1.1 U 0.8 U 0.3 13 21
1.1 U 0.8 U 0.3 14 21
1.1 U 0.8 U 0.3 15 21
1.1 U 0.8 U 0.3 16 21
1.1 U 0.8 U 0.3 17 21
1.1 U 0.8 U 0.3 18 21
1.1 U 0.8 U 0.3 19 21
1.1 U 0.8 U 0.3 20 21
0.8 U 0.8 U 0 20 21
0.8 U 0.8 U 0 20 21
0.8 U 0.8 U 0 20 21
1.1 U 0.8 U 0.3 21 21
uu 0.8 U 0.3 22 21
1.1 U 0.8 U 0.3 23 21
1.1 U 0.8 U 0.3 24 21
1.1 U 0.8 U 0.3 25 21
1.1 U 0.8 U 0.3 26 21
1.1 U 0.8 U 0.3 27 21
1.1 U 0.8 U 0.3 28 21
1.1 U 0.8 U 0.3 29 21
1.1 U 0.8 U 0.3 30 21
0.8 U 0.8 U 0 30 21
Page 1
• •
0.8 U 0.8 U 0 30 21
1.1 U 0.8 U 0.3 31 21
1.1 U 0.8 U 0.3 32 21
1.1 u 0.8 U 0.3 33 21
1.1 U 0.8 U 0.3 34 21
1.1 U 0.8 U 0.3 35 21
1.1 U 0.8 U 0.3 36 21
1.1 U 0.8 U 0.3 37 21
1.1 U 0.8 U 0.3 38 21·
1.1 U 0.8 U 0.3 39 21
1.1U 0.8 U 0.3 40 21
0.8 U 0.8 U 0 40 21
1.1U 0.8 U 0.3 41 21
1.1 U 0.8 U 0.3 42 21
1.1 U 0.8 U 0.3 43 21
1.1 U 0.8 U 0.3 44 21
1.1 U 0.8 U 0.3 45 21
1.1 U 0.8 U 0.3 46 21
1.1 U 0.8 U 0.3 47 21
1.1 u 0.8 U 0.3 48 21
1.1 U 0.8 U 0.3 49 21
1.1 U o.0u 0.3 50 21
1.1 U 0.8 U 0.3 51 21
1.1 U 0.8 U 0.3 52 21
1.1 U 0.8 U 0.3 53 21
1.1 U 0.8 U 0.3 54 21
1.1 U 0.8 U 0.3 55 21
1.1 U 0.8 U 0.3 56 21
1.1 U 0.8 U 0.3 57 21
1.1 U 0.8 U 0.3 58 21
1.1 U 0.8 U 0.3 59 21
1.1 U 0.8 U 0.3 60 21
1.1 u 1.1 U 0 60 21
1.1 U 1.1 U 0 60 21
1.1 U 1.1 U 0 60 21
1.1 U 1.1 U 0 60 21
1.1 U 1.1 U 0 60 21
1.1 U 1.1 U 0 60 21
1.1 u 1.1 U 0 60 21
1.1 U 1.1 U 0 60 21
1.1 U 1.1 U 0 60 21
1.1 U 1.1 U 0 60 21
1.1 U 1.1 u 0 60 21
1.1 U 1.1 U 0 60 21
1.1 U 1.1 U 0 60 21
1.1 U 1.1 U 0 60 21
1.1.U 1.1 U 0 60 21
1.1 U 1.1U 0 60 21
1.1 U 1.1 U 0 60 21
1.1 U 1.1 U 0 60 21
1.1 U 1.1 U 0 60 21
1.1 U 1.1 U 0 60 21
1.1 U 1.1 U 0 60 21
1.1 U 1.1 U 0 60 21
1.1 U • 1.1 u 0 60 21
1.1 U 1.1 U 0 60 21
1.1 U 1.1 U 0 60 21
1.1 U 1.1 U 0 60 21
1.1 U 1.1 U 0 60 21
1.1 U 1.1 U 0 60 21
1.1 U 1.1 U 0 60 21
1.1 U 1.1 U 0 60 21
1.1 U 1.1 U 0 60 21
1.1 U 1.1 U 0 60 21
Page 2
1.1 U 1.1 U
1.1 U 1.1 U
1.1 U 1.1 U
1.1 U uu
1.1 U 1.1 U
1.1 U 1.1 U
11 U 1.1 U
1.1 U 1.1 U
1.1 U 1.1 U
1.1 U 1.1 U
1.1 U 1.1 U
1.1 U 1.1 U
1.1 U 1.1 U
S Statistic= 60 • 21 = 39
Tied Group
1
2
Time Period
9/27/2000
12/5/2000
3/8/2001
617/2001
9/6/2001
12/12/2001
3/13/2002
6/12/2002
9/12/2002
12/12/2002
3/14/2003
6/12/2003
9/10/2003
3/3/2004
9/15/2004
3/30/2005
9/29/2005
Value
0.8
1.1
•
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Members
5
10
Observations
There are 0 time periods with multiple data
A= 2550
B=0
C = 780
D=0
E = 110
F=0
a= 10608
b = 36720
C = 544
Group Variance= 447.667
Z-Score = 1.796
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
Comparison Level at 95% confidence level= 1.65463 (upward trend)
l.796 > 1.65463 indicating an upward trend
·•
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
Page 3
•
Mann-Kendall Trend Analysis
Parameter: Nickel
Well: MW-27A
Original Data (Not Transformed)
Non-Detects Replaced with 1/2 DL
Xj Xk Xj-Xk Positives Negatives
3.8 U 6.1 J -2.3 0 1
3.3 U 6.1 J -2.8 0 2
3.4 U 6.1 J -2.7 0 3
2.7 J 6.1 J -3.4 0 4
2.7J 6.1 J -3.4 0 5
1.1 J 6.1 J -5 0 6
1.1 U 6.1 J -5 0 7
2.7 J 6.1 J -3.4 0 8
1.1 U 6.1 J -5 0 9
1.1 U 6.1 J -5 0 10
1.1 U 6.1 J -5 0 11
1.1 U 6.1 J -5 0 12
1.8 J 6.1 J -4.3 0 13
2.9 B 6.1 J -3.2 0 14
2B 6.1 J -4.1 0 15
1.7 B 6.1 J -4.4 0 16
3.3 U 3.8 U -0.5 0 17
3.4 U 3.8 U -0.4 0 18
2.7 J 3.8 U -1.1 0 19
2.7 J 3.8 U -1.1 0 20
1.1 J 3.8 U -2.7 0 21
1.1 U 3.8 U -2.7 0 22
2.7 J 3.8 U -1.1 0 23
1.1 U 3.8 U -2.7 0 24
1.1 U 3.8 U -2.7 0 25
1.1 U 3.8 U -2.7 0 26
1.1 U 3.8 U -2.7 0 27
1.8 J 3.8 U -2 0 28
2.9 B 3.8 U -0.9 0 29
28 3.8 U -1.8 0 30
1.7 B 38U -2.1 0 31
3.4 U 3.3 U 0.1 31
2.7 J 3.3 U -0.6 32
2.7 J 3.3 U -0.6 33
1.1 J 3.3 U -2.2 34
1.1 U 3.3 U -2.2 35
2.7 J 3.3 U -0.6 36
1.1 U 3.3 U -2.2 37
1.1 U 3.3 U -2.2 38
1.1 U 3.3 U -2.2 39
1.1 U 3.3 U -2.2 40
1.BJ 3.3 U -1.5 41
2.9 B 3.3 U -0.4 42
28 3.3 U -1.3 43
1.7 B 3.3 U -1.6 44
2.7 J 3.4 U -0.7 45
2.7 J 3.4 U -0.7 46
1.1 J 3.4 U -2.3 47
1.1 U 3.4 U -2.3 48
2.7 J 3.4 U -0.7 49
1.1 U 3.4 U -2.3 50
1.1 U 3.4 U -2.3 51
1.1 U 3.4 U -2.3 52
1.1 U 3.4 U -2.3 53
1.BJ 3.4 U -1.6 54
2.9 8 3.4 U -0.5 55
28 3.4 U -1.4 56
1.7 B 3.4 U -1.7 57
2.7 J 2.7 J 0 57
Page 1
•
1.1 J 2.7 J ·1.6 58
1.1 U 2.7 J -1.6 59
2.7 J 2.7 J 0 59
1.1 U 2.7 J -1.6 60
1.1 u 2.7 J -1.6 61
1.1 U 2.7 J -1.6 62
1.1 U 2.7 J -1.6 63
1.8J 2.7 J -0.9 1 64
2.9 B 2.7 J 0.2 2 64
28 2.7 J -0.7 2 65
1.7 B 2.7 J -1 2 66
1.1 J 2.7 J -1.6 2 67
1.1 U 2.7 J -1.6 2 68
2.7 J 2.7 J 0 2 68
1.1 U 2.7 J -1.6 2 69
1.1 U 2.7 J -1.6 2 70
1.1 U 2.7 J -1.6 2 71
1.1 U 2.7 J -1.6 2 72
1.BJ 2.7 J -0.9 2 73
2.9 B 2.7 J 0.2 3 73
28 2.7 J -0.7 3 74
1.7 8 2.7 J -1 3 75
1.1 U 1.1 J 0 3 75
2.7 J 1.1 J 1.6 4 75
1.1 U 1.1 J 0 4 75
1.1 U UJ 0 4 75
1.1 U 1.1 J 0 4 75
1.1 U 1.1 J 0 4 75
1.BJ 1.1 J 0.7 5 75
2.9 B 1.1 J 1.8 6 75
28 1.1 J 0.9 7 75
1.7B 1.1 J 0.6 8 75
2.7 J 1.1 U 1.6 9 75
1.1 U .1.1 U 0 9 75
1.1 U 1.1 U 0 9 75
1.1 U 1.1 U 0 9 75
1.1 U 1.1 U 0 9 75
1.BJ 1.1 U 0.7 10 75
2.9 8 1.1 U 1.8 11 75
28 1.1 U 0.9 12 75
1.7 B 1.1 U 0.6 13 75
1.1 U 2.7 J -1.6 13 76
1.1 U 2.7 J -1.6 13 77
1.1 U 2.7 J -1.6 13 78
1.1 U 2.7 J -1.6 13 79
1.BJ 2.7 J -0.9 13 80
2.9 B 2.7 J 0.2 14 80
28 2.7 J -0.7 14 81
1.7B 2.7 J -1 14 82
1.1 U 1.1 U 0 14 82
1.1 U 1.1 U 0 14 82
1.1 U 1.1 U 0 14 82
1.BJ 1.1 U 0.7 15 82
2.9 B 1.1 U 1.8 16 82
28 1.1 U 0.9 17 82
1.7 B 1.1 U 0.6 18 82
1.1 U 1.1 U 0 18 82
1.1 U 1.1 U 0 18 82
1.BJ 1.1 U 0.7 19 82
2.9 B 1.1 U 1.8 20 82
28 1.1 U 0.9 21 82
1.7 B 1.1 U 0.6 22 82
1.1 U 1.1 U 0 22 82
1.8 J 1.1 U 0.7 23 82
Page 2
2.98 1.1 U
28 1.1 U
1.7 B 1.1 U
1.8 J 1.1 U
2.9 B 1.1 U
28 1.1 U
1.7 B 1.1 U
2.9 8 1.8 J
28 1.BJ
1.7 B 1.8 J
28 2.9 B
1.7B 2.9 B
1.78 28
S Statistic = 32 -86 = -54
Tied Group
1
2
Time Period
9/26/2000
12/6/2000
3/9/2001
6/12/2001
9/5/2001
12/11/2001
3/11/2002
6/12/2002
9/12/2002
12/12/2002
3/12/2003
6/11/2003
9/11/2003
312/2004
9/15/2004
3/29/2005
9/28/2005
Value
2.7
1.1
1.8
0.9
0.6
0.7
1.8
0.9
0.6
1.1
0.2
~0.1
-0.9
-1.2
-0.3
Members
3
6
Observations
There are 0 time periods with multiple data
A= 576
8=0
C = 126
D=O
E = 36
F=O
a= 10608
b = 36720
C = 544
Group Variance= 557.333
Z-Score = -2.24501
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
32
32
32
32
Comparison Level at 95% confidence level= -1.65463 (downward trend)
-2.24501 < -1.65463 indicating a downward trend
Page 3
82
82
82
82
82
82
82
82
82
83
84
85
86
•
• •
Mann-Kendall Trend Analysis
Parameter: Nickel
Well: MW-16A
Original Data (Not Transformed)
Non-Detects Replaced with 1/2 DL
Xj Xk Xj-Xk Positives Negatives
30.6 J 32.1 J -1.5 0 1
27.5 U 32.1 J -4.6 0 2
16.8 J 32.1 J -15.3 0 3
27.6 J 32.1 J -4.5 0 4
15.3J 32.1 J -16.8 0 5
10.2J 32.1 J -21.9 0 6
15.7 J 32.1 J -16.4 0 7
17.1 J 32.1 J -15 0 8
1.1 U 32.1 J -31 0 9
9J 32.1 J -23.1 0 10
8.7 J 32.1 J -23.4 0 11
7.7 J 32.1 J -24.4 0 12
12.SJ 32.1 J -19.6 0 13
8.1 B 32.1 J -24 0 14
2.7 B 32.1 J -29.4 0 15
2.9 8 32.1 J -29.2 0 16
27.5 U 30.BJ -3.1 0 17
16.8 J 30.6J -13.8 0 18
27.6 J 30.6 J -3 0 19
15.JJ 30.6 J -15.3 0 20
10.2J 30.6 J -20.4 0 21
15.7 J 30.6 J -14.9 0 22
17.1 J 30.6 J -13.5 0 23
1.1 U 30.6 J -29.5 0 24
9J 30.6 J -21.6 0 25
8.7 J 30.6J -21.9 0 26
7.7 J 30.6 J -22.9 0 27
12.5J 30.6J -18.1 0 28
8.1 B 30.6J -22.5 0 29
2.7 8 30.BJ -27.9 0 30
2.9 8 30.6J -27.7 0 31
16.8 J 27.5 U -10.7 0 32
27.6 J 27.5 U 0.1 32
15.3J 27.5 U -12.2 33
10.2 J 27.5 U -17.3 34
15.7 J 27.5 U -11.8 35
17.1 J 27.5 U -10.4 36
1.1 U 27.5 U -26.4 37
9J 27.5 U -18.5 38
8.7 J 27.5 U -18.8 39
7,7 J 27.5 U -19.8 40
12.5 J 27.5 U -15 41
8.1 B 27.5 U -19.4 42
2.7 B 27.5 U -24.8 43
2.9 8 27.5 U -24.6 44
27.BJ 16.BJ 10.8 2 44
15.3 J 16.8J -1.5 2 45
10.2 J 16.8J -6.6 2 46
15.7 J 16.8J -1.1 2 47
17.1 J 16.8J 0.3 3 47
1,1 U 16.8J -15.7 3 48
9J 16.8J -7.8 3 49
8.7 J 16.8J -8.1 3 50
7.7 J 16.8 J -9.1 3 51
12.5 J 16.8J -4.3 3 52
8.1 B 16.8 J -8.7 3 53
2.7 8 16.8 J -14.1 3 54
2.9 B 16.8 J -13.9 3 55
15.3 J 27.6 J -12.3 3 56
Page 1
•
10.2J 27.6 J -17.4 3 57
15.7 J 27.6 J -11.9 3 58
17.1 J 27.6J -10.5 3 59
1.1 U 27.6 J -26.5 3 60
9J 27.6 J -18.6 3 61
8.7 J 27.6 J -18.9 3 62
7.7 J 27.6 J -19.9 3 63
12.5 J 27.6J -15.1 3 64
8.1 B 27.6J -19.5 3 65
2.7 B 27.6J -24.9 3 66
2.9 B 27.GJ -24.7 3 67
10.2 J 15.3J -5.1 3 68
15.7 J 15.3 J 0.4 4 68
17.1 J 15.3 J 1.8 5 68
1.1 U 15.3J -14.2 5 69
9J 15.3J -6.3 5 70
8.7 J 15.3J -6.6 5 71
7.7 J 15.3J -7.6 5 72
12.5 J 15.3 J -2.8 5 73
8.1 B 15.3 J -7.2 5 74
2.7 B 15.3J -12.6 5 75
2.9 B 15.3 J -12.4 5 76
15.7 J 10.2 J 5.5 6 76
17.1 J 10.2 J 6.9 7 76
1.1 U 10.2 J -9.1 7 77
9J 10.2 J -1.2 7 78
8.7 J 10.2J -1.5 7 79
7.7 J 10.2J -2.5 7 80
12.5 J 10.2J 2.3 8 80
8.1 B 10.2J -2.1 8 81
2.7 B 10.2J -7.5 8 82
2.9 B 10.2J -7.3 8 83
17.1 J 15.7 J 1.4 9 83
1.1 U 15.7 J -14.6 9 84
9J 15.7 J -6.7 9 85
8.7 J 15.7 J -7 9 86
7.7 J 15.7 J -8 9 87
12.5 J 15.7 J -3.2 9 88
8.1 B 15.7 J -7.6 9 89
2.7 B 15.7 J -13 9 90
2.9 8 15.7 J -12.8 9 91
1.1 U 17.1 J -16 9 92
9J 17.1 J -8.1 9 93
8.7 J 17.1 J -8.4 9 94
7.7 J 17.1 J -9.4 9 95
12.5 J 17.1 J -4.6 9 96
8.1 B 17.1 J -9 9 97
2.7 B 17.1 J -14.4 9 98
2.9 B 17.1 J -14.2 9 99
9J 1.1 U 7.9 10 99
8.7 J 1.1 U 7.6 11 99
7.7 J 1.1 U 6.6 12 99
12.SJ 1.1 U 11.4 13 99
8.1 B 1.1 U 7 14 99
2.7 B 1.1 U 1.6 15 99
2.9 B 1.1 U 1.8 16 99
8.7 J 9J -0.3 16 100
7.7 J 9J -1.3 16 101
12.SJ 9J 3.5 17 101
8.1 B 9J -0.9 17 102
2.7 B 9J -6.3 17 103
2.9 B 9J -6.1 17 104
7.7 Jc 8.7 J -1 17 105
12.5 J 8.7 J 3.8 18 105
Page 2
8.1 B 8.7 J
2.7 B 8.7 J
2.9 B 8.7 J
12.5 J 7.7 J
8.1 B 7.7 J
2.7 B 7.7 J
2.9 B 7,7 J
8.1 B 12.5 J
2.7 B 12.5 J
2.9 B 12.5 J
2.7 B 8.1 B
2.9 B 8.1 B
2.9 B 2.7 B
S Statistic= 21 -115 = -94
Tied Group
Time Period
9/27/2000
12/5/2000
3/8/2001
sn12001
9/6/2001
12/12/2001
3/13/2002
6/12/2002
9/11/2002
12/12/2002
3/14/2003
6/12/2003
9/10/2003
3/3/2004
9/15/2004
3/30/2005
9/29/2005
Value
•
-0.6
-6
-5.8
4.8
0.4
-5
-4.8
-4.4
-9.8
-9.6
-5.4
-5.2
0.2
Members
Observations
There are 0 time periods with multiple data
A=O
B=0
C=D
0=0
E=0
F=0
a= 10608
b = 36720
C = 544
Group Variance= 589.333
Z-Score = -3.83091
18
18
18
19
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
21
Comparison Level at 95% confidence level= -1.65463 (downward trend)
-3.83091 < -1.65463 indicating a downward trend
Page 3
106
107
108
108
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
115
•
•
Mann-Kendall Trend Analysis
Parameter: Nickel
Well: MW-66
Original Data (Not Transformed)
Non-Detects Replaced with 1/2 DL
Xj Xk Xj-Xk Positives Negatives
1.BJ 5.3 U -3.5 0 1
1.BU 5.3 U -3.5 0 2
0.8 U 5.3 U -4.5 0 3
1.2J 5.3 U -4.1 0 4
1.9J 5.3 U -3.4 0 5
0.8 U 5.3 U -4.5 0 6
1.1 U 5.3 U -4.2 0 7
1.1 U 5.3 U -4.2 0 8
1.1 U 5.3 U -4.2 0 9
1.1 U 5.3 U -4.2 0 10
1.1 U 5.3 U -4.2 0 11
1.1 U 5.3 U -4.2 0 12
1.1 U 5.3 U -4.2 0 13
1.1 U 5.3 U -4.2 0 14
1.1 U 5.3 U -4.2 0 15
1.1 U 5.3 U -4.2 0 16
1.8 U 1.8 J 0 0 16
0.8 U 1.BJ -1 0 17
1.2 J 1.BJ -0.6 0 18
1.9 J 1.BJ 0.1 18
0.8 U 1.BJ -1 19
1.1 U 1.BJ -0.7 20
1.1 U 1.BJ -0.7 21
1.1 U 1.BJ -0.7 22
1.1 U 1.BJ -0.7 23
1.1 U 1.BJ -0.7 24
1.1 U 1.BJ -0.7 25
1.1 U 1.BJ -0.7 26
1.1 U 1.8 J -0.7 27
1.1 U 1.BJ -0.7 28
1.1 U 1.BJ -0.7 29
0.8 U 1.8 U ·1 30
1.2J 1.8 U -0.6 31
1.9J 1.8 U 0.1 2 31
0.8 U 1.8 U -1 2 32
1.1 U 1.8 U -0.7 2 33
1.1 U 1.8 U -0.7 2 34
1.1 U 1.8 U -0.7 2 35
1.1 U 1.8 U -0.7 2 36
1.1 U 1.8 U -0.7 2 37
1.1 U 1.8 U -0.7 2 38
1.1 U 1.8 U -0.7 2 39
1.1 U 1.8 U -0.7 2 40
1.1 U 1.8 U -0.7 2 41
1.1 U 1.8 U -0.7 2 42
1.2 J 0.8 U 0.4 3 42
1.9 J 0.8 U 1.1 4 42
0.8 U 0.8 U 0 4 42
1.1 U 0.8 U 0.3 5 42
1.1 U 0.8 U 0.3 6 42
1.1 U 0.8 U 0.3 7 42
1.1 U 0.8 U 0.3 8 42
1.1 U 0.8 U 0.3 9 42
1.1 U 0.8 U 0.3 10 42
1.1 U 0.8 U 0.3 11 42
1.1 U 0.8 U 0.3 12 42
1.1 U 0.8 U 0.3 13 42
1.1 U 0.8 U 0.3 14 42
1.9 J 1.2J 0.7 15 42
Page 1
•
0.8 U 1.2 J -0.4 15 43
1.1 U 1.2 J -0.1 15 44
1.1 U 1.2 J -0.1 15 45
1.1 U 1.2 J -0.1 15 46
1.1 U 1.2 J -0.1 15 47
1.1 U 1.2 J -0.1 15 48
1.1 U 1.2J -0.1 15 49 uu 1.2J -0.1 15 so
1.1 U 1.2J -0.1 15 51
1.1 U 1.2 J -0.1 15 52
1.1 U 1.2 J -0.1 15 53
0.8 U 1.9 J -1.1 15 54.
1.1 U 1.9J -0.8 15 55
1.1 U 1.9J -0.8 15 56
1.1 U 1.9J -0.8 15 57
1.1 U 1.9 J -0.8 15 58
1.1 U 1.9J -0.8 15 59
1.1 U 1.9J -0.8 15 60
1.1 U 1.9 J -0.8 15 61
1.1 U 1.9J -0.8 15 62
1.1 U 1.9J -0.8 15 63
1.1 U 1.9J -0.8 15 64
1.1 U 0.8 U 0.3 16 64 uu 0.8 U 0.3 17 64
1.1 U 0.8 U 0.3 18 64
1.1 U 0.8 U 0.3 19 64
1.1 U 0.8 U 0.3 20 64
1.1 U 0.8 U 0.3 21 64
1.1 U 0.8 U 0.3 22 64
1.1 U 0.8 U 0.3 23 64
1.1 U 0.8 U 0.3 24 64
1.1 U 0.8 U 0.3 25 64
1.1 U 1.1 U 0 25 64
1.1 U 1.1 U 0 25 64
1.1 U 1.1 U 0 25 64
1.1 U 1.1 U 0 25 64
1.1 U 1.1 U 0 25 64
1.1 U 1.1 U 0 25 64
1.1 U 1.1 U 0 25 64
1.1 U 1.1 U 0 25 64
1.1 U 1.1 U 0 25 64
1.1 U 1.1 U 0 25 64
1.1 U 1.1 U 0 25 64
1.1 U 1.1 U 0 25 64
1.1 U 1.1 U 0 25 64
1.1 U 1.1 U 0 25 64
1.1 U 1.1 U 0 25 64
1.1 U 1.1 U 0 25 64
1.1 U 1.1 U 0 25 64
1.1 U 1.1 U 0 25 64
1.1 U 1.1 U 0 25 64
1.1 U 1.1 U 0 25 64
1.1 U 1.1 U 0 25 64
1.1 U 1.1 U 0 25 64
1.1 U 1.1 U 0 25 64
1.1 U 1.1 U 0 25 64
1.1 U 1.1 U 0 25 64
1.1 U 1.1 U 0 25 64
1.1 U 1.1 U 0 25 64
1.1 U 1.1 U 0 25 64
1.1 U 1.1 U 0 25 64
1.1 U 1.1 u 0 25 64
1.1 U 1.1 U 0 25 64
1.1 U 1.1 U 0 25 64
Page 2
1.1 U 1.1 U
1.1 U 1.1 U
1.1 U 1.1 U
1.1 U 1.1 U
1.1 U uu
1.1 U 1.1 u
1.1 U 1.1 U
1.1 U 1.1 U
1.1 U 1.1 U
1.1 U 1.1 U
1.1 U 1.1 U
1.1 U 1.1 U
1.1 U 1.1 U
S Statistic = 25 -64 = -39
Tied Group
2
3
Time Period
9/27/2000
12/5/2000
3/14/2001
6/5/2001
9/4/2001
12/12/2001
3/12/2002
6/11/2002
9/10/2002
12/10/2002
3/14/2003
6/10/2003
9/9/2003
3/4/2004
9/14/2004
3/31/2005
9/28/2005
Value
1.8
0.8
1.1
•
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Members
2
2
10
Observations
There are 0 time periods with multiple data
A" 2286
8=0
Cc 720
DcO
E" 94
F=O
a= 10608
b: 36720
C=544
Group Variance= 462.333
Z-Score = -1.76728
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
Comparison Level at 95% confidence level= -1.65463 (downward trend)
-1.76728 < -1.65463 indicating a downward trend
Page 3
•
64
64
64
64
64
64
64
64
64
64
64
64
64
0 ,l]f':.,,A
.;;;;;:;;;;;;::.:-~"-~-~ NCDENR
•
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Dexter R. Matthews, Director
t
Mr. Michael Townsend
Remedial Project Manager
Division of Waste Management
February 27, 2006
Superfund Remedial' & Site-Evaluation Branch
Waste Management Division
US EPA Region N
61 Forsyth Street, 11 th Floor
Atlanta, Georgia 30303
RE: Annual Groundwater Remedial Action
Performance Monitoring Report -2005
General Electric/Shepherd Farm NPL Site
East Flat Rock, Henderson County
Dear Mr. Townsend:
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
The North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NC DENR) Superfund
Section has received the Annual Groundwater Remedial Action Performance Monitoring Report-
2005 for the General Electric/Shepherd Farm National Priority List (NPL) Site. The NC DENR
Superfund Section has reviewed this document and offers the following attached comments.
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this document. If you have any questions, please feel
free to call me at [phone]. ·
Attachment
Sincerely,
David B. Mattison
Environmental Engineer
NC DENR Superfund Section
1646 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1646
Phone [phone] \ FAX [phone] \ Internet http://wastenotnc.org
An Equal Opportunity/ Affirmative Action Employer-Printed on Dual Purpose Recycled Paper
Michael Townsend
February 27, 2006
Page 1
•
GENERAL ELECTRIC/SHEPHERD FARM NPL SITE
Annual Groundwater Remedial Action Performance Monitoring Report -2005
Table of Contents
I. Please correct the List of Tables in the Table of Contents to indicate that the title of Table 4-5
is "Estimated mass removal -September 2005".
Section 4.1.2 GRS Operation and Maintenance
2. The fourth sentence of Section 4.1.2 refers to a valve at the "Alzak". Please revise this
sentence to clarify what the "Alzak" unit is (i.e., bag filters, etc.)
3. .The tenth sentence of Section 4.1.2 indicates that a work order was written to remove
RWSF-2 to investigate low pump rates. Please provide the results of these activities,
including any pump cleaning or servicing activities, results once the RWSF-2 pump was
placed back into service, etc.
4. Section 4.1.2 indicates that recovery well R W-7 is subject to premature corrosion due to its
location and presumably, its proximity to the large wetland near the General Electric
Facility's eastern border. Please slate when recovery well RW-7 was placed back into
service and detail any additional inspection and maintenance items to be included to prevent
future leaks and other maintenance issues.
Section 4.2.2 Mass Removal
5. · Please revise the third, fourth and fifth sentences of Section 4.2.2 in accordance with
Comment #14 below.
Section 5.4 Treatment System Monitoring
6. Please revise the first and second sentences of Section 5.4 in accordance with Comment #14
below.
Section 6 Summary and Conclusions
7. In accordance with the data presented in Table 4-2, please correct the second sentence of the
third paragraph of Section 6 to state that the volume of groundwater extracted and treated by
the Groundwater Remediation System (GRS) 1n Pumping Year (PY) 2005 was 14.3 million
gallons.
8. Please revise the last sentence of the third paragraph of Section 6 in accordance with
Comment #14 below.
• Michael Townsend
February 27, 2006
Page 2
Figure 5-2 voe Mass Removal History of the GRS
9. Please revise Figure 5-2 in accordance with Comment #14 below.
Table 3-7 Surface Water Analytical Results for September 2005
10. In accordance with the laboratory analytical results submitted as Appendix A, please correct
Table 3-7 to indicate that the surface water sample SW-2 contained 0.74J micrograms per
liter (µg/L) tetrachloroethene (PCE) and 51.4 µg/L manganese.
11. In accordance with the laboratory analytical results submitted as Appendix A, please correct
Table 3-7 to indicate that the surface water sample SW-3 contained 0.81J µg/L PCE.
Table 3-8 Sediment Analytical Results for September 2005
12. In accordance with the laboratory analytical results submitted as Appendix A, please correct
Table 3-8 to indicate that the sediment sample SED-2 contained 97 .9 micrograms per
kilogram (µg/kg) total polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs).
Table 4-4 Influent and Effluent Water Results for the 4th Quarter, 2005
13. In accordance with the laboratory analytical results submitted as Appendix A, please correct
Table 4-4 to indicate that the remediation system effluent water sample contained no
detectable concentrations of PCE at a laboratory detection limit of 1.0 µg/L.
Table 4-5 Estimated Mass Removal -September 2005
14. In accordance with the data provided in Table 4-2, please correct the value given for "Total
Gallons Treated April -September" to be 6,883,787 gallons. Of course, this change in
values means that all subsequent values and calculations must be adjusted according. Please
correct these oversights.
Table 4-6 Influent and Effluent Air Results for the 4th Quarter, 2005
15. Please correct the value given for "Percent Reduction" for benzene in Table 4-6.
Table 5-5 Summary of Statistical Trend Analysis for voes
16. Please correct the values given for "Total Up" and "Total Down" for the contaminant cis-1,2-
dichloroethene (cis-1,2-DCE) in Table 5-5.
17. Please correct Table 5-5 to reflect the statistical analysis results of the contaminant
trichloroethene (TCE) as provided in Appendix F (i.e., Up).
• • Michael Townsend
February 27, 2006
Page 3
18. Please correct the value given for "Total Up" for the contaminant TCE in Table 5-5.
Table 5-6 Summary of Statistical Trend Analysis for ·Metals
19. Please correct the values given for "Total Down" for the contaminant manganese in Table 5-
6.
20. Please correct Table 5-56to reflect the statistical analysis resnlts of the contaminant nickel as
provided in Appendix F (i.e., Up). _
21. Please correct the values given for "Total Up" for the contaminant nickel in Table 5-6.
Table 5-7 Summary of Surface Water Results Since GRS Start Up
22. In accordance with the laboratory analytical results submitted as Appendix A, please correct
Table 5-7 to indicate that in September 2005 the surface water sample SW-3 contained 0.8 IJ
µg/LPCE.
Table 5-8 Summary of Sediment Results Since GRS Start Up
23. In accordance with the laboratory analytical results submitted as Appendix A, please revise
Table 5-8 to indicate that in September 2005 the sediment sample SED-1 contained 2.18
µg/kg lead and 1.68 µg/kg nickel.
24. In accordance with the laboratory analytical results submitted as Appendix A, please correct
Table 5-8 to indicate that the sediment sample SED-2 contained 97.9 µg/kg total PCBs.
Table 5-9 Summary oflnlluent and Effluent Water Results Since GRS Start Up
25. In accordance with the laboratory analytical results submitted as Appendix A, please correct
Table 5-9 to indicate that in September 2005 the remediation system effluent water sample
contained no detectable concentrations of PCE at a laboratory detection limit of 1.0 µg/L.
Appendix C Performance Monitoring Wells Time-Concentration Plots
26. Figure C-15 -Manganese Time Concentration Plots for MW-64 and MW-64A and Figure C-
16 -Manganese Time Concentration Plots for RWSF-1 and MW-66 were inadvertently
·omitted from Appendix C. Please correct these oversights.
Michael Townsend
February 27, 2006
Page4
•
Appendix D Performance Monitoring Wells Time-Concentration Tables
27. In accordance with the laboratory reports included as Appendix A of the Annual
· Groundwater Remedial Action Performance Monitoring Report -2004 (GeoTrans, 2004),
please correct Table D-1 to indicate that the groundwater samples collected at all GE Subsite
performance wells in September 2004 contained no detectable concentrations of beryllium at
a laboratory detection limit of 0.80 µg/L.
28. In accordance with the laboratory reports included as Appendix A of the Annual
Groundwater Remedial Action Performance Monitoring Report -2004 (GeoTrans, 2004),
please correct Table D-1 to indicate that the groundwater samples collected at all GE Subsite
performance wells in September 2004 with the exception of MW-13A and MW-27A
contained no detectable concentrations oflead at a laboratory detection limit of 2.9 µg/L.
29. , In accordance with the laboratory reports included as Appendix A of the Annual
Groundwater Remedial Action Performance Monitoring Report -2004 (GeoTrans, 2004),
please correct Table D-1 to indicate that the groundwater samples collected at GE Subsite
performance wells MW-3, MW-8, MW-12, MW-12B, MW-14, MW-16 and MW-22A in
September 2004 contained no detectable concentrations of nickel at a laboratory detection
limit of 0.80 µg/L.
30. In accordance with the laboratory reports included as Appendix A of the Annual
Groundwater Remedial Action Performance Monitoring Report -2004 (Geo Trans, 2004),
please correct Table D-2 to indicate that the groundwater samples collected at all Shepherd
Farm Subsite performance wells in September 2004 contained no detectable concentrations.
of beryllium at a laboratory detection limit of0.80 µg/L.
31. In accordance with the laboratory reports included as Appendix A of the Annual
Groundwater Remedial Action Performance Monitoring Report -2004 (GeoTrans, 2004),
please correct Table D-2 to indicate that the groundwater samples collected at Shepherd
Farm Subsite performance wells MW-64A and MW-66 in September 2004 contained no
detectable concentrations of lead at a laboratory detection limit of 2.9 µg/L.
32. In accordance with the laboratory reports included as Appendix A of the Annual
Groundwater Remedial Action Performance Monitoring Report -2004 (Geo Trans, 2004),
please correct Table D-2 to indicate that the groundwater samples collected at Shepherd
Farm Subsite performance wells MW-64A and MW-66 in September 2004 contained no
detectable concentrations of nickel at a laboratory detection limit of 0.80 µg/L.
Michael Townsend
February 27, 2006
Page 5
• •
33. In accordance with the laboratory reports .included as Appendix A of the Annual
Groundwater Remedial Action Performance Monitoring Report -2004 (GeoTrans, 2004),
please correct Table D-3 -Residential Well Analytical Results to provide the volatile organic
compound (VOC) and semivolatile organic compound (SVOC) data in its correct fom1at
[ND( detection limit) as opposed to 0.0].
34. Please revise Table D-3 for residential wells WW-5, WW-17 and WW-82 to provide the
manganese exceedances in bold font, consistent with the fonnatting for the tables included as
Appendix D.
Appendix F Performance Monitoring Well Water Quality Statistical Results Examples
35. The statistical analysis of vinyl chloride water quality results observed at performance
monitoring well MW-27, as given in Table 5-5, was inadvertently omitted from Appendix F.
Please correct this oversight.
36. The statistical analysis ofTCE water quality results observed at performance monitoring well
MW-29, as given in Table 5-5, was inadvertently omitted from Appendix F. Please correct
this oversight.
3 7. The statistical analysis oflead water quality results observed at performance monitoring well
MW-27 A, as given in Table 5-6, was inadvertently omitted from Appendix F. Please correct
this oversight.
www.geotransinc.com
Mr. Michael Townsend .
Remedial Project Manager
U.S. EPA Region 4
6 I Forsyth Street
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960
• I 080 Holcomb Bridge Road
Building 100, Suite 190
Roswell, GA 30076
770-642-1000 FAX [phone]
December 22, 2005
D[c 2 7 2
'
Reference: Annual Groundwater Remedial Action Performance Monitoring Rcport-2005
GE/Shepherd Farm Site, East Flat Rock, NC
GeoTrans Project No. 2204.100.0 I
Dear Mr. Townsend:
On behalf of General Electric Lighting Company (GE), Geo Trans, Inc. (GcoTrans) is
actively conducting performance monitoring at the above referenced site for the groundwater
remediation system (GRS) in accordance with the Remedial Goal Verification Plan (RGYP) (HSI
Geo Trans, 2000). Enclosed for your review please find the Annual Groundwater Remedial Action
Performance Monitoring Report-2005 (Annual Report). This Annual Report provides the results of
the surface water, sediment, groundwater, and treatment system sampling performed during the
fifth year of system operation. The report includes in-house validated data. The next !,>roundwatcr
sampling event is scheduled for September 2006.
Please feel free to call Barry Hallock at [phone] orus with any questions you may
have.
S[ro~oto
j~Hinds
Staff Scientist
cc: Barry Hallock (GELS)
David Mattison (NCDENR)
Tom Augspurger (US Fish and Wildlife)
P. \GE\00CS\EPA\~PAH6_DECOS.=:
•
www.geotransinc.com 77
1 080 Holcomb loriclge RoJcl
Building 100, Suite I 'JO
Roswell, GA 30076
X 770-642-8808 Tnw-~
December 2
JAN O 8 2004 -,~
8001~~::::--.-J ll!Ji
UPERFUND SECTION
Mr. Michael Townsend
Remedial Project Manager
U.S. EPA Region 4
61 Forsyth Street
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960
Reference: Annual Groundwater Remedial Action Performance Monitoring Report-2004
GE/Shepherd Farm Site, East Flat Rock, NC
GeoTrans Project No. 2204.076.01
Dear Mr. Townsend:
On behalf of General Electric Lighting Company (GE), GeoTrans, Inc. (Geo Trans) is
actively conducting performance monitoring at the above referenced site for the groundwater
remediation system (GRS) in accordance with the Remedial Goal Verification Plan (RGVP) (HSI
Geo Trans, 2000). Enclosed for your review please find the Annual Groundwater Remedial Action
Performance Monitoring Report-2004 (Annual Report). This Annual Report provides the results of
the surface water, sediment, groundwater, and treatment system sampling performed during the
fourth year of system operation. The report does not contain validated data, due to logistical
problems with the data validator. Replacement pages will be issued containing validated data.
The next groundwater sampling event is scheduled for March 2005.
Please feel free to call Barry Hallock at [phone] or us with any questions you may
have.
Sincerely,
'"'1=:E,U)~ ~cR,
Vice President, Principal Engineer
cc: Barry Hallock (GELS)
David Mattison (NCDENR)
Tom Augspurger (US Fish and Wildlife)
Jim LaForest (CDM Federal)
p C \GE\00CS\~PA \EPAH:... ~oc
...,;;:;&;;;;:;;~iih •
MCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Dexter R. Matthews, Director
Mr. Michael Townsend
Superfund Branch
Waste Management Division
Division of Waste Management
February 21, 2005
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Region IV
61 Forsyth Street, 11th Floor
Atlanta, Georgia 30303
RE: Annual Groundwater Remedial Action
Performance Monitoring Report -2004
General Electric/Shepherd Farm NPL Site
East Flat Rock, Henderson County
Dear Mr. Townsend:
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
The Superfund Section of the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
(NC DENR) has received the Annual Groundwater Remedial Action Performance Monitoring
Report -2004 for the General Electric/Shepherd Farm National Priority List (NPL) Site. The
Superfund Section has reviewed this document and offers the following attached comments.
I
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this document. If you have any questions, please feel
free to call me at [phone], extension 349.
Attachment
Environmental Engineer
Superfund Section
1646 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1646
Phone [phone] \ FAX [phone] \ Internet http://wastenotnc.org
An Equal Opportunity/ Affirmative Action Employer-Printed on Dual Purpose Recycled Paper
Mr. Michael Towns.end
February 21, 2005
Page I
0
General Electric/Shepherd Farm NPL Site
•
Annual Groundwater Remedial Action Performance Monitoring Report -2004
Table of Contents
1. Please correct the page numbers for Section 1, Section 2 and Section 3 in the Table of
Contents.
2. Please correct the Table of Contents to indicate that the title of Appendix F is "Performance
Monitoring Well Water Quality Statistical Results Examples".
List of Tables
3. Please correct the List of Tables to indicate that the title of Table 4-1 is "Measured Recovery
Well Pumpage-2004".
4. Please correct the List of Tables to indicate that the title of Table 4-5 is "Estimated Mass
Removal -September 2004".
Section 1.4.1 AGRS
5. Please correct the third sentence of the second paragraph of Section 1.4.1 to state, "The
remaining I 0.9 million gallons was used as process water in the manufacturing facility,
treated for metals, then discharged into the publicly-owned treatment works (POTW)."
Section 3.3 Residential Well Monitoring
6. Please revise the seventh and eighth sentences of the second paragraph of Section 3.3 to state
"Lead was detected at 21.3 µg/L, with a remediation goal of 15 µg!L, at residential well
WW-73." Lead remediation levels are based on toxicity as defined in the primary Federal
Drinking Water Standards."
Section 4.1.2 GRS Operation and Maintenance
7. Please revise the fifth sentence of the second paragraph of Section 4.1.2 to state, "Subsequent
electrical storms caused problems with the relays at RW-5 and RW-7 and all Shepherd
Farm wells."
Section 4.2.3 Air
8. Please revise the eighth sentence of Section 4.2.3 to state, "When this criteria is exceeded
(<80%), the GAC will be replaced with the unit."
Mr. Michael Townsend
February 21, 2005
Page 2
Section 5.2.2 Residential Wells
•
9. Please revise the seventh and eighth sentences of Section 5.2.2 to state "Lead was detected
at 21.3 µ.g/L, with a remediation goal of 15 µ.g/L, at residential well WW-73." Lead
remediation levels are based on toxicity as defined in the primary Federal Drinking Water
Standards."
Table 2-4 Stream Flow Measurements for September 2004
I 0. Please correct the measurement dates given in Table 2-4 and verify that the stream flow data
given in Table 2-4 was indeed the stream flow data that was collected in September 2004.
Table 3-3 GE Subsite -Performance Well Analytical Results for September 2004
11. Table 3-3 indicates that the groundwater samples collected at all GE Subsite performance
wells in September 2004 contained no detectable concentrations of beryllium at a laboratory
detection limit of0.3 micrograms per liter (µ.g/L). However the laboratory reports included
as Appendix A indicate that the groundwater samples collected at all GE Subsite
performance wells in September 2004 contained no detectable concentrations of beryllium
at a laboratory detection limit of 0.80 µ.g/L. Please clarify this discrepancy.
12. Table 3-3 indicates that the groundwater samples collected at all GE Subsite performance
wells in September 2004 with the exception of MW-13A and MW-27A contained no
detectable concentrations of lead at a laboratory detection limit of 1.2 µ.g/L. However the
laboratory reports included as Appendix A indicate that the groundwater samples collected
at all GE Subsite performance wells in September 2004 with the exception of MW-13A and
MW-27 A contained no detectable concentrations oflead at a laboratory detection limit of 2.9
µ.g/L. Please clarify this discrepancy.
13. Table 3-3 indicates that the groundwater samples collected at GE Subsite performance wells
MW-3, MW-8, MW-12, MW-12B, MW-14, MW-16 and MW-22A in September 2004
contained no detectable concentrations of nickel at a laboratory detection limit of 1.1 µ.g/L.
However the laboratory reports included as Appendix A indicate that the groundwater
samples collected at GE Subsite performance wells MW-3, MW-8, MW-12, MW-12B, MW-
14, MW-16 and MW-22A in September 2004 contained no detectable concentrations of
nickel at a laboratory detection limit of 0.80 µ.g/L. Please clarify this discrepancy.
• Mr. Michael Townsend
February 21, 2005
Page 3
Table 3-4 Shepherd Farm Subsite-Performance Well Analytical Results for September
2004
I 4. Table 3-4 indicates· that the groundwater samples collected at all Shepherd Farm Subsite
performance wells in September 2004 contained no detectable concentrations of beryllium
at a laboratory detection limit of 0.3 µg!L. However the laboratory reports included as
Appendix A indicate that the groundwater samples collected at all Shepherd Farm Subsite
performance wells in September 2004 contained no detectable concentrations of beryllium
at a laboratory detection limit of 0.80 µg/L. Please clarify this discrepancy.
15. Table 3-4 indicates that the groundwater samples collected at Shepherd Farm Subsite
performance wells MW-64A and MW-66 in September 2004 contained no detectable
concentrations of lead at a laboratory detection limit of 1.2 µg/L. However the laboratory
reports included as Appendix A indicate that the groundwater samples collected at Shepherd
Farm Subsite performance wells MW-64A and MW-66 in September 2004 contained no
detectable concentrations of lead at a laboratory detection limit of 2.9 µg/L. Please clarify
this discrepancy.
I 6. Table 3-4 indicates that the groundwater samples collected at Shepherd Farm Subsite
performance wells MW-64A and MW-66 in September 2004 contained no detectable
concentrations of nickel at a laboratory detection limit of 1.1 µg/L. However the laboratory
reports included as Appendix A indicate that the groundwater samples collected at Shepherd
Farm Subsite performance wells MW-64A and MW-66 in September 2004 contained no
detectable concentrations of nickel at a laboratory detection limit of0.80 µg/L. Please clarify
this discrepancy.
Table 3-6 Residential Well Analytical Results for September 2004
17. Table 3-6 indicates that the residential well samples collected in September 2004 contained
no detectable concentrations of beryllium at a laboratory detection limit of 0.3 µg/L.
However the laboratory reports included as Appendix A indicate that the residential well
samples collected in September 2004 contained no detectable concentrations of beryllium
at a laboratory detection limit of 0.80 µg/L. Please clarify this discrepancy.
18. Table 3-6 indicates that the residential well samples WW-17, WW-33, WW-34 and WW-82
collected in September 2004 contained no detectable concentrations of lead at a laboratory
detection limit of 1.2 µg/L. However the laboratory reports included as Appendix A indicate
that the residential well samples WW-17, WW-33, WW-34 and WW-82 collected in
September 2004 contained no detectable concentrations oflead at a laboratory detection limit
of 2.9 µg/L. Please clarify this discrepancy.
Mr. Michael Townsend
February 21, 2005
Page 4
•
I 9. Table 3-4 indicates that all residential well samples collected in September 2004 with the
exception of WW-82 contained no detectable concentrations of nickel at a laboratory
detection limit of 1.1 µ.g/L. However the laboratory reports included as Appendix A indicate
that all residential well samples collecte_d in September 2004 with the exception ofWW-82
contained no detectable concentrations of nickel at a laboratory detection limit of 0.80 µ.g/L.
Please clarify this discrepancy.
Table 3-7 Surface Water Analytical Results for September 2004
20. Please verify the accuracy of the North Carolina Surface Water Standards given in Table 3-7.
21. Table 3-7 indicates that surface water samples SW-I, SW-2 and SW-3 collected in
September 2004 contained no detectable concentrations of beryllium at a laboratory detection
limit of 0.3 µ.g/L. However the laboratory reports included as Appendix A indicate that
surface water samples SW-I, SW-2 and SW-3 collected in September 2004 contained no
detectable concentrations of beryllium at a laboratory detection limit of 0.80 µ.g/L. Please
clarify this discrepancy.
22. Table 3-7 indicates that surface water samples SW-I, SW-2 and SW-3 collected in
September 2004 contained no detectable concentrations oflead at a laboratory detection limit
of 1.2 µ.g/L. However the laboratory reports included as Appendix A indicate that surface
water samples SW-I, SW-2 and SW-3 collected in September 2004 contained no detectable
concentrations of lead at a laboratory detection limit of 2.9 µ.g/L. Please clarify this
discrepancy.
23. Table 3-7 indicates that surface water sample SW-I collected in September 2004 contained
0.8 µ.g/L nickel, with a "B" laboratory qualifier. However the laboratory reports included as
Appendix A indicate that surface water sample SW-I collected in September 2004 contained
0.81 µ.g/L nickel, with a "B" laboratory qualifier. Please clarify this discrepancy.
24. Table 3-7 indicates that surface water sample SW-4 collected in September 2004 contained
no detectable concentrations of benzene at a laboratory detection limit of2.0 µ.g/L. However
the laboratory reports included as Appendix A indicate that surface water sample SW-4
collected in September 2004 contained no detectable concentrations of benzene at a
laboratory detection limit of 1.0 µ.g/L. Please clarify this discrepancy.
Table 4-4 Influent and Effluent Water Results for the 4th Quarter, 2004
25. Table 4-4 indicates that the influent water sample collected in September 2004 contained
74.1 µ.g/L barium, with a "B" laboratory qualifier. However the laboratory reports included
as Appendix A indicate that the influent water sample collected in September 2004 contained
71.4 µ.g/L barium, with a "B" laboratory qualifier. Please clarify this discrepancy.
• Mr. Michael Townsend
February 21, 2005
Page 5
26. Table 4-4 indicates that the influent and effluent water samples collected in September 2004
contained no detectable concentrations of beryllium at a laboratory detection limit of0.30
µg/L. However the laboratory reports included as Appendix A indicate that the influent and
effluent water samples collected in September 2004 contained no detectable concentrations
of beryllium at a laboratory detection limit of0.80 µg/L. Please clarify this discrepancy.
27. Table 4-4 indicates that the influent and effluent water samples collected in September 2004
contained no detectable concentrations of lead at a laboratory detection limit of 1.2 µg/L.
However the laboratory reports included as Appendix A indicate that the influent and
effluent water samples collected September 2004 contained no detectable concentrations of
lead at a laboratory detection limit of2.9 µg/L. Please clarify this discrepancy.
Table 5-4 Summary of Stream Flow Measurements since GRS Start Up
28. Please correct Table 5-4 to indicate that fifth stream flow measurement event at sampling
points SW-2, SW-4, Culvert and SW-3 occurred on December 9, 2002.
Table 5-6 · Summary of Statistical Trend Analysis for Metals
29. Please correct the title of Table 5-6 to state "Summary of Statistical Trend Analysis for
Metals".
Table 5-7 Summary of Surface Water Results since GRS Start Up
30. Please verify the accuracy of the North Carolina Surface Water Standards given in Table 5-7.
31. Please revise Table 5-7 such that the data is consistently displayed throughout the table with
the numerical value given in the left column and the data qualifier given in the right column.
32. Table 5-7 indicates that surface water sample SW-4 collected in September 2004 contained
no detectable concentrations ofbenzene at a laboratory detection limit of2.0 µg/L. However
the laboratory reports included as Appendix A indicate that surface water sample SW-4
collected in September 2004 contained no detectable concentrations of benzene at a ·
laboratory detection limit of 1.0 µg/L. Please clarify this discrepancy.
33. Please correct Table 5-7 to indicate that PCBs were not detected in the surface water samples
collected in September 2003, at a laboratory detection limit of 0.52 µg/L, 0.52 µg/L, and 0.51
µg/L for surface water samples SW-I, SW-2 and SW-3, respectively.
Mr. Michael Townsend
February 21, 2005
Page 6
• •
Table 5-8 Summary of Sediment Results since GRS Start Up
34. In accordance with previously submitted documentation, please correct Table 5-8 to indicate
that the sediment samples collected at sampling points SED-1, SED-2 and SED-3 in
September 2002 contained no detectable concentrations of beryllium (at a laboratory
detection limit of0.032 µ.g/L).
35. In accordance with previously submitted documentation, please correct Table 5-8 to indicate
that the sediment sample collected at sampling point SED-3 in September 2003 contained
no detectable concentrations of beryllium (at a laboratory detection limit of0.037 µ.g/L).
Table 5-9 Summary of influent and Effluent Water Results since GRS Start Up
36. Table 5-9 indicates that the influent water sample collected in September 2004 contained
74.1 µ.g/L barium, with a "B" laboratory qualifier. However the laboratory reports included
as Appendix A indicate that the influent water sample collected in September 2004 contained ·
71.4 µ.g/L barium, with a "B" laboratory qualifier. Please clarify this discrepancy.
3 7. Table 5-9 indicates that the influent and effiuent water samples collected in September 2004
contained no detectable concentrations of beryllium at a laboratory detection limit of 0.30
µ.g/L. However the laboratory reports included as Appendix A indicate that the influent and
effiuent water samples collected in Septeinber 2004 contained no detectable concentrations
of beryllium at a laboratory detection limit of 0.80 µ.g/L. Please clarify this discrepancy.
38. Table 5-9 indicates that the influent and effiuent water samples collected in September 2004
contained no detectable concentrations of lead at a laboratory detection l_imit of 1.2 µ.g/L.
However the laboratory reports included as Appendix A indicate that the influent and
effiuent water samples collected in September 2004 contained no detectable concentrations
of lead at a laboratory detection limit of 2.9 µ.g/L. Please clarify this discrepancy.
Figure 3-3 Plan View of September 2004 PCE Measurements at the GE Subsite
39. Figure 3-3 was inadvertently omitted. Please correct trus oversight.
Figure 5-2 VOC Mass Removal History of the GRS
40. · Figure 5-2 was inadvertently omitted. Please correct this oversight.
Attachment I Ecological Solutions Ecological Monitoring Report
41. Please correct the title sheet for Attachment I to state "Ecological Solutions Ecological
Monitoring Report".
Mr. Michael Townsend
February 21, 2005
Page 7
• •
Appendix A Laboratory Reports and Chain of Custody Forms
42. The laboratory reports documenting the analysis of the air influent and effluent sample results
were inadvertently omitted from Appendix A. Please correct this oversight.
Appendix B Sitewide Hydrographs
43. Please review the data used to create the hydro graph for groundwater monitoring well cluster
MW-2 and MW-2A. As presented, the hydrograph does not appear to agree with the
monitoring well water level measurements included as Table 5-3.
44. Please revise the vertical scale for the hydro graph for groundwater monitoring well cluster
MW-14, MW-l 4A and MW-l 4B such that greater detail regarding the water level fluctuation
is presented.
Appendix D Performance Monitoring Wells Time-Concentration Tables
45. Table D-1 indicates that the groundwater samples collected at all GE Subsite performance
wells in September 2004 contained no detectable concentrations of beryllium at a laboratory
detection limit of0.3 µg/L. However the laboratory reports included as Appendix A indicate
that the groundwater samples collected at all GE Subsite performance wells in September
2004 contained no detectable concentrations of beryllium at a laboratory detection limit of
0.80 µg/L. Please clarify this discrepancy.
46. Table D-1 indicates that the groundwater samples collected at all GE Subsite performance
wells in September 2004 with the exception of MW-13A and MW-27A contained no
detectable concentrations of lead at a laboratory detection limit of 1.2 µg/L. However the
laboratory reports included as Appendix A indicate that the groundwater samples collected
at all GE Subsite performance wells in September 2004 with the exception ofMW-13A and
MW-27 A contained no detectable concentrations oflead at a laboratory detection limit of2.9
µg/L. Please clarify this discrepancy. ·
47. Table D-1 indicates that the groundwater samples collected at GE Subsite performance wells
MW-3, MW-8, MW-12, MW-12B, MW-14, MW-16 and MW-22A in September 2004
contained no detectable concentrations of nickel at a laboratory detection limit of 1.1 µg/L.
However the laboratory reports included as Appendix A indicate that the groundwater
samples collected at GE Subsite performance wells MW-3, MW-8, MW-12, MW-12B, MW-
14, MW-16 and MW-22A in September 2004 contained no detectable concentrations of
nickel at a laboratory detection limit of 0.80 µg/L. Please clarify this discrepancy.
Mr. Michael Townsend
February 21, 2005
Page 8
• •
48. · Table D-2 indicates that the groundwater samples collected at all Shepherd Farm Subsite
performance wells in September 2004 contained no detectable concentrations of beryllium
at a laboratory detection limit of 0.3 µg/L. However the laboratory reports included as
Appendix A indicate that the groundwater samples collected at all Shepherd Farm Subsite
performance wells in September 2004 contained no detectable concentrations of beryllium
at a laboratory detection limit of 0.80 µg/L. Please clarify this discrepancy.
49. Table D-2 indicates that the groundwater samples collected at Shepherd Farm Subsite
performance wells MW-64A and MW-66 in September 2004 contained no detectable
concentrations of lead at a laboratory detection limit of 1.2 µg/L. However the laboratory
reports included as Appendix A i_ndicate that the groundwater samples collected at Shepherd
Farm Subsite performance wells MW-64A and MW-66 in September 2004 contained no
detectable concentrations of lead at a laboratory detection limit of 2.9 µg/L. Please clarify
this discrepancy.
50. Table D-2 indicates that the groundwater samples collected at Shepherd Farm Subsite
performance wells MW-64A and MW-66 in September 2004 contained no detectable
concentrations of nickel at a laboratory detection limit of 1.1 µg/L. However the laboratory
reports included as Appendix A indicate that the groundwater samples collected at Shepherd
Farm Subsite performance wells MW-64A and MW-66 in September 2004 contained no
detectable concentrations of nickel at a laboratory detection limit of0.80 µg/L. Please clarify
this discrepancy.
51. Table D-3 indicates that the residential well samples collected in September 2004 contained
no detectable concentrations of beryllium at a laboratory detection limit of 0.3 µg/L.
However the laboratory reports included as Appendix A indicate that the residential well
samples collected in September 2004 contained no detectable concentrations of beryllium
at a laboratory detection limit of 0.80 µg/L. Please clarify this discrepancy.
52. Table D-3 indicates that the residential well samples WW-I 7, WW-33, WW-34 and WW-82
collected in September 2004 contained no detectable concentrations of lead at a laboratory
detection limit of 1.2 µg/L. However the laboratory reports included as Appendix A indicate
that the residential well samples WW-17, WW-33, WW-34 and WW-82 collected in
September 2004 contained no detectable concentrations oflead at a laboratory detection limit
of 2.9 µg/L. Please clarify this discrepancy.
53. Table 3-4 indicates that all residential well samples collected in September 2004 with the
exception of WW-82 contained no detectable concentrations of nickel at a laboratory
detection limit of 1.1 µg/L. However the laboratory reports included as Appendix A indicate
that all residential well samples collected in September 2004 with the exception of WW-82
contained no detectable concentrations of nickel at a laboratory detection limit of 0.80 µg/L.
Please clarify this discrepancy.
Mr. Michael Townsend
February 21, 2005
Page 9
•
Appendix E Historical Well Results
•
54. The second page of historical performance well analytical results for groundwater monitoring
well MW-12B, covering sampling dates March 1999 through June 2000, was inadvertently
omitted from Appendix E. Please correct this oversight.
55. The historical performance well analytical results for groundwater monitoring well MW-l 3A
were inadvertently omitted from Appendix E. Please correct this oversight.
Appeudix F Performance Monitoring Well Water Quality Statistical Result Examples
56. Consistent with previously finalized annual groundwater remedial action performance
monitoring reports, please revise Appendix F to include a brief description of the Mann-
Kendall trend analysis, including calculations and use of the trend analysis technique.
57. This project has progressed considerably in the last several years and the evaluation of the
groundwater system's extraction and treatment performance has, and will become, more
significant. Therefore, please revise Appendix F to include all results of the statistical
analysis performed to develop the conclusions express in Table 5-5 and Table 5-6.
&·'!f'A
.:.;;;;;;;;;;;~-~,:--~_j\ •
NCDENR
l~orth Camlina Depariment of Environment and l~atural Resources
Mr. Michael Townsend
Superfund Branch
Waste Management Division
Division oi Waste Management
February 3, 2004
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Region IV
61 Forsyth Street, I Ith Floor
Atlanta, Georgia 30303
RE: Annual Groundwater Remedial Action
Performance Monitoring Report -2003
General Electric/Shepherd Farm :NPL Site
East Flat Rock, Henderson County
Dear Mr. Townsend:
f11iishaei f=" ~2.s1~:y 1::;u·1:;rncJ1
'1Nilliam ,:;. ~c1::;:; Jr .. sc~cre:ary
The Superfund Section of the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources.
(NC DENR) has received the Annual Groundwater Remedial Action Performance Monitoring
Report -2003 for the General Electric/Shepherd Farm National Priority List (NPL) Site. The
Superfund Section ha~ reviewed this document and offers the following attached comments.
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this document. If you have any questions, please feel
free to call me at [phone], extension 349.
Attachment
Sincerely,
David B. Mattison, CHMM
Environmental Engineer
Superfund Section
·,;;.:i.:-f,,:;::i·,· C:,:::ir1,,c-(':::,-·=,.-:';::ii-,J:. i-lo.-':1,~a-0·1·1°a ,,,:::C',:j _.,;i,:; 1.. .,.; ,1..,.11..~1 :;: -'-•l\,,1, h.,:;~ol, ~ >\1 •,._,,I 11 .::..1,,,,,.-,._""!,,
.:='ho:1:: ?1~_:-/32,-.::9?/'J \ F~.>-. :1·:~l-~-i~-3:305 \ ii1le1nei ht\.o://v,12.st?.notn·:.-:>19
Mr. Michael Townsend
February 3, 2004
Page J
General Electric/Shepherd Farm NPL Site
•
Annual Groundwater Remedial Action Performance Monitoring Report -2003
Section 1 Introduction
I. Please correct the third sentence of Section I to state, "The RA and subsequent
performance monitoring is performed in accordance with the Record of Decision (ROD)
(1995), Consent Decree (1996), and the Remediation Goal Verification Plan contained in
the Final Design and Remedial Action Work Plan for Groundwater (HSI GeoTrans,
2000)."
Section 3.5 Sediment Monitoring
2. The last paragraph of Section 3.5 describes the analytical results of sediment sampling
conducted at the General Electric (GE)/Shepherd Fam1 National Priority List (NPL) Site.
The seventh sentence of this paragraph indicates that polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs)
were not detected at sampling location SEO I but were detected at levels below the soil
remediation goal at SED2 and SED3. Please revise this paragraph to provide the PCB
analytical results of the duplicate sediment sample (SW-DUP), which contained an
estimated 1,250 micrograms per kilogram ( g/kg) PCBs. Additionally, please revise this
paragraph to include a quality assurance/quality control (QNQC) analysis of this data in
regards to reproducibility and usefulness of this data, especially since the duplicate
sediment sample contained PCBs in excess of the soil remediation goal.
Section 4.1.2 Treatment System
3. Please correct the first and second sentences of Section 4.1.2 to state, "No maintenance
beside the replacement of a shorted PLC unit was required during the fourth quarter of
the PY on the treatment system. The PLC unit was damaged by lightning at the
Shepherd Farm Subsite."
Section 4.1.3 GRS Operation and Maintenance
4. Please revise Section 4.1.3 to include the operational percentages for each recovery well.
Section 4.2.3 Air
5. Please revise Section 4.2.3 to evaluate the observed increase in concentrations of
chloroform, 1,2-dichloroethane, trans-1,2-dichloroethene, cis-1,2-dichloroethene, and
vinyl chloride as the air effluent from the air stripper is passed through the \'apor phase
granular activated carbon (GAC) system.
Mr. Michael Townsend
February 3, 2004
Page 2
0
Section 5.2.1 Performance Monitoring Wells
•
6. Please revise Section 5.2.1 to include additional analysis of the significance of the trends
noted at the GE and Shepherd Farm Subsites. Of particular concern is the upward trending
concentrations noted in deeper bedrock wells (i.e., MW-13A, MW-I 6A, MW-22A and MW-
27 A) and along the plume periphery (i.e., MW-27, MW-29 and MW-66).
Section 5.3 Surface Water and Sediment Quality
7. Please revise the last paragraph of Section 5.3 to include additional discussion of the
results of the duplicate sediment sample collected in September 2003, as detailed in the
above comment #2 for Section 3.5. In particular, please revise this paragraph to provide
the PCB analytical results of the duplicate sediment sample (SW-DUP), which contained
an estimated I ,250 g/kg PCBs. Additionally, please revise this paragraph to include a
QNQC analysis of this data in regards to reproducibility and usefulness of this data,
especially since the duplicate sediment sample contained PCBs in excess of the soil
remediation goal.
Section 5.4 Treatment System Monitoring
8. Please revise the last paragraph of Section 5.4 to evaluate the observed increase in
concentrations of chloroform, 1,2-dichloroethane, trans-I ,2-dichloroethene, cis-I ,2-
dichloroethene, and vinyl chloride as the air effluent from the air stripper is passed
through the vapor phase GAC system.
Section 6 Summary and Conclusions
9. Please revise the second paragraph of Section 6 to include additional discussion of the
significance of the trends in remediation target compound (RTC) concentrations, as detailed
in Section 5.2.1 and reflecting the response to the above comment #6.
I 0. Please revise the last paragraph of Section 6 to evaluate the observed increase in
concentrations of chloroform, 1,2-dichloroethane, trans-1,2-dichloroethene, cis-1,2-
dichloroethene, and vinyl chloride as the air effluent from the air stripper is passed
through the vapor phase GAC system.
Figure 3-4 Vertical Delineation of the PCE Plume -September 2003 Measurements
11. Figure 3-4 was inadvertently omitted. Please correct this oversight.
0 • Mr. Michael Townsend
February 3, 2004
Page 3
Table 3-7 Surface Water Analytical Results for September 2003
12. Please correct Table 3-7 to indicate that PCBs were not detected in the surface water samples
collected in September 2003, at a laboratory detection limit of 0.52 micrograms per liter
( g/L), 0.52 g/L, and 0.51 g/L for surface water samples SW-I, SW-2 and SW-3,
respectively.
Table 3-8 Sediment Analytical Results for September 2003
13. Please correct Table 3-8 to indicate that beryllium was not detected in the sediment sample
SW-3 collected in September 2003, at a laboratory detection limit of0.037 g/L.
Table 4-1 Measured Recovery Well Pumpage
14. Please revise Table 4-1 a, Table 4-1 b, and Table 4-1 c such that the highlighted area for the
average flow rates does not obscure the actual values given for the average flow rates.
Table 5-5 Summary of Statistical Trend Analysis for VOCs
15. Please correct Table 5-5 to indicate that one (1) groundwater monitoring well exhibits a
downward trend for chloroform.
16. Please revise Table 5-5 to describe what is meant when the entries for the groundwater
monitoring wells are blank for a given constituent (i.e., neither an upward or downward
trend).
Table 5-6 Summary of Statistical Trend Analysis for Metals
17. Please correct Table 5-6 to indicate that four (4) groundwater monitoring wells exhibit a
downward trend for nickel.
18. Please revise Table 5-6 to describe what is meant when the entries for the groundwater
monitoring wells are blank for a given constituent (i.e., neither an upward or downward
trend).
Table 5-8 Summary of Sediment Results Since GRS Start Up
19. In accordance with previously submitted documentation, please correct Table 5-8 to indicate
that the sediment samples collected at sampling points SED-1, SED-2 and SED-3 in
September 2002 contained no detectable concentrations of beryllium (at a laboratory
detection limit of0.032 g/L).
Mr. Michael Townsend
February 3, 2004
Page4
•
Table 5-9 Summary of influent and Effluent Water Results Since GRS Start Up
20. In accordance with previously submitted documentation, please correct Table 5-9 to indicate
that the effiuent water sample collected September 25, 2002 contained an estimated 1.8 g/L
nickel (with a "J" laboratory data qualifier).
Table 5-10 Summary oflnlluent and Effluent Air Results Since GRS Start Up
21. Please correct Table 5-10 to indicate that the influent sample contained no detectable
concentrations of trans-1,2-dichloroethene (with a laboratory detection limit of 7.9
micrograms per cubic meter ( g/m3)). Additionally, please correct the value in Table 5-1 0
for this concentration provided in units of pounds per year (lb/yr).
Appendix F Performance Monitoring Well Water Quality Statistical Result Examples
22. Appendix F -Perfom1ance Monitoring Well Water Quality Statistical Result Examples was
inadvertently omitted from the Annual Groundwater Remedial Action Performance
Monitoring Report -2003. Please correct this oversight. Additionally, consistent with
previously finalized annual groundwater remedial action performance monitoring reports,
please ensure that Appendix F includes a brief description of the Mann-Kendall trend
analysis, including calculations and use of the trend analysis technique.
www.geotransinc.com
Mr. Michael Townsend
Remedial Project Manager
U.S. EPA Region 4
6 I Forsyth Street
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960
• I OilO Holcomb Bridge RoJd
Building I 00, Suite 190
Roswell, Ci\ 30076
770-642-1000 F1\X 770-642-8808
December 18, 2003
Reference: Annual Groundwater Remedial Action Performance Monitoring Rcport-2003
GE/Shepherd Farm Site, East Flat Rock, NC
GeoTrans Project No. 2204.028.41
Dear Mr. Townsend:
On behalf of General Electric Lighting Company (GE), Geo Trans, Inc. (GeoTrans) is
actively conducting performance monitoring at the above referenced site for the groundwater
remediation system (GRS) in accordance with the Remedial Goal Verification Plan (RGYP) (HSI
Geo Trans, 2000). Enclosed for your review please find the Annual Groundwater Remedial Action
Performance Monitoring Report-2003 (Annual Report). This Annual Report provides the results of
the surface water, sediment, groundwater, and treatment system sampling performed during the
third year of system operation.
In accordance with the RGVP, the monitoring frequency for the groundwater is now being
reduced from quarterly to semi-annually. The next groundwater sampling event is scheduled for
March 2003.
Please feel free to call Barry Hallock at [phone] or us with any questions you may
have.
Sincerely,
/oW~1N\Jvrv'
Todd Hagemeyer
Principal Hydrogeologist
cc: Barry Hallock (GELS)
David Mattison (NCDENR)
Tom Augspurger (US Fish and Wildlife)
Jim Laforest (CDM Federal)
Patricia Hermann
Project Scientist
, ~ North Carolina • • 8f'v!'A ·:... -_-,~~ Department of Environment and Natural Resources Michael F. Easley, Governor William G. Ross Jr., Secretary Dexter R. Matthews, Director FILE COPY Mr. Michael Townsend Superfund Branch Waste Management Division February I 0, 2003 United States Environmental Protection Agency Region IV 61 Forsyth Street, 11 u, Floor Atlanta, Georgia 30303 RE: Annual Groundwater Remedial Action Performance Monitoring Report -2002 General Electric/Shepherd Fann NPL Site East Flat Rock, Henderson County Dear Ms. Bennett: n-;!,.~.-MCDEMR The Superfund Section of the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NC DENR) received the Annual Groundwater Remedial Action Performance Monitoring Report -2002 for the General Electric/Shepherd Fann National Priorities Li_st (NPL) Site. The Superfund Section has reviewed this document and offers the following attached comments. We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this document. If you have any questions, please feel free to call me at [phone], extension 349. Attachment Sincerely, . LXUfl.O B. /Y2a,Ul5vJv I dR__ David B. Mattison, CHMM Environmental Engineer Superfund Section 1646 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1646 Phone: [phone] \ FAX: [phone] \ Internet: www.enr.state.nc.us AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY\ AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER -50% RECYCLED/ 10% POST CONSUMER PAPER i"· l Ii I-f: t ,. C· i~ i\ ,. fi ,. 1=_: ~\ <· :: i:' t~: ~--. [-:'. r' i/: 1.. L .}·: l~
• Mr. Michael Townsend
February 10, 2003
Page I
General Electric/Shepherd Farm NPL Site
Annual Groundwater Remedial Action Performance Monitoring Report -2002
Table of Contents
1. Please revise the Table of Contents to indicate that the title of Appendix Fis "Performance
Monitoring Well Water Quality Statistical Results Examples".
2. Please revise the List of Tables in the Table of Contents to indicate that the title ofTable 5-3
is "Monitoring Well Water Level Measurements".
Section 3.3 Residential Well Monitoring
3. Please correct the last sentence of the first paragraph of Section 3.3 to state, "The other three
wells were added in 2000 when the GRS was constructed."
Section 5.2.1 Performance Monitoring Wells
4. Please revise Section 5.2.1 to include additional analysis of the significance of the trends
noted at the GE and Shepherd Farm Subsites. Of particular concern is the upward trending
concentrations noted in deeper bedrock wells (i.e., MW-13A, MW-16A and MW-64A) and
along the plume periphery (i.e., MW-27, MW-29 and MW-66).
Section 6 Summary and Conclusions
5. Please revise the second paragraph of Section 6 to include additional discussion of the
significance of the trends in remediation target compound (RTC) concentrations, as detailed
in Section 5.2.1 and reflecting the response to the above comment #4.
Table 3-7 Surface Water Analytical Results for September 2002
6. In accordance with the documentation included as Appendix A, please correct Table 3-7 to
indicate that the surface water sample collected at sampling point SW-2 contained no
detectable concentrations of nickel (at a laboratory detection limit of 1.1 micrograms per liter
( g/L)) and an estimated 0.27 g/L total polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) (with a "J"
laboratory data qualifier).
Table 3-8 Sediment Analytical Results for September 2002
7. In accordance with the documentation included as Appendix A, please correct Table 3-8 to
indicate that the sediment sample collected at sampling point SED-3 contained no detectable
concentrations of beryllium (at a laboratory detection limit of 0.032 g/L).
l.
• • Mr. Michael Townsend
February 10, 2003
Page 2
Table 4-4 Influent and Effluent Water Results for the 4th Quarter
8. In accordance with the documentation included as Appendix A, please correct Table 4-4 to
indicate that the effluent water sample collected September 25, 2002 contained an estimated
1.8 g/L nickel (with a "J" laboratory data qualifier).
Table 4-6 Influent and Effluent Air Results for the 4th Quarter
9. Please clarify the source of the influent and effluent trichloroethene data provided in Table
4-6 as the documentation included as Appendix A does not include the results of these
analyses.
Table 5-5 Summary of Statistical Trend Analysis for VOCs
10.
11.
Please correct Table 5-5 to indicate that four (4) groundwater monitoring wells exhibit a
downward trend for cis-1,2-dichloroethene.
Please revise Table 5-5 to describe what is meant when the entries for the groundwater
monitoring wells are blank for a given constituent (i.e., neither an upward or downward
trend).
Table 5-6 Summary of Statistical Trend Analysis for Metals
12. Please revise Table 5-6 to describe what is meant when the entries for the groundwater
monitoring wells are blank for a given constituent (i.e., neither an upward or downward
trend).
Table 5-7 Historical Tetrachloroethene Mann-Kendall Trend Analysis
13. Please revise Table 5-6 to describe what is meant when the entries for the groundwater
monitoring wells are blank (i.e., neither an upward or downward trend).
Table 5-10 Summary oflnfluent and Effluent Water Results Since GRS Startup
14. In accordance with the documentation included as Appendix A, please correct Table 5-10
to indicate that the effluent water sample collected September 25, 2002 contained an
estimated 1.8 g/L nickel (with a "J" laboratory data qualifier).
Table 5-11 Summary of Influent and Effluent Air Results Since GRS Startup
15. Please clarify the source oftl!e September 25, 2002 influent and effluent trichloroethene data
provided in Table 5-11 as the documentation included as Appendix A does not include the
results of these analyses.
Mr. Michael Townsend
February IO, 2003
Page 3
Appendix B Sitewide Hydrograpbs
•
I 6. Please correct Figure B-1 and Figure B-2 to reflect the correct groundwater elevations for
recovery well RW-7 and monitoring wells MW-2 and MW-2A for the September 9, 2002
monitoring event as are reflected in Table 2-2 and Table 2-3.
Appendix F Performance Monitoring Well Water Quality Statistical Results Examples
17. Please revise Appendix F to include greater detail regarding the Mann-Kendall trend analysis,
including a brief description of the theory, calculations and use of the trend analysis
technique.
• Inc.
I 0B0 Holcomb Bridge RoJd
Building HJO, Suite 1'.lO
Roswell, GA 30076
www.geotra11sinc.com 770-642-1000 FAX [phone]
Ms. Giezelk Bennett
Remedial Project Manager
U.S. EPA Region 4
61 Forsyth Street
Atlanta. Georgia 30303-8960
January 1-l. 2003
Reference: Annual Groundwater Remedial Action Performance
Monitoring Report -2002
GE/Shepherd Farm Site, East Flat Rock. NC
GeoTrans Project No. P821-101
Dear Ms. Bennett:
" '
Enclosed please. find one copy of the Ecological Monitoring Report by
Biological Research Associates (Attachment 1). Please find the Method Detection Limit
Determination that was previously missing from Appendix A also included.
Please feel free to call Lee Humphrey at 828-693-2533 or me if you have any
further questions.
Sincerely.
~il-/4~?U(;,c__
cc: Lee Humphrey (GELS)
David Mattison (NCDENR)
P .IGE\OOCSIE PAIEpa 125. "Pd
Tom Augspurger (US Fish and Wildlife)
Jim Laforest (COM Federal)
Patricia Hermann
Project Scientist
• Inc.
I 080 Holcomb Bridge Road
Building I 00, Suite 190
Roswell, GA 30076
www.geotransinc.com 770-642-1000 FAX [phone]B
December 19, 2002 ,,
Ms. Giezelle Bennett
Remedial Project Manager
U.S. EPA Region 4
DEC 2 3 2002
61 Forsyth Street
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960
Reference: Annual Groundwater Remedial Action Performance
Monitoring Report -2002
GE/Shepherd Fann Site, East Flat Rock, NC
GcoTrans Project No. P82 \ -l O 1
Dear Ms. Bennett:
Enclosed please find one copy of the Annual Groundwater Remedial Action
Performance Monitoring Report -2002. This deliverable documents the operation of' the
groundwater remediation system at the General Electric/Shepherd Fann Supcrf'und Site
from July to September 2002 and summarizes the Pumping Year. Copies of this report
have also been sent to Mr. David Mattison, Mr. Jim LaForest, and Mr. Tom Augspurger.
Please note that the Ecological Monitoring Report by Biological Research Associates
(Attachment 1 in the enclosed report) is not contained in this submittal but will be
provided by January 15. 2003.
Please feel free to call Lee Humphrey at 828-693-2533 or me if you have any
further questions.
cc: Lee Humphrey (GELS)
David Mattison (NCDENR)
P.\GEIOOCSIEPA1Epa124 wpd
Tom Augspurger (US Fish and Wildlife)
Jim LaForcst (COM Federal)
Si,~r:S ;/
Ct,T/1C/:'L f/2-f'Zt..(<LLLt-<.,_
Patricia Hermann
Project Scientist
' ..
www.geotransinc.com
Ms. Giezelle Bennett
Remedial Project Manager
U.S. EPA Region 4
61 Forsyth Street
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960
f)l 080 Holcomb Bridge Road
Building 100, Suite 190
Roswell, Ct\ 30076
770-642-1000 FAX [phone]
March 29. 2002
Reference: Response to comrnents on the Annual Groundvv·ater Remedial Action
Performance Monitoring Report -2001
GE/Shepherd Farm Site. East Flat Rock. NC
GeoTrans Project No. P82 l -OO 1
Dear Ms. Bennett:
On behalf of General Electric. please find a replacement Table 2-4 for the Annual Groundwater
Remedial Action Performance Monitoring Report -2001 enclosed.
if you have any questions please call Lee Humphrey at 828-693-2533 or me anytime.
cc: Lee Humphrey (GELS)
David Mattison (NCDENR)
Jim Laforest (CDM Federal)
Tom Augspurger (USF&W)
Landon Davidson (DWQ)
Patricia Hermann
Project Scientist
North Carolina •
Department of Environment and Natural
Resources
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
Dexter R. Matthews, Director
Ms. Giezelle Bennett
S uperfund Branch
Waste Management Division
March 26, 2002
united States Environmental Protection Agency
Region IV
61 Forsyth Street, l l th Floor
Atlanta, Georgia 30303
RE: Response to Comments -
Annual Groundwater Remedial Action
Perfonnance Monitoring Report -200 I
General Electric/Shepherd Fann NPL Site
East Flat Rock, Henderson County
Dear Ms. Bennett:
The Superfund Section of the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
(NC DENR) received the Response to Comments -Annual Groundwater Remedial Action
Perfonnance Monitoring Report -2001 for the General Electric/Shepherd Fann National Priorities
List (NPL) Site. The Superfund Section has reviewed this document and offers the following
comment.
Response to Comments -
Annual Groundwater Remedial Action Performance Monitoring Report -2001
l. The revised Table 2-4 was inadvertently omitted. Please correct this oversight.
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this document. If you have any questions, please feel
free to call me at [phone], extension 349.
Sincerely,
1-·--,·{i" f} ;ll'C'.77isn .. _/..i 'c._ /..._,,( ~ .' t . ~ ( t /{
David B. Mattison, CHMM
Environmental Engineer
Superfund Section
1646 Mail Sen·ice Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1646
Phone: [phone] \ FAX: [phone] \ Internet: www.em.state.nc.us
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY\ AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER -50% RECYCLED/ 10% POST CONSUMER PAPER
www.geotra 11s i rlC .corn
Ms. Giezelle Bennett
Remedial Projecl Manager
U.S. EPA Region 4
61 Forsy1h Street
Atlanta. Georgia 30303-8960
Reference: March Sampling Dales
8 (I/JO Holcomb 13riclge l,o,1cl
f3uildi11g 100, Suite l'.l()
1,nswell, Gi\ 3llll7(i
770-G42-I UIJ1l F1\X 77()-642-HtlO,\
February I I, 2002
GE/Shepherd Farm Site, East Flat Rock, NC
Geo Trans Project No. P82 l-00 I
Dear Ms. Bennett:
The response to comments for the Annual Groundwater Remedial Action
Performance Monitoring _R~pon--200 I are scheduled to be submitted March 4. 2002. The
Quarterly Groundwater Remedial Action Performance Monitoring Report for December
200! is sc~~duleci to be submittecf on March 7. 2002 .
. The March quarterly monitoring event is scheduled for March l l to March 13,
2002.
Copies of this letter and attachments have also been sent to Mr. David Mattison,
and Mr. Jim Laforest.
Please feel free to call Lee Humphrey at 828-693-2533 or me if you have any
further questions.
Enclosures
cc: . , . Lee Hump~rey (9!;:LS) __
_ David Matt_ispn ,(NCDEt-JR),
.Jim LaForest_(CDM-Fcderal) _.
P.IGE'\DOCSiEPA\Epa109 ;,pd
Patricia Hermann
Project Scientist
. ··: -.
'' 'I
•
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION 4
4WD-NSMB
Mr. Lee Humphrey
GE Lighting Systems, Inc
3010 Spartanburg Highway
Hendersonville, NC 28792
ATLANTA FEDERAL CENTER
61 FORSYTH STREET
ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303-8960
February 8, 2002
. SUBJ: GE/Shepherd Farm NPL Site
East Flat Rock, NC
Dear Mr. Humphrey:
Enclosed are the Agency's comments on the Annual Groundwater Remedial
Action Performance Monitoring Report -2001 dated December 6, 2001. Please submit
a response to these comments and replacement pages for the report no later than
March 4, 2002.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to give me a call at 404/562-
8824.
Sincerely,
Gi
Remedial Project Manager
cc: David Mattison, NC DENR
Patricia Hermann, HSI GeoTrans
Jim LaForest, COM
Internet Address (UAL)• http://www.epa.gov
Aocycled/Rgcyclabl• •Prinlod wllh Vegetable O~ Based Inks on Recycled Papor (Minimum 30% Postconsumer)
,ION
•
COMMENTS
Annual Groundwater Remedial Action Performance Monitoring Report -2001
GENERAL
1. Record of Decision (ROD) first call-out is page 1-1, Consent Decree (CD) first call-
out is page 1-1, Remedial Action (RA) first call-out is page 1-1. These should be
listed as acronyms thereafter.
2. "Publically" should be spelled "publicly."
SPECIFIC
3. Page 1-1, para 2, 3rd sentence -Word is missing, thus making the sentence
unclear.
4. Page 1-1, para 3, 2nd sentence -Typo-"form" should be "from" -·
" ... influent/effluent water quality from the treatment system ... "
5. Page 1-2, section 1.1 -Please specify ttiat the "bunched arrowhead" is a plant.
6. Page 1-4, section 1.4.1, para 2, 3rd sentence -Word is missing in sentence.
7. Page 1-4, section 1.4.2, para 1, 3rd sentence -Consist should be consisted.
8. Page 1-4, section 1.4.2 -Publicly owned treatment works (POTW) first call-out is
in section 1.4.1.
9. Page 1-4, section 1.4.2, para 2, 2nd sentence -Typo -"will" should be deleted.
Remediation Target Compound (RTC) is not spelled out previously.
10. Page 1-4, para 2 -The second sentence should be corrected to read "A total of
20.6 million gallons of treated water was discharged to Bat Fork Creek."
11. Page 1-4, para 3 -The third sentence should be corrected to read "It consists of
five recovery wells at the GE Subsite (RW-1, RW-2, RW-5 through RW-7), four
recovery wells at the Shepherd Farm Subsite (RWSF-1 through RWSF-4), a
treatment system, associated pumps, piping and controls."
- 1 -
•
12. Page 1-4, para 4 -The second sentence should be corrected to read "Effluent
from the GRS is sampled quarterly for the RTC before discharge to the POTW."
13. Page 1-6 -Extra space between Bullet 4 and Bullet 5.
:14. Page 1-6 -For the 4th Bullet, does "biological monitoring" refer to the bunched
arrowhead. If so, please specify.
15. Page 1-6 -TVOC in Bullet 8 is not previously spelled out.
16. Page 1-6 -In the 8th Bullet, groundwater volume and TVOC should be specified
for the current year and for all the years combined.
17. Page 2-2, para 2, 1st sentence -Typo-delete "the" before October 2001.
18. Table 2-4 -The" Estimated Flow (cfs)" calculation for SW-4 is incorrect. It
should be 3.41 not 3.16.
19. Section 2.4 -Figure 2-7 indicates that no daily groundwater level data is
available from January 2001 to September 2001. Please revise Section 2.4 to
include a discussion of the lack of daily groundwater level data from piezometer
BAPZ-3, including the cause, the remedy and the impact. Furthermore, this
discussion should include an analysis of how the impact to the wetlands, or lack
of impact to the wetlands, was made in lieu of the absence of the groundwater•
level data from piezometer BAPZ-3 (i.e., the use of groundwater level data from
the remaining piezometers in the area of the bunched arrowhead wetland).
20. Page 3-1, Introduction -When discussing Figures 3-4 and 3-5, use consistent
nomenclature. The figures say "sampling stations" and the text says "monitoring
stations". Verify that the text agrees with the figure titles.
21. Page 3-1, section 3.1 -The figure that shows a plan view of PCE meas!Jrements
at the Shepherd Farm Subsite should be renamed as Figure 3-8. The figure
showing a cross section of the GE Subsite showing depth and PCE
concentration for select performance monitoring wells should be renamed as
Figure 3-7. Verify that the renamed figures agree with the references in the text.
22. Figures 3-1 and 3-2 -Are all performance monitoring wells shown on these
figures? The text states that 16 performance monitoring wells are located on the
GE Subsite and 4 on the Shepherd Farm subsite.
- 2 -
•
23. Page 3-3, section 3.3, Last paragraph -The reference to residential well
sampling analytical results should be Table 3-6. Remediation target compounds
should be RTC.
24. Page 3-3, section 3.4, para 1, SW5 sentence -Typo-remove "of." " ... unnamed
tributary that intersects Bat Fork Creek near the Larg$ Pond ... "
25. Page 3-3, section 3.4, para2 -The reference to the analytical results should be
Table 3-7.
26. • Page 3-3, section 3.4, para 2, 4th sentence -Missing word in sentence.
27. Page 3-4, section 3.5, para 2 -The reference to the table-with analytical results
should be Table 3-8.
28. Page 3-4 -Why are the soil remediation goals begin applied to the sediment.
These are not applicable.
29. Page 3-3, Para 1 -The second sentence should be corrected to state, "Table 3-6
lists the analytical results from the residential well sampling."
30. Tables 3-3, 3-4 and 3-6 -All three tables have a heading for "Sample Date,"
however, no sample date is indicated on either table. Also, several contaminant
concentrations are presented in these tables without a zero in the tenths position
(.0) while it is present in the laboratory analytical data. The tetrachloroethene
concentration for monitoring well MW-13A and the manganese concentrations
for MW-14, MW-15, MW-27, MW-27A, MW-29, RWSF-1, MW-64A, and MW-66
are presented as "J" qualified (detected, estimated result) when in fact these
concentrations are indicated in the laboratory analytical data as being greater
than the laboratory reporting limit. These oversights should be corrected.
31. Section 3.4 of the report should be updated to explain why SVOC ~md Metals
analysis was not included for surface water samples SW-4, SW-5, and SW-6 and
Table 3-7 should indicate that these contaminants were not analyzed for.
32. Table 3-8. The laboratory reporting limit for VOC's in sediment samples SED-1
and SED-2 should be corrected to indicate 6.3 and 8.9 respectively.
33. Table 4-3 indicates that the metals concentrations for the 10/18/01 treatment
system effluent sample are higher than those of the corresponding influent
sample. An explanation of how this resulted should be included in Section 4.2 of
the report.
- 3 -
•
34. Page 4-1, section 4.1.1, para 1, 1st sentence -Remove capitalization on "For."
35. Page 4-1, section 4.1.1 -The average flow for the GRS does not calculate to
approximately 19 gpm from the flow rates given.
36. Page 4-1, section 4.1.1 -The flow rate needs to be at the design rate. As GE
and HSI know, the flow rate is already a compromise (below optimum) for the
benefit of the bunched arrowhead. A low flow rate will not guarantee contain-
ment of the plume. More discussion on this subject is needed in Section 5.
37. . Page 4-1, section 4.1.2 -Please spell out GAC the first time it is called out in the
text.
38. Page 4-1, section 4 -Please note that tables are not called out in numerical
order in the text.
39. Pages 4-1 and 4-2, section 4.1.2 and section 4.1.3 -Section 4.1.1 states that
several operational problems y,Jere encountered during the period ( overall
flowrate less than design flow rate and large deviations in the flow totalizers). It
then refers the reader to Sections 4.1.2 and 4.1.3 for more information. These
sections (specifically Section 4.1.3) contain only a listing of repairs and
adjustments completed in the quarter. No attempt was made to provide details
(who, what, when, why, etc) on the cited operational problems. Was the
problem related to system leaks, bad totalizers, or the PLC?
40. Page 4-1, section 4.1.2 and Page 4-3, section 4.2.2 -When do you intend to
correct the problem with the air phase granular activated carbon unit? The air .
sample results from October indicate that it still is not operating correctly.
41. Page 4-2, section 4.1.3 -Why was the flow rate for the system so low in
September? From the limited text it could be assumed that this was related to
repairs and operational problems encountered in September. However, the text
provides no details (who, what, when, why) on these operational problems and
therefore there is no way to evaluate if a honest attempt was made to maximize
system uptime. From the information provided it seems that you should have
been able to correct these items in a more timely fashion. This Section needs
more information on the operational problems and your attempts to correct them.
42. Page 4-2, section 4.1.3 -Define "PLC".
43. Page 4-2, section 4.1.3, 2nd bullet -Typo -Remove "of." Also, keep punctuation
consistent after each bullet.
- 4 -
•
44. Page 4-3, section 4.2.2, 2nd sentence -Missing word. " ... after system restart,
when the system had reached normal ... "
45. • Tables 4-1 and 5-4 -It is not clear from the table that there are two different
types of totals presented. The totals for the recovery wells appear to be
cumulative and the system total (as listed under "Total individual pumpage") is a
monthly total. Change the heading or include footers which clarify this
information.
46. Page 5-1, section 5.1, para1 -Combine last two sentences.
47. Page 5-1, section 5.1, para3, 2nd sentence-Add reference for Figure 5-2. "
Figures 5-1 and 5-2 depict the hydraulic containment zones located around the
recovery wells at the GE and Shepherd Farm Subsites, respectively. Figures 5-
3 ... "
48. Page 5-1, section 5.1, and Figures 5-1 througb 5c4 -How were the hydraulic
containmenUcapture zones determined for Figures 5-1 through 5-4? Plea_se
provide details on the methodology used to determine the shapes and locations
of the capture zone. This should be included somewhere in Section 5.1.
49. Page 5-2, section 5.2 -The next event will occur in March 2002. Please correct
the year.
50. Page 5-2, section 5.3.1 -Define a "Kendall ," test.
51. Page 5-2, section 5.3.2 c In the first sentence, change the word "GE" to
"Shepherd Farm".
52. Page 5-3, section 5.3.3 -Revise last two sentences for typos and missing words.
"Its occurrence in the groundwater may be natural due to its presence in bedrock
formations. The next scheduled sampling of residential wells is·in September
2002."
53. Page 5-3, section 5.3.3 -Delete the first sentence or change to stating that time
concentration tables for residential wells are located in Appendix D.
54. Page 5-4, section 5.3.5, last sentence -Remove "the" before detected and
capitalize "Standard."
55. Page 6-1, section 6, para 4 -This text compares the capture zones observed
(Figures 5-1 through 5-4) against the model capture zone. However, the model
capture zone is not reported in the text. Please include a figure and text which
- 5 -
•
shows the model capture zone so the reader can compare the observed versus
the model. This could be done in Section 6 or Section 5.
56. Page 6-1, para 5, 3rd sentence -Typo -"Both increases and decreases in
PCE ... "
57. Page 6-2, para 1, 2nd sentence -Add "-ing" tci monitor. Also, nitrobenzene was
detected one time in effluent at a concentration below the remediation goal.
Please specify the type of effluent.
58. _ Appendix A -It appears that the Appendix A fly sh.eel is labeled as Attachment
A. Also note that the Appendices are not called out in order in the text.
- 6 -
. North Carolina •
Department of Environment an atural Resources
Division of Waste Management
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
Dexter R. Matthews, Director
Ms. Giezelle Bennett
Remedial Project Manager
S uperfund Branch
Waste Management Division
US EPA Region JV
61 Forsyth Street, 11 th Floor
Atlanta, Georgia 30303
January 31, 2002
RE: Annual Groundwater Remedial Action Performance Monitoring Report-2001
December 2001
General Electric/Shepherd Farm NPL Site
East Flat Rock, Henderson County, NC
Dear Ms. Bennett:
The Superfund Section of the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
(NC DENR) has received and reviewed the Annual Groundwater Remedial Action Performance
Monitoring Report-2001, for the General Electric/Shepherd Farm National Priorities List (NPL)
Site. The Superfund Section offers the attached comments.
The Superfund Section of the NC DENR appreciates the opportunity to comment on this
document. If you have any questions or comments, please feel free to contact me at (919) 733-
2801, extension 349.
Sincerely, ~ •. _;/ 3. "1 J!/~~'1 !
David B. Mattison, CHMM C-1::> 8,
Environmental Engineer
NC Superfund Section
Attachment
I 646 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1646
Phone: 9 I 9-733-4996 \ FAX: [phone] \ Internet: www.enr.state.nc.us
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNin' I AFFIRM A TJVE ACTION EMPLOYER -50% RECYCLED/ I 0% POST CONSUMER PAPER
Ms. Giezelle Bennett
January 31, 2002
Page 2
1. Page 1-1, 2nd paragraph. The third sentence should be corrected to read "Information
collected from the AGRS was used to support the design for the final groundwater
remediation system (GRS) (refer to Section 1.4.2 for more information on the GRSJ."
2. Page 1-4, 2nd paragraph. The second sentence should be corrected to read "A total of 20.6
million gallons of treated water was discharged to Bat Fork Creek."
3. Page 1-4, 3rd paragraph. The third sentence should be corrected to read "It consists of
five recovery wells at the GE Subsite (RW-1, RW-2, RW-5 through RW-7), four recovery
wells at the Shepherd Farm Subsite (RWSF-1 through RWSF-4), a treatment system,
associated pumps, piping and controls."
4. Page 1-4, 4th paragraph. The second sentence should be corrected to read "Effluent from
the GRS is sampled quarterly for the RTC before discharge to the POTW."
5. Section 2.4. Figure 2-7 indicates that no daily groundwater level data is available from
January 2001 to September 2001. Please revise Section 2.4 to include a discussion of the
lack of daily groundwater level data from piezometer BAPZ-3, including the cause, the
remedy and the impact. Furthermore, this discussion should include an analysis of how
the impact to the wetlands, or lack of impact to the wetlands, was made in lieu of the
absence of the groundwater level data from piezometer BAPZ-3 (i.e., the use of
groundwater level data from the remaining piezometers in the area of the bunched
arrowhead wetland).
6. Page 3-3, I st paragraph. The second sentence should be corrected to state, "Table 3-6 lists
the analytical results from the residential well sampling."
7. Tables 3-3, 3-4 and 3-6. All three tables have a heading for "Sample Date," however, no
sample date is indicated on either table. Also, several contaminant concentrations are
presented in these tables without a zero in the tenths position (.0) while it is present in the
laboratory analytical data. The tetrachloroethene concentration for monitoring well MW-
13A and the manganese concentrations for MW-14, MW-15, MW-27, MW-27A, MW-
29, RWSF-1, MW-64A, and MW-66 are presented as "J" qualified (detected, estimated
result) when in fact these concentrations are indicated in the laboratory analytical data as
being greater than the laboratory reporting limit. These oversights should be corrected.
8. Section 3.4 of the report should be updated to explain why SYOC and Metals analysis
was not included for surface water samples SW-4, SW-5, and SW-6 and Table 3-7 should
indicate that these contaminants were not analyzed for.
Ms. Giezelle Bennett
January 31, 2002
Page 3
•
9. Table 3-8. The laboratory reporting limit for VOC's in sediment samples SED-1 and
SED-2 should be corrected to indicate 6.3 and 8.9 respectively.
10. Table 4-3 indicates that the metals concentrations for the 10/18/01 treatment system
effluent sample are higher than those of the corresponding influent sample. An
explanation of how this resulted should be included in Section 4.2 of the report.