3301_EdgecombeMSWLF_20160926_GWMReport_DINxxxx

July 2016 Environmental Compliance
Monitoring Report
Edgecombe County Landfill (Permit No. 33-01)
Tarboro, North Carolina
S&ME Project No. 4305-15-172A
Prepared for:
Edgecombe County Solid Waste Department
P.O. Box 10
Tarboro, North Carolina 27886
Prepared by:
S&ME, Inc.
3201 Spring Forest Road
Raleigh, NC 27616

September 26, 2016
July 2016 Environmental Compliance Monitoring Report
Edgecombe County Landfill
S&ME Project No. 4305-15-172A
September 26, 2016 ii

Table of Contents
1.0 Project Information and Status ........................................................................... 1
1.1 Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Background ....................................................................................................................... 1
2.0 July 2016 Sampling Event .................................................................................... 2
3.0 Site Hydrogeology ................................................................................................. 3
3.1 Groundwater Elevations and Flow Direction ............................................................... 3
3.2 Groundwater Flow Velocity ............................................................................................ 4
4.0 Water Quality ......................................................................................................... 5
4.1 Groundwater Analytical Data ........................................................................................ 5
4.1.1 Compare Background and Compliance Detections to the SWSL ........................................ 6
4.1.2 Compare Background and Compliance Detections to Standards ........................................ 7
4.1.3 Compare Background and Compliance Detections to MDL ............................................... 8
4.1.4 Quality Control ................................................................................................................... 8
4.2 Surface Water Analytical Data ........................................................................................ 9
5.0 Discussion of Groundwater Detections ............................................................ 9
5.1 Appendix I Inorganics ..................................................................................................... 9
5.2 Appendix I VOCs ............................................................................................................. 9
5.3 Previous Investigations Selected Corrective Measures Remedy ............................. 10
6.0 MONITORED NATURAL ATTENUATION PARAMETERS ................... 11
6.1 Discussion of Detections ................................................................................................ 11
6.2 MNA Screening Model .................................................................................................. 13
7.0 Conclusions and Recommendations ............................................................... 14
7.1 Summary of July 2016 Sampling Event ....................................................................... 14
7.2 Recommendations .......................................................................................................... 15
8.0 References ............................................................................................................. 15

July 2016 Environmental Compliance Monitoring Report
Edgecombe County Landfill
S&ME Project No. 4305-15-172A
September 26, 2016 iii
List of Figures
Figure 1 Vicinity Map
Figure 2 Groundwater Potentiometric Map

List of Tables
Table 1 Groundwater Elevation Data
Table 2 Summary of Field Parameters
Table 3 Groundwater Quality Summary
Table 4 Geochemical/MNA Constituent Summary
Table 5 Existing Well/Piezometer Construction Details

Appendices
Appendix I – Field Notes
Appendix II – Report of Laboratory Analyses
Appendix III – Compact Disk with Electronic Copy of Historical Analytical Results (.xls) and
Electronic Copy of this Report
Appendix IV – Groundwater Velocity Calculations
Appendix V – Time Series Graphs for Monitor Wells
Appendix VI – Selected Geochemical/MNA Parameter Charts
Appendix VII - BIOCHLOR Model Inputs and Results

July 2016 Environmental Compliance Monitoring Report
Edgecombe County Landfill
S&ME Project No. 4305-15-172A
September 9, 2016 1
1.0 Project Information and Status
1.1 Introduction
Edgecombe County currently operates a solid waste facility on a tract of land located off of Colonial Road
(S.R. 1601) in Edgecombe County, south of Tarboro, North Carolina (Figure 1). The solid waste facility
includes a municipal solid waste (MSW) transfer facility, a construction & demolition (C&D) debris landfill
unit, white goods and wooden pallet storage area, soil borrow pits, a landfill gas to energy system, and
various operational buildings. The C&D landfill unit is operated over a closed MSW landfill, and is
regulated in general accordance with North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality Division of
Waste Management (NCDEQ-DWM) Permit No. 33-01. Edgecombe County continues to perform
groundwater and surface water monitoring on a semiannual basis to comply with the requirements of
North Carolina Solid Waste Management Rules (Solid Waste Rules), 15A NCAC 13B. S&ME has prepared
this report on behalf of Edgecombe County to present the results of the July 2016 monitoring event as
required by § .0600 and .1632 of the Solid Waste Rules.

The July 2016 monitoring event included sampling for groundwater quality from the following wells,
which comprise the groundwater monitoring network:
Water Quality Monitoring Network Groundwater Sampling Locations
Background
Monitor Wells
Compliance
Monitor Wells
MW-3B MW-5 MW-13
MW-4 MW-6 MW-14
MW-9
MW-7A MW-15
MW-12 MW-16

Monitored Natural Attenuation parameters were also analyzed for MW-5, MW-12, MW-15 and MW-16.

Jerry’s Creek is the surface water feature located on the northern boundary of the landfill where two
surface water samples (upstream and downstream) are typically collected to review surface water quality
(Figure 2).
1.2 Background
Groundwater has been monitored at the landfill facility since 1994 in accordance with § .1632 of the Solid
Waste Rules under the landfill’s Water Quality Monitoring Plan (WQMP). The WQMP was originally
written in September 1994, revised in June 2008 and again in January 2010. Current groundwater
monitoring at the landfill is conducted in general conformance with the January 2010 WQMP.

Volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and inorganic constituents (metals) have been detected above North
Carolina groundwater protection standards in groundwater samples collected from groundwater
July 2016 Environmental Compliance Monitoring Report
Edgecombe County Landfill
S&ME Project No. 4305-15-172A
September 9, 2016 2
compliance monitoring points at Edgecombe County Landfill. Previous statistical evaluation of the
groundwater monitoring data indicated that a release of VOCs and metals had occurred. In accordance
with NCDEQ North Carolina Solid Waste Rules defined under 15A NCAC 13B, S&ME has completed the
following activities on behalf of Edgecombe County in response to the detections of the VOC and metals
in groundwater:

– Statistical analyses (January 2007) of semiannual water quality results of compliance well
monitoring system in accordance with the facility’s Water Quality Monitoring Plan (WQMP);

– Alternate Source Demonstration (ASD) study in accordance with Solid Waste Rules defined
under 15A NCAC 13B.1633(c)(3) and .1634(g)(2);

– Nature and Extent Study (NES) prepared in accordance with Solid Waste Rules defined under
15A NCAC 13B.1634(g)(1);

– Assessment of Corrective Measures (ACM) in accordance with Solid Waste Rules defined
under 15A NCAC 13B.1635; and,

– Corrective Action Plan (CAP) in accordance with Solid Waste Rules defined under 15A NCAC
13B.1636.

– Baseline Groundwater Sampling and Monitored Natural Attenuation Report (July 2012).

– Interim Corrective Action Evaluation Report (CAER) May 2016.

The July 2016 semi-annual groundwater sampling services were completed in general accordance with the
requirements of the Solid Waste Rules defined under 15A NCAC 13B .1632 (Groundwater Sampling and
Analysis Requirements), .1634 (Assessment Monitoring Program), and .1637 (Implementation of the
Corrective Action Program).
2.0 July 2016 Sampling Event
On July 14 and 15, 2016, S&ME personnel collected groundwater samples from 11 monitor wells (MW-3B,
MW-4, MW-5, MW-6, MW-7A, MW-9, MW-12, MW-13, MW-14, MW-15, and MW-16) and surface water
samples at two locations (upstream/SW-1 and downstream/SW-2) at the Edgecombe County Landfill
(Figure 2). S&ME personnel performed sampling in general accordance with the Solid Waste Rules and
the facility’s WQMP, dated June 2008, revised January 2010. In addition to collecting samples from the 11
compliance monitor wells, groundwater levels were measured in 25 other monitor wells and piezometers
listed in the WQMP network of monitoring points.

Prior to collecting groundwater samples, the monitor wells and piezometers were opened and allowed to
equilibrate with atmospheric conditions before gauging the liquid level. Groundwater depths were
measured to an accuracy of ±0.01 feet using an electronic water level indicator, which was
decontaminated before its initial use and between measurements. The measurements were collected to
calculate relative groundwater elevations, to develop a groundwater potentiometric map, and to estimate
July 2016 Environmental Compliance Monitoring Report
Edgecombe County Landfill
S&ME Project No. 4305-15-172A
September 9, 2016 3
the hydraulic gradient and groundwater flow direction at the time of the sampling event. Water level
measurements are presented in Table 1 and Figure 2.

After collecting the static groundwater levels, stagnant water from wells that were scheduled for sampling
were purged using a peristaltic pump. Low-flow sampling methods were followed to purge and sample
groundwater from the monitor wells. As purging proceeded, an YSI® multi-meter with a flow-through
cell was used to measure field parameters that included pH, temperature, specific conductance, oxidation-
reduction potential, and turbidity. Field parameters were measured and recorded at regular intervals
before sampling. A copy of the field notes are included in Appendix I.

A groundwater sample was collected after field parameters (pH, temperature, and conductivity) stabilized
and the turbidity measurement was approximately 10 Nephelometric Turbidity Units (NTUs) or less. In
accordance with the WQMP, field parameters were considered stable when they were changing less than
10 percent over three consecutive measurements. The field parameter measurements are presented in
Table 2. One duplicate groundwater sample was collected from MW-6 for the purpose of Quality Control
(QC). In addition, one trip blank and one equipment blank sample were also collected for QC. These
results are included in Table 3.

Groundwater samples were collected through the silicon tubing, and pumped with a peristaltic pump,
directly into clean containers provided by the laboratory. Once filled, the sample containers were sealed,
labeled, and placed into an insulated container with ice. The samples were managed under chain-of-
custody protocols and shipped to Environmental Conservation Laboratories, Inc. (ENCO), a North
Carolina-certified laboratory. ENCO analyzed the samples for constituents listed in 40 CFR 258 Appendix
I.

The results of analytical testing are discussed in Section 4, and a summary of detected constituent
concentrations are presented in Table 3. Copies of the laboratory reports are provided in Appendix II. A
compact disk (CD) with an electronic copy of tabulated historical analytical results in Excel spreadsheet
format (.xls) and an electronic copy of this report in portable document format (.pdf) are included in
Appendix III. Well construction details for the monitor wells are shown in Table 4.
3.0 Site Hydrogeology
3.1 Groundwater Elevations and Flow Direction
Based on the Soil Conservation Service, Soil Survey of Edgecombe County, the uppermost aquifer at the
site is unconfined and is found in the silty sands of the Sunderland Formation. This aquifer is recharged
by inflow from up-gradient areas and by precipitation infiltration. The uppermost aquifer underlying the
landfill is expected to discharge to the local surface water features including Jerry’s Creek and the
drainage features in the active landfill area. During flood conditions, the southwest perimeter trench and
the farm pond located in the southeast corner of the site may recharge the aquifer. The marine clay layer
(Yorktown Formation) encountered at depths from approximately eight to 24 feet below the original
ground surface acts as an aquitard and semi-confining layer below the landfill. Shallow monitoring wells
and piezometers are installed in the surficial aquifer with the bottoms of the wells resting above, on, or
penetrating the top of the Yorktown Formation.
July 2016 Environmental Compliance Monitoring Report
Edgecombe County Landfill
S&ME Project No. 4305-15-172A
September 9, 2016 4
Static water level measurements collected during the July 2016 sampling event (Table 1) were used to
calculate the corresponding groundwater elevations based on surveyed top of casing (TOC) elevations. A
groundwater potentiometric map was developed using the groundwater elevations (Figure 2). Based
upon the groundwater potentiometric surface elevations, the groundwater flow direction was estimated
to be to the north-northeast. The average horizontal hydraulic gradient was calculated from three point
calculation solutions using two sets (three wells per set) of groundwater elevation data measured on July
14, 2016, and by applying the following equation (Driscoll, 1986):

i = h1 - h2
L

where:
i = Hydraulic gradient
h1 - h2 = Difference in hydraulic head (feet)
L = Distance along flow path (feet)

The three point calculation is used to estimate the hydraulic gradient perpendicular to a groundwater
potentiometric contour of equal elevation determined from high, intermediate, and low groundwater
elevations at three monitor wells. The gradient calculated perpendicular to the equal elevation contour
plotted from the well set is representative of a true gradient rather than the apparent gradient that is
estimated from a two-well point gradient calculation. Based on the Driscoll gradient equation and using a
third groundwater elevation to plot the equal elevation contour, the distance L can be measured between
h1 and h2 perpendicular to the equal elevation contour to estimate the true hydraulic gradient for the
three groundwater elevation data points. The average horizontal hydraulic gradient from two, three point
solutions using well sets MW-3B, MW-7A, and MW-5, and P-1, MW-7A and MW-5 is estimated to be
0.0190 ft/ft. The hydraulic gradient calculations are included in Appendix IV.
3.2 Groundwater Flow Velocity
An approximate average linear groundwater flow velocity (V) was calculated using the following equation
(Freeze and Cherry, 1979):

V = Ki
n

where: V = Average linear groundwater flow velocity [feet per year (ft/yr)]
K = Hydraulic conductivity (ft/yr)
i = Flow gradient as a ratio (ft/ft)
n = Effective soil porosity (percent)

Aquifer rising and falling head tests were previously performed at the site by Law Engineering Company
(Law) and by S&ME. The aquifer test data were used to estimate the hydraulic conductivity of the
sediments in the surficial aquifer intersected by the screened intervals of the monitor wells tested. The
aquifer test data (provided in previous reports) were analyzed by the Bouwer and Rice Method.

July 2016 Environmental Compliance Monitoring Report
Edgecombe County Landfill
S&ME Project No. 4305-15-172A
September 9, 2016 5
The hydraulic conductivity, K, values previously measured at the site ranged from 1.29x10-5 centimeters
per second (cm/sec) to 3.65x10-4 cm/sec. An average hydraulic conductivity value of 5.95x10-5 cm/sec was
used for calculating the site-wide flow velocity. The average hydraulic gradient of 0.0218 ft/ft, calculated
from the three point solution described above was used as the site-wide average gradient. An effective
soil porosity, n, of 15% was used as the site-wide average.

The average groundwater flow velocity, V, for the site, using the equation and input values above, was
estimated at 7.798 ft/yr. Groundwater flow velocity calculations are included in Appendix IV. The
average groundwater flow velocity information is presented on Figure 2.
4.0 Water Quality
In general accordance with the assessment monitoring requirements described in § .1634 of the Solid
Waste Rules, S&ME sampled three background and eight compliance groundwater monitor wells during
the July 2016 sampling event. The samples were analyzed by ENCO for constituents listed in the 40 CFR
258, Appendix I analyte list using the analytical methods that included EPA Method 6010/6020 (metals)
and Method 8260B (VOCs). The field measurements are summarized on Table 2. The groundwater
summary of compound detections is presented in Table 3. The chain-of-custody form and the laboratory
reports from ENCO are provided in Appendix II.

Effective December 1, 2006, NCDENR-DWM, changed the standard limits for comparing constituent
detections in laboratory analysis from the Practical Quantitation Limits (PQLs) established in 1994 to the
Solid Waste Reporting Limits (SWRLs). On February 23, 2007, the Section further revised the reporting
limits from the SWRL to the Solid Waste Section Limit (SWSL). The SWSL was defined as the lowest
amount of analyte in a sample that can be quantitatively determined with suitable precision and accuracy.
The new SWSL limits are lower than the previous PQL limits. Concentrations reported by the laboratory
that are above the Method Detection Limit (MDL) but below the SWSL must be qualified as estimated
values designated by the letter “J”. According to the laboratory quality control performed by ENCO,
detections above the MDL but below the method reporting limit (MRL) are considered estimated values,
designated by the letter “J”.
4.1 Groundwater Analytical Data
Constituent concentrations detected above the laboratory MDLs are summarized on Table 3. For
comparison purposes, these results are shown with their respective SWSL and the 15A North Carolina
Administrative Code (NCAC) Subchapter 2L .0200 Groundwater Quality Standards (2L Standard), which
were recently revised and became effective April 1, 2013. Where target groundwater constituents have no
established 2L Standard, the MDL is the default 2L Standard. However, since the DWM has listed
constituent concentrations protective of groundwater, the NCDEQ-DWM Section Ground Water
Protection Standard (GWPST) established in accordance with the Solid Waste Management Rules, Section
.1634(h) is used as the action level for detections where no 2L Standard is established.
July 2016 Environmental Compliance Monitoring Report
Edgecombe County Landfill
S&ME Project No. 4305-15-172A
September 9, 2016 6
4.1.1 Compare Background and Compliance Detections to the SWSL
The following table summarizes the monitor well locations where Appendix I constituents were detected
at levels that are equal to or exceed the SWSL concentration in one or more samples in the July 2016
monitoring event:
July 2016 Groundwater Sampling Event
Appendix I Constituent Concentration Detected Equal to or Greater than SWSL
Background
Monitor Wells
Appendix I Detected Constituents
Equal to or Greater Than Their SWSL
MW-3B cobalt, zinc
MW-4 --
MW-9 barium
Compliance
Monitor Wells
Appendix I Detected Constituents
Equal to or Greater Than Their SWSL
MW-5
benzene, chlorobenzene, 1-4-dichlorobenzene, cis-1,2-
dichloroethene, 1,2-dichloropropane, vinyl chloride, arsenic,
barium, cobalt, nickel, zinc
MW-6 barium, cobalt
MW-7A barium
MW-12 benzene, chlorobenzene, 1,4-dichlorobenzene, barium, cobalt,
zinc
MW-13 benzene, chlorobenzene, 1,4-dichlorobenzene, cis-1,2-
dichloroethene, vinyl chloride, barium, cobalt, nickel, zinc
MW-14 barium
MW-15 cis-1,2-dichloroethene, vinyl chloride, barium, cobalt
MW-16 barium
--- = No Appendix I constituent concentrations were detected above SWSL.

Volatile Organic Compounds
No Appendix I VOC concentrations were reported at concentrations above the analytical method’s
detection limit in the groundwater samples collected from the background monitor wells MW-3B, MW-4,
and MW-9, nor were they detected above the analytical method’s detection limit in the groundwater
samples collected from the compliance monitor wells MW-6, MW-7A, MW-14 and MW-16.

The table above lists the VOCs detected in groundwater sampled from monitor wells MW-5, MW-12, MW-
13, and MW-15 that were detected above their respective SWSLs.

July 2016 Environmental Compliance Monitoring Report
Edgecombe County Landfill
S&ME Project No. 4305-15-172A
September 9, 2016 7
Inorganic Compounds
The table above lists the inorganic compounds detected in groundwater sampled from the upgradient
background monitor wells MW-3B and MW-9 and down-gradient compliance monitor wells MW-5, MW-
6, MW-7A, MW-12, MW-13, MW-14, MW-15, and MW-16 that were detected above their respective
SWSLs. Seven inorganic compounds were detected in the groundwater sample collected from
background monitor well MW-3B, five inorganic compounds were detected in the groundwater sample
collected from background monitoring well MW-4, and two inorganic compounds were detected in the
groundwater sample collected from background monitoring well MW-9.
4.1.2 Compare Background and Compliance Detections to Standards
The following table summarizes the monitor well locations where Appendix I constituents were detected
above the 2L Standard or GWPST (presented in Table 3). The following targeted chemicals were detected
above the 2L Standard in one or more groundwater samples analyzed for the July 2016 monitoring event:
July 2016 Groundwater Sampling Event
Appendix I Constituent Concentration Detected Above 2L Standard or GWPST
Background
Monitor Wells
Appendix I Detected Constituents
Above 2L Standard or GWPST
MW-3B cobalt, thallium
MW-4 antimony, vanadium
MW-9 --
Compliance
Monitor Wells
Appendix I Detected Constituents
Above 2L Standard or GWPST
MW-5 benzene, 1,4-dichlorobenzene, cis-1,2-dichloroethene, 1,2-
dichloropropane, vinyl chloride, arsenic, cobalt, thallium
MW-6 cobalt, thallium, vanadium
MW-7A thallium
MW-12 benzene, 1,4-dichlorobenzene, cobalt, thallium
MW-13 benzene, vinyl chloride, cobalt, nickel, thallium
MW-14 thallium
MW-15 vinyl chloride, cobalt, thallium
MW-16 cobalt, thallium
--- = No Appendix I constituent concentrations were detected above 2L Standard or GWPST.

Volatile Organic Compounds
No Appendix I VOC were detected above their respective 2L Standards or GWPSTs in the groundwater
samples collected from the upgradient background monitor wells MW-3B, MW-4, and MW-9, nor were
July 2016 Environmental Compliance Monitoring Report
Edgecombe County Landfill
S&ME Project No. 4305-15-172A
September 9, 2016 8
they detected in the groundwater samples collected from the downgradient compliance monitor wells
MW-6, MW-7A, MW-14, and MW-16.

The table above lists the VOCs detected in groundwater sampled from monitor wells MW-5, MW-12, MW-
13 and MW-15 that were detected above their respective 2L Standards or GWPSTs.

Inorganic Compounds
The table above lists the inorganic compounds detected in groundwater sampled from the upgradient
background monitor wells MW-3B and MW-4 and downgradient compliance monitor wells MW-5, MW-6,
MW-7A, MW-12, MW-13, MW-14, MW-15, and MW-16 that were detected above their respective 2L
Standards or GWPSTs. Several other inorganic compounds were detected in the groundwater samples
collected during the July 2016 sampling event, but below their respective 2L Standard or GWPST.
4.1.3 Compare Background and Compliance Detections to MDL
The analytical data was reviewed by comparing constituent detections in the background and compliance
monitor wells to the laboratory’s Method Detection Limit (MDL). Twenty-four Appendix I constituents
(summarized in Table 3) were detected above the MDL in one or more groundwater samples collected
during the July 2016 monitoring event.
4.1.4 Quality Control
Quality assurance and quality control of field sampling methods and analytical test methods were
assessed by collecting and analyzing one duplicate sample, one equipment blank sample, and one trip
blank sample. The duplicate and equipment blank samples were analyzed for Appendix I constituents by
the same methods and for the same target constituents as the record samples, with the exception of
dissolved metals. Duplicate sample analysis documents the consistency of field sampling methods and
the consistency of laboratory testing between samples. Equipment blank sample analysis documents the
quality of sampling equipment and decontamination procedures used to reduce the potential of cross-
contamination or carry-over effects from sampling equipment used on-site. The trip blank is analyzed for
VOCs to document the effect of external conditions on samples/sample containers during lab pack
preparation and transportation to and from the site.

The concentrations of Appendix I VOCs and inorganic compounds detected in the record and in the
duplicate samples collected from monitor well MW-6 were within an acceptable tolerance level and
indicate a suitable replication of results from the test procedures. These results are presented in Table 3.

In the equipment blank sample, copper was the only constituent detected at concentrations that
exceeded its respective MDLs with a “J” qualified result, but was well below the respective SWSL. This
result is presented in Table 3.

Some technical limitations exist in the laboratory’s reporting of MDLs. MDLs for some VOCs and some
inorganic constituents are above the applicable standards. The MDL for vinyl chloride (0.32 µg/L), cobalt
(1.1 µg/L), and vanadium (1.4 µg/L) in groundwater are greater than the 2L Standard of 0.03 µg/L for vinyl
chloride and the GWPSTs of 1.0 µg/L for cobalt and 0.3 µg/L for vanadium. Therefore, vinyl chloride,
cobalt, and vanadium may have been present at concentrations above their respective 2L
Standard/GWPST, but were reported as being below their respective MDLs.
July 2016 Environmental Compliance Monitoring Report
Edgecombe County Landfill
S&ME Project No. 4305-15-172A
September 9, 2016 9
4.2 Surface Water Analytical Data
Surface water samples were collected from two surface water stations (upstream/SW-1 and
downstream/SW-2) in Jerry’s Creek as part of the July 2016 monitoring event. Surface water sample
stations are illustrated on Figure 2. Laboratory analytical reports for the two surface water samples are
included in Appendix II and summarized on Table 3.

Laboratory analytical results indicated that no Appendix I VOCs was reported above the laboratory
method detection limits in the upstream/SW-1 or the downstream/SW-2 surface water samples.

Laboratory analysis indicated that barium, cobalt, thallium, vanadium, and zinc were detected above the
laboratory MDL in the surface water samples collected from the upstream/SW-1 and downstream/SW-2
locations. The values for barium, cobalt, thallium, vanadium, and zinc were flagged by the laboratory as
estimated values. Cobalt, thallium, and vanadium were detected above their respective 2L standard for
the upstream/SW-1 and downstream/SW-2 locations.
5.0 Discussion of Groundwater Detections
Statistical analyses have been performed in previous reports to evaluate the significance of the analytical
results. These analyses include a more comprehensive discussion of the groundwater quality and trends
than are within the scope of this report. Modifications to the sampling and reporting schedule were made
in the Baseline Groundwater Sampling and Monitored Natural Attenuation Report (S&ME, 2012), which
established that monitored natural attenuation parameters sampling and statistical analysis will be
performed on an 18-month basis. Time series graphs for individual constituents were plotted for wells
with detections of the corresponding constituents over the regulatory limits. The constituent charts are
provided in Appendix V.
5.1 Appendix I Inorganics
For the combined data set of both groundwater and surface water sample results, of the 24 Appendix I
constituents that were reported above the MDL from the July 2016 monitoring event, 12 are inorganic
compounds. The detections of the 12 inorganic compounds, with the exception of antimony and silver,
were compared to the expected groundwater concentration calculated from the soil-to-groundwater
Dilution/Attenuation Factor (DAF) computations included in the June 2008 Alternate Source
Demonstration (ASD) performed for the facility (reference Table 3). During the July 2016 sampling event,
three Appendix I inorganics were detected, in groundwater samples collected from compliance wells, at
concentrations above their respective 2L Standards/GWPST or the expected groundwater concentration
from the ASD: arsenic, cobalt, and thallium.
5.2 Appendix I VOCs
Appendix I VOCs were reported above the laboratory MDLs in groundwater samples collected from
compliance monitor wells MW-5, MW-7A, MW-12, MW-13, and MW-15. Of the detected constituents,
the following were reported at concentrations in excess of the respective 2L Standard/GWPST: benzene,
1,4-dichlorobenzene, cis-1,2-dischloroethene, 1,2-dichloropropane, and vinyl chloride.

July 2016 Environmental Compliance Monitoring Report
Edgecombe County Landfill
S&ME Project No. 4305-15-172A
September 9, 2016 10
With some exceptions, concentrations of VOCs have historically been shown to increase during the July
sampling events and decrease during the January sampling events. Lower January concentrations are
likely a function of the higher water table resulting from increased rainfall in the winter months. The goals
of the corrective measures include minimizing the infiltration of rainwater through the waste and
increasing the residence time of constituents so that constituents are completely attenuated prior to
migration off site.
5.3 Previous Investigations Selected Corrective Measures Remedy
On June 30, 2008, S&ME prepared a Corrective Action Plan in which the following corrective measures
were recommended:

• Installation of an up-gradient groundwater hydraulic barrier;
• Maintaining a consistent contour with pre-1998 waste area;
• Increasing slope of the closed MSW area;
• Stormwater improvements on the western half of the landfill; and,
• Implementation of a monitored natural attenuation (MNA) program to address impacted
groundwater.

S&ME prepared a Baseline Groundwater Sampling and Monitored Natural Attenuation Report (July 19,
2012), which established baseline water quality standards to gauge MNA and establish the key parameters
for sampling. In a letter dated September 17, 2012, the Section acknowledged receipt and review of the
Baseline MNA Report. Upon review, the Section approved Edgecombe County discontinuing MNA
monitoring until the corrective measures described in the CAP were implemented. On January 18, 2013,
S&ME personnel met with the Section to discuss approved modifications to the Sampling and Analysis
Plan (SAP), which was summarized in a letter from the Section dated May 1, 2013. MNA parameters
sampling and statistical analysis was allowed to be temporarily suspended until the hydraulic barrier
construction was complete. S&ME prepared an Interim Corrective Action Evaluation Report (CAER), dated
May 6, 2016, which described the progress implementing groundwater corrective measures. To date, in
situ isolation of groundwater using an upgradient hydraulic barrier is the only remedial strategy that has
not been implemented. The Interim CAER proposed resuming MNA monitoring in compliance monitoring
wells MW-5, MW-12, MW-15, and MW-16 beginning with the July 2016 semi-annual sampling event and
included a revised construction schedule for the upgradient hydraulic barrier with a projected start date of
May 2017 and completion in December 2017. In a letter dated May 24, 2016, the Section approved the
Interim CAER, resumption of MNA monitoring, and the proposed upgradient hydraulic barrier
construction schedule. Semi-annual monitoring, which will include MNA monitoring in select wells every
18 months, will continue to assess the effectiveness of the corrective measures.

July 2016 Environmental Compliance Monitoring Report
Edgecombe County Landfill
S&ME Project No. 4305-15-172A
September 9, 2016 11
6.0 MONITORED NATURAL ATTENUATION PARAMETERS
6.1 Discussion of Detections
During the four semi-annual baseline sampling events conducted in 2010 - 2011, groundwater samples
were analyzed for monitored natural attenuation (MNA) parameters in upgradient background monitor
wells MW-3B, MW-4, and MW-9, and downgradient compliance monitor wells MW-5, MW-6, MW-7A,
MW-12, MW-13, MW-14, MW-15, and MW-16. In addition to the field parameters (specific conductance,
pH, ORP, and DO), MNA parameters monitored during the baseline events included the following
performance parameters as required by the Section: chloride, sulfate, alkalinity, biochemical oxygen
demand, chemical oxygen demand, total organic carbon, nitrate/nitrite as N, sulfide, total dissolved solids,
iron, manganese, carbon dioxide, ethane, ethene, methane, volatile fatty acids, and hydrogen. During the
July 2016 sampling event, samples were collected from compliance monitoring wells MW-5, MW-12, MW-
15 and MW-16 and submitted for analysis of the MNA parameters listed above. The results presented in
Table 4 are a summary of the geochemical and MNA constituent results from field measurements and
from analytical testing performed during the four baseline monitoring events in 2010 – 2011 and the most
recent sampling event in July 2016. MNA constituent charts for the four wells are presented in Appendix
VI.

Alkalinity is an indicator of anaerobic degradation and reductive dechlorination (Weidermeier, et al,
1996). Alkalinity concentrations in compliance wells were, on average, higher than in background wells
during the four baseline sampling events. During the most recent sampling event in July 2016, alkalinity
concentrations showed a slight decrease from previous sampling events, but remain, on average, higher
than in background wells.

Chloride is a byproduct of reductive dechlorination, and is an indicator of the process (S&ME, Inc., 2011).
Chloride was detected in the samples collected from background wells MW-3B, MW-4, and MW-9 and
downgradient compliance wells MW-5, MW-6, MW-7A, MW-12, MW-13, MW-14, MW-15, and MW-16
during all four of the baseline sampling events, with the highest concentrations occurring consistently in
MW-12 and MW13. During the most recent sampling event in July 2016, compliance wells MW-5 and
MW-12 showed increases in chloride concentrations. Compliance well MW-15 had a chloride
concentration similar to previous sampling events. Monitoring well MW-16 showed a slight decrease in
chloride concentration, but remains at an elevated level compared to background concentrations.

Sulfate concentrations across the site were low during the baseline sampling events. Sulfate reduces to
sulfide as it accepts an electron. Sulfide concentrations in the four compliance wells remained extremely
low, indicating that sulfate reducing bacteria do not predominate (AFCEE, 2001).

Nitrate is the preferred electron acceptor in the anaerobic/reductive environment, followed by nitrite,
sulfate, iron and manganese. Nitrate and nitrite concentrations were low across the site during the
baseline sampling events, indicating that the supply of nitrate and nitrite as electron acceptors has been
depleted (AFCEE, 2001). Nitrate and nitrite concentrations measured during the July 2016 sampling event
were also low.

Total dissolved solids are a general indicator of water quality and measure all ions present within a
sample (Mactec, 2011). Total dissolved solids were higher in compliance wells than in background wells
July 2016 Environmental Compliance Monitoring Report
Edgecombe County Landfill
S&ME Project No. 4305-15-172A
September 9, 2016 12
during the baseline sampling events. TDS concentrations remained at much higher concentrations in the
compliance monitoring wells during the July 2016 sampling event.

Iron concentrations were on average much higher in compliance wells than in background wells during
the baseline sampling events and during the most recent sampling event in July 2016. As mentioned
above, iron follows nitrate and sulfate as a preferred electron acceptor. Elevated iron levels suggest that
iron reduction is occurring.

Manganese, like iron, also serves as an electron receptor. Higher concentrations of manganese were
detected in compliance wells during the baseline sampling events. Elevated concentrations of manganese
were detected in compliance wells during the July 2016 sampling event, which indicates it is likely that
manganese reduction is occurring concomitantly with iron reduction.

Carbon dioxide was detected at much higher concentrations in compliance wells than in background
wells during the baseline sampling events. Carbon dioxide is produced at every stage of reductive
dechlorination, as well as during the degradation of hydrocarbons (Mactec, 2011). The elevated levels in
the compliance wells during the July 2016 sampling event indicate the attenuation process is likely still
occuring.

Methane was detected in samples collected from all background and compliance wells, with
concentrations much higher in compliance wells than in background wells during the baseline sampling
events. During the July 2016 sampling event, methane concentrations remained at elevated levels
compared to background monitoring well concentrations. Methane, along with carbon dioxide, is
produced when vinyl chloride is reduced. Although methane production is not limited to the reductive
dechlorination process, it can be a good indicator that vinyl chloride is being reduced (Weidermeier et al,
1996).

Ethene was only detected in the sample collected from downgradient compliance well MW-5.

Ethane was detected in downgradient compliance wells MW-5, MW-13, and MW-15 in one or more
quarters during the baseline sampling events; however, with the exception of MW-5, concentrations were
reported above the laboratory method detection limit, but below the laboratory reporting limit. During
the July 2016 sampling event, ethane was not detected in any of the samples collected. Ethane is the final
daughter product of the reduction of chlorinated solvents and detections, even at extremely low
concentrations, indicate the complete reduction of vinyl chloride (Weidermeier, 1996).

Volatile fatty acids detected at the site during the baseline sampling events included acetic, propionic,
lactic, and butyric acids. The low concentrations of the detections indicated that these acids, produced
during what is known as the “acetogenic” phase of bacterial activity, indicated that groundwater at the
landfill transitioned to what is known as the “methanogenic” phase of anaerobic bio-activity (ATSDR,
2001). The only volatile fatty acid detected during the July 2016 sampling event was acetic acid in
monitoring well MW-12.

Hydrogen is produced during anaerobic fermentation of hydrocarbons. Concentrations in groundwater
samples from both background and compliance wells varied widely during the baseline sampling event
ranging from <0.6 to 4. During the July 2016 sampling event, hydrogen concentrations ranged from 0.93
July 2016 Environmental Compliance Monitoring Report
Edgecombe County Landfill
S&ME Project No. 4305-15-172A
September 9, 2016 13
to 1.9. According to information provided by Microseeps, the values reported in groundwater samples at
the site indicate sulfate reduction and iron reduction. Sulfate and iron reduction, as well as manganese
reduction, can occur simultaneously.

6.2 MNA Screening Model
The groundwater data collected from previous baseline and supplemental sampling events starting in
1994, was statistically evaluated by utilizing ChemStat. This data was also evaluated using statistical
analytical procedures from the EPA approved MNA screening model, BIOCHLOR. The BIOCHLOR model
was used to simulate the groundwater remediation at the facility and to determine the mass flux and
mass balance during the July 2016 sampling event. Prior to running the model, the site was evaluated by
considering historic analytical sample results and various MNA parameters to determine the potential for
anaerobic biodegradation. Based on the natural attenuation screening protocol provided by BIOCHLOR,
the site appears to show strong evidence for anaerobic biodegradation of chlorinated organics. A copy of
the screening protocol is included in Appendix VII.
Select chlorinated hydrocarbons for the site (cis-1,2-DCE and vinyl chloride) were modeled over a 5 year
and 15 year time frame between the source (Edgecombe County Landfill), and downgradient monitoring
well MW-5. This well was selected for the model based on being almost immediately downgradient from
the source and having the most elevated concentrations of COCs at the site. The model input data of: 1)
Advection, 2) Dispersion, 3) Adsorption, 4) Biotransformation, 5) General, 6) Source Data, and 7) Field Data
were obtained from site specific information and the BIOCHLOR software or User’s Manual. A copy of the
model input page with specific inputs for the above reference criteria is included in Appendix VII.
Results of the 5 year model indicate that the cis-1,2-DCE contaminated groundwater plume would
biotransform from 200 µg/L at MW-5 (July 2016) to 1 µg/L within 72 ft. with a mass flux reduction of 0.1
kilograms or 51.2%. With no biodegradation, the cis-1,2-DCE plume would be expected to reduce to 1
µg/L within 100 ft.
Results of the 5 year model indicate the vinyl chloride contaminated groundwater plume would
biotransform from 18 µg/L at MW-5 (July 2016) to 1 µg/L within 60 ft. with a mass flux reduction of 0
kilograms and -8.4%. The resulting percentage is associated with the breakdown of cis-1,2-DCE and VC
production. With no biodegradation, the vinyl chloride plume would be expected to reduce to 1 µg/L
within 71 ft.
Results of the 15 year model indicate that the cis-1,2-DCE contaminated groundwater plume would
biotransform from 200 µg/L at MW-5 (July 2016) to 1 µg/L within 80 ft. with a mass flux reduction of 0.3
kilograms or 77.9%. With no biodegradation, the cis-1,2-DCE plume would be expected to reduce to 1
µg/L within 200 ft.
Results of the 15 year model indicate that the vinyl chloride contaminated groundwater plume would
biotransform from 18 µg/L at MW-5 (July 2016) to 1 µg/L within 80 ft. with a mass reduction of 0
kilograms or 49.3%. With no biodegradation, the VC plume would be expected to reduce to 1 µg/L within
140 ft.
Results of each of the models for 5 year and 15 year simulated time frames are included in Appendix VII.
July 2016 Environmental Compliance Monitoring Report
Edgecombe County Landfill
S&ME Project No. 4305-15-172A
September 9, 2016 14
7.0 Conclusions and Recommendations
S&ME performed semiannual sampling at the Edgecombe County Landfill in Tarboro, North Carolina.
During the January 2016 sampling event, groundwater elevations were calculated from water levels
measured in the 11 compliance monitor wells and 25 other monitor wells and piezometers listed in the
WQMP network of monitoring points. Groundwater samples were collected from three background (up-
gradient) monitor wells and eight compliance (down-gradient) monitor wells. Surface water samples were
collected from two stream sample locations (upstream and downstream).
7.1 Summary of July 2016 Sampling Event
 Based on the water table elevations and calculated potentiometric surface, the groundwater flow
direction within the surficial aquifer was estimated to be toward the north-northeast with an average
hydraulic gradient of 0.0190 ft/ft. The average groundwater flow velocity for the site is approximately
7.798 ft/yr.

 Constituent concentrations of 24 Appendix I analytes were detected in one or more samples collected
during the January 2016 monitoring event. Eleven of the 24 Appendix I analytes were detected in one
or more samples at concentrations equal to or exceeding their respective SWSLs.

 Eleven Appendix I analytes were detected at concentrations in excess of the 2L Standards/GWPSTs in
groundwater samples collected at the site including benzene, 1,4-dichlorobenzene, cis-1,2-
dichloroethene, 1,2-dichloropropane, vinyl chloride, antimony, arsenic, cobalt, nickel, and thallium.
Wells in which there were one or more constituents above the standards include MW-3B, MW-4, MW-
5, MW-6, MW-7A, MW-12, MW-13, Mw-14, MW-15, and MW-16.

 Five Appendix I inorganics (metals) were detected above the laboratory MDLs in the surface water
samples collected from Jerry’s Creek. The concentrations of barium, cobalt, thallium, vanadium, and
zinc were above the laboratory MDL, but below the SWRLs and the concentrations were flagged as an
estimated value (J) for both the upstream and downstream samples. Concentrations of cobalt,
thallium, and vanadium were above the 2L standard or GWPST levels for both the upstream and
downstream samples. Concentrations of inorganic constituents were generally similar in the
upgradient and downgradient samples for barium, cobalt, thallium, vanadium and zinc, indicating the
detected metals are naturally occurring.

 No VOCs were detected in the surface water samples, indicating impacted groundwater at the facility
is not adversely affecting surface water.

Constituent detections above the 2L Standard or GWPST trigger implementing the assessment monitoring
program. This monitoring event was performed in general accordance with § .1634 (d)(2)of the Solid
Waste Rules since the Assessment Monitoring Program was already implemented. An Alternate Source
Demonstration (ASD) study was performed, the Nature and Extent Study (NES) was prepared, the
Assessment of Corrective Measures (ACM) was performed, and the Corrective Action Plan (CAP) was
prepared and approved by the NCDEQ. Corrective measures have been initiated with grading
improvements on the landfill cap and breaching the dam of the pond located at the southeast corner of
the landfill (part of the construction of a hydraulic barrier). Therefore, monitoring for this event is also for
compliance with § .1637 (a)(1) under Implementation of the Corrective Action Program.
July 2016 Environmental Compliance Monitoring Report
Edgecombe County Landfill
S&ME Project No. 4305-15-172A
September 9, 2016 15
7.2 Recommendations
The results of the January 2016 sampling event show that groundwater near the Edgecombe County
Landfill has been impacted by a release of constituents from the facility. Impacted groundwater at the
facility does not appear to be adversely affecting surface water at the site. The additional assessment
performed at the site as part of the NES and ACM refined the source characterization, determination of
constituents-of-concern, and evaluation of corrective actions. Based on the additional findings presented
in the NES and ACM, Edgecombe County selected a remedy for corrective measures and submitted a CAP.
According to the Corrective Action Plan Review letter, dated January 16, 2009, the Solid Waste Section
recommends that semiannual sampling be continued at the site for analytes on the Appendix I
constituent list.

S&ME prepared an Interim Corrective Action Evaluation Report (CAER), dated May 6, 2016, which described
progress on corrective measures implementation. To date, in situ isolation of groundwater using an
upgradient barrier wall is the only remedial strategy that has not been implemented. The Interim CAER
proposed resuming MNA monitoring in compliance monitoring wells MW-5, MW-12, MW-15, and MW-16
beginning with the July 2016 semi-annual sampling event and included a revised construction schedule
for the upgradient hydraulic barrier with a projected start date of May 2017 and completion in December
2017. In a letter dated May 24, 2016, the Section approved the Interim CAER, resumption of MNA
monitoring and the proposed upgradient hydraulic barrier construction schedule. Semi-annual
monitoring, which will include MNA monitoring in select wells every 18 months, will continue to assess the
effectiveness of the corrective measures.

As required by North Carolina Solid Waste Management Rule .1634, these results should be forwarded to
the owner/operator of the Edgecombe County Landfill for inclusion in the operating record and to the
North Carolina Division of Solid Waste for their review.
8.0 References
Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality, 15A NC Administrative
Code Subchapter 2B .0200 Classifications and Water Quality Standards Applicable to Surface Waters and
Wetlands of NC, May 2007.

Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality, 15A NC Administrative
Code Subchapter 2L .0200 Groundwater Quality Standards, April 2013.

Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Waste Management, 15A NC
Administrative Code Subchapter 13B .1634(h) Solid Waste Groundwater Protection Standard, Solid Waste
Management Rules, November 2004.

Law Engineering Company, Initial baseline Sampling of Groundwater, Edgecombe County Landfill, October
1994.

Cherry, John A. and Freeze, R. Allen, Groundwater, Prentice Hall, Inc., 1979.

Driscoll, F., Groundwater and Wells, Second Edition, Johnson Division, USA, 1986.
July 2016 Environmental Compliance Monitoring Report
Edgecombe County Landfill
S&ME Project No. 4305-15-172A
September 9, 2016 16

S&ME, Inc., Alternate Source Demonstration Report, Edgecombe County Landfill, June 10, 2008.

S&ME, Inc., Assessment of Corrective Measures Report, Edgecombe County Landfill, June 26, 2008.

S&ME, Inc., Baseline Groundwater Sampling and Monitored Natural Attenuation Report, July 2012.

S&ME, Inc., Corrective Action Plan, Edgecombe County Landfill, June 30, 2008.

S&ME, Inc., Nature and Extent Study, Edgecombe County Landfill, June 25, 2008.

S&ME, Inc., Water Quality Monitoring Plan, Edgecombe County Landfill, Tarboro, North Carolina, May 10,
1994.

S&ME, Inc., Water Quality Monitoring Plan, Edgecombe County Landfill, Tarboro, North Carolina, June 30,
2008, Revised January 2010.

S&ME, Inc., Interim Corrective Action Plan, Edgecombe County Landfill, Tarboro, North Carolina, May
2016.

US Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, Soil Survey of Edgecombe County, NC, November
1979.

Figures

CHECKED BY:DRAWN BY:
APPROVED BY:DESIGNED BY:
PROJECT NUMBER:
SCALE:DATE:
OF:DRAWING:
BY
DE
S
C
R
I
P
T
I
O
N
DA
T
E
NO
.
WW
W
.
S
M
E
I
N
C
.
C
O
M
DRAWING NUMBER:
D-1447
BTR
AUG 20161" = 200'
4305-15-172A
22
ED
G
E
C
O
M
B
E

C
O
U
N
T
Y

L
A
N
D
F
I
L
L
EN
V
I
R
O
N
M
E
N
T
A
L

C
O
M
P
L
I
A
N
C
E

M
O
N
I
T
O
R
I
N
G
TA
R
B
O
R
O
,

N
O
R
T
H

C
A
R
O
L
I
N
A
GR
O
U
N
D
W
A
T
E
R

P
O
T
E
N
T
I
O
M
E
T
R
I
C

M
A
P
JU
L
Y

1
4

&

1
5
,

2
0
1
6
Q:
\
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
S
\
2
0
1
5
\
4
3
0
5
-
1
5
-
1
7
2
\
C
A
D
\
D
1
4
4
7
.
d
w
g
,

F
I
G
2
,

9
/
2
7
/
2
0
1
6

1
1
:
1
6
:
2
1

A
M
,

1
:
1

Tables

PIEZOMETER
OR STATIC BOTTOM TOP OF STATIC
WELL NUMBER WATER LEVEL OF WELL CASING WATER LEVEL
P-1 9.57 21.96 74.48 64.91
P-2A 13.01 27.17 83.61 70.6
P-3A 12.81 27.17 79.77 66.96
P-12 10.56 13.92 54.15 43.59
P-15 8.10 10.30 45.16 37.06
P-17 6.17 10.15 42.45 36.28
P-18 14.26 18.44 54.44 40.18
P-19 11.76 17.67 58.88 47.12
P-25 NM ------
P-29 NM ------
P-34 5.99 13.04 44.34 38.35
P-35 4.64 13.10 44.50 39.86
MW-3B 10.18 22.67 81.18 71.00
MW-4 7.94 20.18 68.95 61.01
MW-5 12.57 23.86 53.75 41.18
MW-5D 11.86 41.63 52.08 40.22
MW-5S 10.03 13.50 50.54 40.51
MW-6 5.80 19.75 46.29 40.49
MW-7A 14.84 26.94 68.43 53.59
MW-8A 10.91 22.38 82.34 71.43
MW-9 4.29 16.85 72.41 68.12
MW-10 4.94 13.57 75.78 70.84
MW-12 8.12 12.68 51.24 43.12
MW-13 7.94 23.00 54.99 47.05
MW-14 5.47 14.64 43.88 38.41
MW-15 6.78 14.27 44.87 38.09
MW-16 10.53 19.85 46.58 36.05
GW-1R 9.93 9.83 81.08 71.15
GW-2R 9.81 9.88 75.72 65.91
GW-3 DRY 5.22 69.00 DRY
GW-4 10.98 12.05 69.93 58.95
GW-5 DRY 12.07 65.23 DRY
GW-6 10.05 9.64 79.02 68.97
GW-7 3.01 9.61 75.02 72.01
GW-8 6.73 9.84 79.92 73.19
GW-9 8.51 9.19 72.69 64.18
GW-10 4.20 10.01 69.17 64.97
GW-11 5.04 9.68 64.19 59.15
Upstream (SW-1)NM --49.22 NM
Downstream (SW-2)NM --44.58 NM
NOTES:
TOC = TOP OF CASING - ELEVATIONS FROM SITE SURVEY
AMSL = ABOVE MEAN SEA LEVEL
NM = NOT MEASURED
(A OR B) = REPLACEMENT WELL
D OR S = DEEP OR SHALLOW
Table 1
ELEVATIONS (FEET AMSL)
Groundwater Elevation Data
Edgecombe County Landfill
July 14 and 15, 2016
S&ME Project No. 4305-15-172A
DEPTH FROM TOC (FEET)
MW-3B MW-4 MW-9 MW-6 MW-7A MW-13 MW-14 MW-5 MW-12 MW-15 MW-16 SW-1
(Upstream)
SW-2
(Downstream)
Field Parameters Units
Conductivity mS/cm 0.253 0.229 0.216 0.784 0.670 0.919 0.426 1.037 1.218 0.873 0.574 0.100 0.130
Oxidation-Reduction Potential (ORP)mV 347.8 151.7 -50.0 -15.6 -81.9 -17.4 -72.2 -122.7 154.5 -111.8 -68.8 16.2 -103.6
Dissolved Oxygen mg/L NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM
pH SU3 3.69 5.72 6.77 5.60 6.16 5.73 6.75 6.19 4.46 6.27 5.93 6.35 6.63
Temperature °C 19.8 23.5 21.5 21.3 20.6 23.5 20.5 22.8 19.4 21.8 20.1 21.9 25.7
Turbidity NTU 8.8 7.4 4.1 6.7 2.9 9.0 3.5 8.1 2.2 6.7 4.7 720.2 277.4
Well ID
BACKGROUND MONITOR WELLS SURFACE WATER
Table 2
Summary of Field Parameters
Edgecombe County Landfill
July 14 and 15, 2016 Sampling Event
S&ME Project No. 4305-15-172A
MNA MONITOR WELLSCOMPLIANCE MONITOR WELLS
MW-3B MW-4 MW-9 MW-5 MW-6 MW-7A MW-12 MW-13 MW-14 MW-15 MW-16 DUPLICATE
(MW-6)
EQUIPMENT
BLANK TRIP BLANK
UPSTREAM
(SW-1)
DOWNSTREAM
(SW-2)
Acetone µg/l 100 6,000 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10
Benzene µg/l 1 1 <0.15 <0.15 <0.15 2.9 <0.15 0.86 J 4.0 1.1 <0.15 0.42 J <0.15 <0.15 <0.15 <0.15 <0.15 <0.15
Chlorobenzene µg/l 3 50 <0.17 <0.17 <0.17 16 <0.17 1.4 J 5.7 14 <0.17 1.4 J <0.17 <0.17 <0.17 <0.17 <0.17 <0.17
Chloroethane µg/l 10 3,000 < 0.23 < 0.23 < 0.23 < 0.23 < 0.23 < 0.23 1.5 J < 0.23 < 0.23 < 0.23 < 0.23 < 0.23 < 0.23 < 0.23 < 0.23 < 0.23
Chloromethane µg/l 1 3 <0.13 <0.13 <0.13 <0.13 <0.13 <0.13 <0.13 0.65 J <0.13 <0.13 <0.13 <0.13 <0.13 <0.13 <0.13 <0.13
1,4-Dichlorobenzene µg/l 1 6 <0.19 <0.19 <0.19 11 <0.19 0.66 J 11 2.8 <0.19 <0.19 <0.19 <0.19 <0.19 <0.19 <0.19 <0.19
1,1-Dichloroethane µg/l 5 6 <0.13 <0.13 <0.13 3.3 J <0.13 <0.13 0.53 J 0.42 J <0.13 0.45 J <0.13 <0.13 <0.13 <0.13 <0.13 <0.13
1,2 Dichlorobenzene µg/l 5 20 <0.19 <0.19 <0.19 0.84 J <0.19 <0.19 <0.19 <0.19 <0.19 <0.19 <0.19 <0.19 <0.19 <0.19 <0.19 <0.19
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene µg/l 5 70 <0.15 <0.15 <0.15 200 <0.15 <0.15 <0.15 5.9 <0.15 6.1 <0.15 <0.15 <0.15 <0.15 <0.15 <0.15
Toluene µg/l 1 600 <0.14 <0.14 <0.14 0.50 J <0.14 <0.14 <0.14 <0.14 <0.14 <0.14 <0.14 <0.14 <0.14 <0.14 <0.14 <0.14
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene µg/l 5 100 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 2.3 J <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 0.45 J <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21
1,2-Dichloropropane µg/l 1 0.6 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 1.0 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 0.42 J <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10
Vinyl chloride µg/l 1 0.03 <0.32 <0.32 <0.32 18 <0.32 <0.32 <0.32 1.8 <0.32 2.2 <0.32 <0.32 <0.32 <0.32 <0.32 <0.32
APP. I INORGANIC COMPOUNDS
EPA METHOD 6010B MW-3B MW-4 MW-9 MW-5 MW-6 MW-7A MW-12 MW-13 MW-14 MW-15 MW-16 DUPLICATE
(MW-6)
EQUIPMENT
BLANK TRIP BLANK
UPSTREAM
(SW-1)
DOWNSTREAM
(SW-2)
Antimony (Total)µg/l NE 6 1*<0.220 1.14 J <0.220 <0.220 <0.220 <0.220 <0.220 <0.220 <0.220 <0.220 <0.220 <0.220 <0.220 NS <0.220 <0.220
Arsenic (Total)µg/l 30 10 10 <6.80 <6.80 <6.80 74.1 <6.80 <6.80 <6.80 <6.80 <6.80 <6.80 <6.80 <6.80 <6.80 NS <6.80 <6.80
Barium (Total)µg/l 178 100 700 53.1 J 35.5 J 100 260 194 306 221 153 255 468 293 214 < 1.00 NS 92.8 J 64.0 J
Beryllium (Total)µg/l 2.5 1 4*0.646 J <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 0.245 J <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 NS <0.100 <0.100
Cadmium (Total)µg/l 2.56 1 2 0.663 J <0.360 <0.360 <0.360 <0.360 <0.360 <0.360 <0.360 <0.360 <0.360 <0.360 <0.360 <0.360 NS <0.360 <0.360
Chromium (Total)µg/l 95 10 10 <1.40 <1.40 <1.40 <1.40 <1.40 <1.40 <1.40 <1.40 <1.40 <1.40 <1.40 <1.40 <1.40 NS <1.40 <1.40
Cobalt (Total)µg/l 61 10 1*18.1 <1.10 <1.10 150 36.5 <1.10 20.1 917 <1.10 10.7 1.83 J 32.3 <1.10 NS 8.10 J 2.24 J
Copper (Total)µg/l 31 10 1,000 <1.60 2.75 J <1.60 <1.60 <1.60 <1.60 <1.60 <1.60 <1.60 <1.60 <1.60 <1.60 1.98 J NS <1.60 <1.60
Lead (Total)µg/l 54 10 15 <3.10 <3.10 <3.10 <3.10 <3.10 <3.10 <3.10 <3.10 <3.10 <3.10 <3.10 <3.10 <3.10 NS <3.10 <3.10
Nickel (Total)µg/l 34 50 100 23.9 J <2.20 <2.20 80.9 11.3 J <2.20 18.1 J 202 <2.20 5.71 J 2.58 J 9.97 J <2.20 NS <2.20 <2.20
Silver (Total µg/l NE 10 20 <1.90 <1.90 <1.90 4.30 J <1.90 <1.90 <1.90 6.83 J <1.90 <1.90 <1.90 <1.90 <1.90 NS <1.90 <1.90
Thallium (Total)µg/l 0.72 5.5 0.28*0.686 J 0.167 J 0.213J 0.578 J 0.989 J 0.657 J 0.721 J 1.95 J 0.503 J 0.452 J 0.451 J 0.552 J < 0.110 NS 0.343 J 0.310 J
Vanadium (Total)µg/l 100 25 0.3*<1.40 1.80 J <1.40 <1.40 2.43 J <1.40 <1.40 <1.40 <1.40 <1.40 <1.40 2.40 J <1.40 NS 2.36 J 2.18 J
Zinc (Total)µg/l 64 10 1,000 35.5 <4.40 <4.40 101 8.45 J <4.40 162 119 <4.40 <4.40 <4.40 6.49 J <4.40 NS 7.80 J <4.40
NOTES:
Samples were collected on January 18 and 19, 2016 and analyzed by Environmental Conservation Laboratories, Inc. (ENCO). Detection limits are shown on laboratory reports.
Values which are BOLD indicate levels above laboratory detection limits.
Values which are BOLD and shaded indicate levels above their respective NCDENR 2L or GWPST.
DAF Computation = Dilution/Attenuation Factor Computation (ref. S&ME Alternate Source Demonstration, June 2008).
2L STANDARD = North Carolina groundwater standards as promulgated by 15A North Carolina Administrative Code, Subchapter 2L (April 1, 2013).
SWSL = Solid Waste Section Limit. (ref. NCDENR-DWM, Solid Waste Section February 23, 2007 memorandum)
* Indicates there is currently no 2L Standard. The target analyte was compared to the Solid Waste Groundwater Protection Standard (GWPST).
J = Analyte detected, but below the laboratory reporting limit therefore the result is an estimated concentration.
D = The sample was analyzed at dilution.
NS = Not Sampled for this parameter.
NE = Not Established
µg/L = Micrograms Per Liter
VOCs = Volatile Organic Compounds
Duplicate sample collected from monitor well MW-5.
Appendix I compounds not shown were not detected during this sampling event. See Appendix I of the report for laboratory reports.
QUALITY CONTROL
UNITS
QUALITY CONTROL
UNITS
BACKGROUND MONITOR
WELLS
BACKGROUND MONITOR
WELLS COMPLIANCE MONITOR WELLS
SWSL
SWSL
Expected Metals
Concentration in
Groundwater
from DAF
Computation
SURFACE WATER
Table 3
Groundwater Quality Summary
Edgecombe County Landfill
July 14 and 15, 2016 Sampling Event
S&ME Project No. 4305-15-172A
COMPLIANCE MONITOR WELLS SURFACE WATER2L
STANDARD or
GWPST
APPENDIX I VOCs EPA METHOD
8260B
2L STANDARD
OR GWPST
Date 1/19/2010 7/20/2010 1/18/2011 7/27/2011 7/15/2016 1/19/2010 7/20/2010 1/18/2011 7/27/2011 7/14/2016 1/19/2010 7/20/2010 1/18/2011 7/27/2011 7/15/2016 1/19/2010 7/20/2010 1/18/2011 7/27/2011 7/15/2016
pH**Std 6.26 4.30 5.81 6.24 6.19 4.95 3.56 4.24 4.28 4.46 6.27 4.88 6.12 6.30 6.27 6.13 3.54 5.74 6.03 5.93
Temperature**oC 16.60 20.21 15.94 20.88 22.8 14.09 20.72 12.27 20.58 19.4 13.55 20.79 11.16 20.92 21.8 14.89 20.54 13.05 20.94 20.10
Specific Conductance**mS/cm 0.825 1.129 1.063 1.051 1.037 0.576 0.695 0.803 0.836 1.218 0.628 0.820 0.819 0.735 0.873 0.517 0.595 0.617 0.575 0.574
Oxygen Reduction Potential
ORP**mV 92.8 77.2 96.5 98.4 -122.7 199.7 297.1 42.3 219.3 154.5 47 41.6 78.0 84.8 -111.8 73.7 23.6 176.1 61.0 -68.8
Dissolved Oxygen**mg/L 0.18 7.84 0.55 1.79 NM 0.17 10.03 1.18 1.18 NM 0.23 7.03 0.73 1.07 NM 0.22 11.97 0.61 0.85 NM
Chloride mg/L 10 13 10 12B 14 140D 150D 180D 220BD 360D 13 14 15 14B 13 24 25 24 23B 18
Alkalinity mg/L 290D 590D 410D 400D 120 34 8.5J 10J <12.0 31 340D 410D 410D 340D 190 100D 260D 200D 220D 180
Biochemical Oxygen Demand
(BOD)mg/L <2.0 19 <2.0 5.8 13 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 7.8 <2.0 2.6 <2.0 <2.0 3.3 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0
Chemical Oxygen Demand
(COD)mg/L 59 70 77 100 110 27 20 40 53 97 25 16 33 32 44 40 48 48 53 56
TOC (Total Organic Carbon)mg/L 5.7 6.1 3.6 5.6 6.9 12 11 8.2 11 25 6.6 4.8 3.6 4.2 3.8 17 15 12 12 14
Nitrate as N mg/L 0.079J 0.067J 0.030J 0.170J 0.052J 0.045J 0.180J <0.025 0.078J 0.11J 0.066J 0.140J 0.062J 0.093J 0.098J 0.14J <0.025 0.081J 0.13J <0.025
Nitrate/Nitrite as N mg/L 0.087J 0.067J NS NS 0.052J 0.045J 0.180J NS NS 0.11 0.066J 0.140J NS NS 0.098J 0.14 <0.025 NS NS <0.041
Nitrite at N mg/L 0.0075JB <0.0056 NS NS <0.017 <0.0056 <0.0056 NS NS <0.017 <0.0056 <0.0056 NS NS <0.017 <0.0056 <0.0056 NS NS <0.017
Sulfate as SO4 mg/L 32 42 38 44JB 49J 67 510 64 50 25J 9.2 14 7.9J 13JB 4.2J <0.18 <0.12 2.9 2.2 <2.9
Sulfide mg/L <0.031 <0.031 <0.010 <0.01 <0.010 <0.031 <0.031 <0.010 <0.01 <0.010 <0.031 <0.031 <0.010 <0.01 <0.01 <0.031 <0.031 0.075J <0.01 <0.01
Total Dissolved Solids (TDS)mg/L NS 580 550 580 370 NS 520 410 540 690 NS 460 400 470 410 NS 310 310 290 210
Iron mg/L 89.3 118 115 169 174 4.5 8.55 9.47 11.8 33.6 21.6 16.7 22.6 28.7 31.80 54.4 43.8 52.2 55 43.3
Manganese mg/L NS 33.3D 35D 34.5D 16.3 NS 0.0736 0.121 0.105 0.225 NS 6.67 11.1 8.4 8.2 NS 0.364 0.415 0.444 0.352
Carbon Dioxide mg/L 468D 467D 370D 844D 617D 652D 667D 556D 1,310D 909D NS NS 296D 269D 366D 362D 308D 34 561D 297D
Ethane mg/L 0.0008J <0.0004 <0.0015 0.00216 <0.0013 <0.0004 <0.0004 <0.0015 <0.001 <0.0013 NS NS <0.0015 0.00168J <0.0013 <0.0004 <0.0004 <0.0015 <0.001 <0.0013
Ethene mg/L 0.003 0.002 <0.0016 0.00597 0.00163J <0.0004 <0.0004 <0.0016 <0.0023 <0.0015 NS NS <0.0016 <0.0023 <0.0015 <0.0004 <0.0004 <0.0016 <0.0023 <0.0015
Methane mg/L 1.51 0.29 0.327 0.689D 1.440D 0.173 0.062 <0.00049 0.26D 0.387D NS NS 0.414 1.60D 0.655D 10.6 5.04 6.87 19.30D 5.22D
Acetic Acid (Volatile Fatty
Acid)mg/L 0.63 <0.083 <0.083 <0.200 <0.160 <0.071 <0.083 2.1 <0.200 20 NS NS <0.083 <0.200 <0.160 NS <0.083 NS <0.200 <0.160
Lactic Acid (Volatile Fatty
Acid)***mg/L <0.88 <0.440 <0.440 0.410J <0.095 <0.088 <0.440 <0.440 <0.110 <0.095 NS NS <0.440 0.290J <0.095 NS <0.440 NS <0.110 <0.095
Propionic Acid (Volatile Fatty
Acid)***mg/L <0.054 <0.180 <0.180 <0.170 <0.065 <0.054 <0.180 <0.180 12 <0.065 NS NS <0.18 <0.170 <0.065 NS <0.18 NS <0.170 <0.065
Hydrogen****nM 1 1.90 0.630 2.8 1.2 <0.600 0.9 0.69 1.3 0.93 NS NS <0.600 1.2 1.2 1.2 2.1 0.65 4 1.9
Values which are BOLD indicate levels above laboratory detection limits.
* Several methods were used in the laboratory analysis for the geochemical parameters. These methods are listed in the laboratory report.
** Parameter analyzed in the field by S&ME personnel. All other parameters analyzed by North Carolina certified laboratories.
***Groundwater samples were analyzed for several additional volatile fatty acids. No additional volatile fatty acids were detected in the groundwater samples.
****Groundwater samples were analyzed outside the recommended hold time of 14 days from collection for hydrogen during one or more event.
J = Analyte detected, but below the laboratory reporting limit therefore the result is an estimated concentration.
D = The sample was analyzed at dilution.
B = The analyte was detected in the associated method blank.
Std = Standard Units
oC = Degrees Celsius
mS/cm = Microsiemens per Centimeter
mV = Millivolt
mg/L = Millograms Per Liter
nM = Nanomolar
NS = Sample not analyzed for the listed constituent
UNITS
For July 2016 sampling event, samples for methane, ethane, ethene and CO2 were collected on 7/28/2016.
For July 2016 sampling event, samples for Hydrogen analysis were collected on 8/11/2016.
Table 4
MW-15 MW-16
MONITORED NATURAL ATTENUATION MONITOR WELLS
MONITORED NATURAL
ATTENUATION
PARAMETERS**
Geochemical / MNA Constituent Summary
Edgecombe County Landfill
S&ME Project No. 4305-15-172A
July 14 and 15, 2016 Sampling Event
MW-5 MW-12
Existing Well/Piezometer Construction Details
Edgecombe County Landfill
July 14 and 15, 2016 Sampling Event
S&ME Project No. 4305-15-172A
Well ID Reason for Well Northing Easting
TOC
ELEV
(FT-MSL)
TOG
ELEV
(FT-MSL)
Protective
Casing
Diameter
Protective
Casing
Type
Protective
Casing
Interval
Riser/Screen
Diameter Riser Type
Riser
Interval
Grout Type
(Portland)
Grout
Interval Seal Type Seal Interval
Filter
Pack Type
Filter Pack
Interval
Screen
Interval
MW-3B Corrective Measures Analysis/Water Levels 757,035.00 2,424,650.53 81.18 79.01 4.0 in.Stick-Up ~2 to +2 BGS 2.0 in.Sch 40 PVC 0.0 - 5.5 ft. Type II Cement 0.0 - 3.5 ft. Hydrated Bentonite 3.5 - 4.5 ft. #2 Sand 4.5 - 21.5 ft. 5.5 - 20.5 ft.
MW-4 Background Analyses/Water Levels 757,264.82 2,425,621.06 68.95 66.77 4.0 in.Stick-Up ~2 to +2 BGS 2.0 in.Sch 40 PVC 0.0 - 3.0 ft. Type II Cement 0.0 - 1.0 ft. Hydrated Bentonite 1.0 - 2.0 ft. #2 Sand 2.0 - 18.0 ft. 3.0 - 18.0 ft.
MW-5 Compliance Analyses/Water Levels 758,410.72 2,425,211.43 53.75 51.89 4.0 in.Stick-Up ~2 to +2 BGS 2.0 in.Sch 40 PVC 0.0 - 7.0 ft. Type II Cement 0.0 - 4.7 ft. Hydrated Bentonite 4.7 - 6.3 ft. #2 Sand 6.3 - 23.0 ft. 7.0 - 22.0 ft.
MW-5D Water Levels 758,426.83 2,425,215.75 52.08 50.45 4.0 in.Stick-Up ~2 to +2 BGS 2.0 in.Sch 40 PVC 0.0 - 30.0 ft.Type II Cement 0.0 - 6.0 ft. Hydrated Bentonite 6.0 - 8.0 ft. #2 Sand 8.0 - 40.0 ft. 30.0 - 40.0 ft.
MW-5S Water Levels 758,446.42 2,425,216.28 50.54 47.04 4.0 in.Stick-Up ~3.5 2.0 in.Sch 40 PVC 0.0 - 5.0 ft. Type II Cement 0.0 - 3.0 ft. Hydrated Bentonite 3.0 - 4.0 ft. #2 Sand 4.0 - 10.0 ft. 5.0 - 10.0 ft.
MW-6 Compliance Analyses/Water Levels 758,561.81 2,424,535.52 46.29 44.04 4.0 in.Stick-Up ~2 to +2 BGS 2.0 in.Sch 40 PVC 0.0 - 2.5 ft. Type II Cement 0.0 - 1.0 ft. Hydrated Bentonite 1.0 - 2.0 ft. #2 Sand 2.0 - 18.0 ft. 2.5 - 17.5 ft.
MW-7A Corrective Measures Analyses/Water Levels 758,507.52 2,423,684.90 68.43 66.49 4.0 in.Stick-Up ~2 to +2 BGS 2.0 in.Sch 40 PVC 0.0 - 15.0 ft.Type II Cement 0.0 - 11.0 ft.Hydrated Bentonite 11.0 - 13.0 ft. #2 Sand 13.0 - 25.0 ft. 15.0 - 25.0 ft.
MW-8A Water Levels 757,284.68 2,423,303.30 82.34 79.96 4.0 in.Stick-Up ~2 to +2 BGS 2.0 in.Sch 40 PVC 0.0 - 10.0 ft.Type II Cement 0.0 - 6.0 ft. Hydrated Bentonite 6.0 - 8.0 ft. #2 Sand 8.0 - 20.0 ft. 10.0 - 20.0 ft.
MW-9 Background Analyses/Water Levels 757,217.12 2,422,945.48 72.41 70.56 4.0 in.Stick-Up ~2 to +2 BGS 2.0 in.Sch 40 PVC 0.0 - 5.0 ft. Type II Cement 0.0 - 1.0 ft. Hydrated Bentonite 1.0 - 3.0 ft. #2 Sand 3.0 - 15.0 ft. 5.0 - 15.0 ft.
MW-10 Water Levels 757,012.80 2,423,318.48 75.78 74.21 4.0 in.Stick-Up ~2 to +2 BGS 2.0 in.Sch 40 PVC 0.0 - 2.0 ft. Type II Cement 0.0 - 0.5 ft. Hydrated Bentonite 0.5 - 1.5 ft. #2 Sand 1.5 - 12.0 ft. 2.0 - 12.0 ft.
MW-12 Compliance Analyses/Water Levels 758,719.269 2,424,158.858 51.24 48.56 4.0 in.Stick-Up ~2 to +2 BGS 2.0 in.Sch 40 PVC 0.0 - 5.0 ft. Type II Cement 0.0 - 0.5 ft. Hydrated Bentonite 0.5 - 3.0 ft. #2 Sand 3.0 - 10.5 ft. 5.0 - 10.0 ft.
MW-13 Corrective Measures Analyses/Water Levels 758,368.437 2,424,838.011 54.99 51.99 4.0 in.Stick-Up ~2 to +2 BGS 2.0 in.Sch 40 PVC 0.0 - 10.0 ft.Type II Cement 0.0 - 6.0 ft. Hydrated Bentonite 6.0 - 7.7 ft. #2 Sand 7.7 - 20.0 ft. 10.0 - 20.0 ft.
MW-14 Corrective Measures Analyses/Water Levels 758,580.141 2,425,115.431 43.88 41.25 4.0 in.Stick-Up ~2 to +2 BGS 2.0 in.Sch 40 PVC 0.0 - 7.0 ft. Type II Cement 0.0 - 3.7 ft. Hydrated Bentonite 3.7 - 5.0 ft. #2 Sand 5.0 - 12.5 ft. 7.0 - 12.0 ft.
MW-15 Corrective Measures Analyses/Water Levels 758,398.745 2,425,329.020 44.87 42.20 4.0 in.Stick-Up ~2 to +2 BGS 2.0 in.Sch 40 PVC 0.0 - 6.6 ft. Type II Cement 0.0 - 3.5 ft. Hydrated Bentonite 3.5 - 5.0 ft. #2 Sand 5.0 - 12.0 ft. 6.6 - 11.6 ft.
MW-16 Corrective Measures Analyses/Water Levels 758,421.541 2,425,905.658 46.58 43.73 4.0 in.Stick-Up ~2 to +2 BGS 2.0 in.Sch 40 PVC 0.0 - 7.0 ft. Type II Cement 0.0 - 5.0 ft. Hydrated Bentonite 5.0 - 6.0 ft. #2 Sand 6.0 - 17.3 ft. 7.0 - 17.0 ft.
GW-1R Methane Gas Monitoring 757,029.14 2,424,642.63 81.08 79.25 4.0 in.Stick-Up ~2 to +2 BGS 2.0 in.Sch 40 PVC 0.0 - 3.0 ft. Type II Cement 0.0 - 1.0 ft. Hydrated Bentonite 1.0 - 2.0 ft. #2 Sand 2.0 - 8.0 ft.3.0 - 8.0 ft.
GW-2R Methane Gas Monitoring 757,037.57 2,425,099.41 75.72 73.84 4.0 in.Stick-Up ~2 to +2 BGS 2.0 in.Sch 40 PVC 0.0 - 3.0 ft. Type II Cement 0.0 - 1.0 ft. Hydrated Bentonite 1.0 - 2.0 ft. #2 Sand 2.0 - 8.0 ft.3.0 - 8.0 ft.
GW-3 Methane Gas Monitoring 757,263.55 2,425,617.95 69.00 66.78 4.0 in.Stick-Up ~2 to +2 BGS 2.0 in.Sch 40 PVC 0.0 - 2.0 ft. Type II Cement 0.0 - 0.5 ft. Hydrated Bentonite 0 #2 Sand 0.5 - 3.0 ft.2.0 - 3.0 ft.
GW-4 Methane Gas Monitoring 757,480.62 2,425,833.83 69.93 67.88 4.0 in.Stick-Up ~2 to +2 BGS 2.0 in.Sch 40 PVC 0.0 - 5.0 ft. Type II Cement 0.0 - 0.5 ft. Hydrated Bentonite 0 #2 Sand 0.5 - 10.0 ft. 5.0 - 10.0 ft.
GW-5 Methane Gas Monitoring 757,932.48 2,425,852.83 65.23 63.16 4.0 in.Stick-Up ~2 to +2 BGS 2.0 in.Sch 40 PVC 0.0 - 5.0 ft. Type II Cement 0.0 - 0.5 ft. Hydrated Bentonite 0 #2 Sand 0.5 - 10.0 ft. 5.0 - 10.0 ft.
GW-6 Methane Gas Monitoring 756,992.92 2,424,102.59 79.02 77.38 4.0 in.Stick-Up ~2 to +2 BGS 2.0 in.Sch 40 PVC 0.0 - 3.0 ft. Type II Cement 0.0 - 1.0 ft. Hydrated Bentonite 1.0 - 2.0 ft. #2 Sand 2.0 - 8.0 ft.3.0 - 8.0 ft.
GW-7 Methane Gas Monitoring 757,013.93 2,423,549.98 75.02 73.41 4.0 in.Stick-Up ~2 to +2 BGS 2.0 in.Sch 40 PVC 0.0 - 3.0 ft. Type II Cement 0.0 - 1.0 ft. Hydrated Bentonite 1.0 - 2.0 ft. #2 Sand 2.0 - 8.0 ft.3.0 - 8.0 ft.
GW-8 Methane Gas Monitoring 757,000.52 2,422,862.84 79.92 78.08 4.0 in.Stick-Up ~2 to +2 BGS 2.0 in.Sch 40 PVC 0.0 - 3.0 ft. Type II Cement 0.0 - 1.0 ft. Hydrated Bentonite 1.0 - 2.0 ft. #2 Sand 2.0 - 8.0 ft.3.0 - 8.0 ft.
GW-9 Methane Gas Monitoring 757,579.04 2,423,113.15 72.69 NS 4.0 in.Stick-Up ~2 to +2 BGS 2.0 in.Sch 40 PVC 0.0 - 3.0 ft. Type II Cement 0.0 - 1.0 ft. Hydrated Bentonite 1.0 - 2.0 ft. #2 Sand 2.0 - 8.0 ft.3.0 - 8.0 ft.
GW-10 Methane Gas Monitoring 758,018.15 2,423,322.02 69.17 67.16 4.0 in.Stick-Up ~2 to +2 BGS 2.0 in.Sch 40 PVC 0.0 - 3.0 ft. Type II Cement 0.0 - 1.0 ft. Hydrated Bentonite 1.0 - 2.0 ft. #2 Sand 2.0 - 8.0 ft.3.0 - 8.0 ft.
GW-11 Methane Gas Monitoring 758,455.00 2,423,536.98 64.19 62.51 4.0 in.Stick-Up ~2 to +2 BGS 2.0 in.Sch 40 PVC 0.0 - 3.0 ft. Type II Cement 0.0 - 1.0 ft. Hydrated Bentonite 1.0 - 2.0 ft. #2 Sand 2.0 - 8.0 ft.3.0 - 8.0 ft.
P-1 Water Levels 757,088.75 2,425,176.72 74.48 72.52 4.0 in.Stick-Up ~2 to +2 BGS 2.0 in.Sch 40 PVC 0.0 - 10.0 ft.Type II Cement 0-0.5 Hydrated Bentonite 0 #2 Sand 0.5 - 20.0 ft. 10.0 - 20.0 ft.
P-2A Water Levels 757,183.97 2,424,154.11 83.61 81.44 4.0 in.Stick-Up ~2 to +2 BGS 2.0 in.Sch 40 PVC 0.0 - 15.0 ft.Type II Cement 0.0 - 11.0 ft.Hydrated Bentonite 11.0 - 13.0 ft. #2 Sand 13.0 - 30.0 ft. 15.0 - 25.0 ft.
P-3A Water Levels 757,797.19 2,423,482.12 79.77 77.60 4.0 in.Stick-Up ~2 to +2 BGS 2.0 in.Sch 40 PVC 0.0 - 15.0 ft.Type II Cement 0.0 - 11.0 ft.Hydrated Bentonite 11.0 - 13.0 ft. #2 Sand 13.0 - 25.0 ft. 15.0 - 25.0 ft.
P-12 Water Levels 758,715.746 2,425,310.624 54.15 49.40 4.0 in.Stick-Up ~2 to +2 BGS 1.0 in.Sch 40 PVC 0.0 - 4.17 ft Type II Cement 0.0 - 1.0 ft. Hydrated Bentonite 1.0 - 3.17 ft. #2 Sand 3.17 - 9.17 ft. 4.17 - 9.17 ft.
P-15 Water Levels 758,689.738 2,425,858.299 45.16 41.80 4.0 in.Stick-Up ~2 to +2 BGS 1.0 in.Sch 40 PVC 0.0 - 2.0 ft. Type II Cement 0.0 - 1.0 ft. Hydrated Bentonite 1.0 - 1.0 ft. #2 Sand 1.0 - 7.0 ft.2.0 - 7.0 ft.
P-17 Water Levels 758,437.412 2,426,190.771 42.45 40.00 4.0 in.Stick-Up ~2 to +2 BGS 1.0 in.Sch 40 PVC 0.0 - 2.7 ft. Type II Cement 0.0 - 1.0 ft. Hydrated Bentonite 1.0 - 1.70 ft. #2 Sand 1.7 - 7.7 ft.2.7 - 7.7 ft.
P-18 Water Levels 758,158.567 2,426,102.144 54.44 51.00 4.0 in.Stick-Up ~2 to +2 BGS 1.0 in.Sch 40 PVC 0.0 - 10.0 ft.Type II Cement 0.0 - 1.0 ft. Hydrated Bentonite 1.0 - 9.0 ft. #2 Sand 9.0 - 15.0 ft. 10.0 - 15.0 ft.
P-19 Water Levels 757,756.845 2,426,403.572 58.88 59.00 8.0 in Flush ~0 to .75 BGS 1.0 in.Sch 40 PVC 0.0 - 7.67 ft.Type II Cement 0.0 - 1.0 ft. Hydrated Bentonite 1.0 - 5.67 ft. #2 Sand 5.67 - 17.67 ft. 7.67 - 17.67 ft.
P-25 Water Levels 757,206.647 2,423,633.029 80.57 77.60 4.0 in.Stick-Up ~2 to +2 BGS 2.0 in.Sch 40 PVC 0.0 - 5.0 ft. Type II Cement 0.0 - 1.0 ft. Hydrated Bentonite 1.0 - 3.0 ft. #2 Sand 3.0 - 10.0 ft. 5.0 - 10.0 ft.
P-26 Water Levels 757,554.222 2,423,325.095 80.33 77.20 4.0 in.Stick-Up ~2 to +2 BGS 2.0 in.Sch 40 PVC 0.0 - 10.0 ft.Type II Cement 0.0 - 1.0 ft. Hydrated Bentonite 1.0 - 7.0 ft. #2 Sand 7.0 - 15.0 ft. 10.0 - 15.0 ft.
P-29 Water Levels 757,952.042 2,424,421.307 65.29 62.10 4.0 in.Stick-Up ~2 to +2 BGS 2.0 in.Sch 40 PVC 0.0 - 5.0 ft. Type II Cement 0.0 - 1.0 ft. Hydrated Bentonite 1.0 - 2.5 ft. #2 Sand 2.5 - 10.0 ft. 5.0 - 10.0 ft.
P-34 Corrective Measures Analyses/Water Levels 758,455.766 2,425,359.738 44.34 41.30 4.0 in.Stick-Up ~2 to +2 BGS 2.0 in.Sch 40 PVC 0.0 - 5.0 ft. Type II Cement 0.0 - 1.0 ft. Hydrated Bentonite 1.0 - 3.0 ft. #2 Sand 3.0 - 10.0 ft. 5.0 - 10.0 ft.
P-35 Water Levels 758,605.177 2,425,152.817 44.50 41.40 4.0 in.Stick-Up ~2 to +2 BGS 2.0 in.Sch 40 PVC 0.0 - 5.0 ft. Type II Cement 0.0 - 1.0 ft. Hydrated Bentonite 1.0 - 3.0 ft. #2 Sand 3.0 - 10.0 ft. 5.0 - 10.0 ft.
Notes:
TOC = Top of Casing
TOG = Top of Ground
FT-MSL = Feet Above Mean Sea Level
BGS = Below Ground Surface
N/A = Not Applicable
NS = Not Surveyed
Monitor wells MW-1A through MW-10 and Gas wells GW-1 through GW-11 surveyed by Spruill & Associates on May 26, 2002.
Spruill & Associates surveyed piezometers P-1 through P-3A on May 26, 2002, P-4 through P-20 in December 2004, and P-21 through P-38 in September 2007.
Well locations shown on Figure 2.
Table 5

Appendices

Appendix I – Field Notes

Appendix II – Report of Laboratory Analyses

Appendix III – Compact Disk with Electronic Copy of
Historical Analytical Results (.xls) and Electronic Copy of this
Report

Appendix IV – Groundwater Velocity Calculations

JOB NO.
SHEET NO.
DATE
JOB NAME
SUBJECT
PURPOSE:
To determine the average true hydraulic gradient.
GIVEN:Well GW Elev
MW-3B 71.00
MW-5 41.18
MW-7A 53.59
P-1 64.91
CALCULATION:
Calculate the average of three point solutions using wells MW-5, MW-7A, MW-3B or P-1.
GRADIENT:
Where:i =Hydraulic Gradient (ft/ft)
i = h1 – h2 h1 - h2 =Difference in Hydraulic Head (ft)
L L =Distance Along Flow Path (ft)
Where distance between h1 and h2 is parallel to flow, determined by projection from 3 point problem.
i1 = MW-3B – MW-5 71 -41.18 =0.02008 ft/ft
L1
Use Elevation of Groundwater at MW-7A to establish 53.59' elevation between MW-3B and MW-5.
71 -53.59 =867.00 ft
Draw line from MW-7A to point located 867 feet from MW-3B to MW-5.
Measure distance from new 53.59' contour line to MW-5 (Line perpendicular from contour to MW-5)(new L1)
i1 = MW-7A – MW-5 53.59 -41.18 =0.02008 ft/ft
New L1
= 0.02008 ft/ft
i2 = P-1 – MW-5 64.91 -41.18 =0.01798 ft/ft
L2
Use Elevation of Groundwater at MW-7A to establish 53.59' elevation between P-1 and MW-5.
64.91 -53.59 =629.68 ft
Draw line from MW-7A to point located 629.68 feet from P-1 to MW-5.
Measure distance from new 53.59' contour line to MW-5 (Line perpendicular from contour to MW-5)(new L2)
i2 = MW-7A – MW-5 53.59 -41.18 =0.01798 ft/ft
New L2
= 0.01798 ft/ft
AVERAGE TRUE HYDRAULIC GRADIENT, iAVG = 0.0190 ft/ft
CONCLUSION:
The Average True Hydraulic gradient, iAVG equals 0.0190 ft/ft.
0.01798
4305-15-172A
7/28/2016
1 of 1
CHECKED BY SPW
COMPUTED BY CBI/JP
1,485
gradient (MW-3B and MW-5)
MW-3B - MW-7A
Edgecombe County Landfill
Hydraulic Gradient
0.02008
=
=
gradient (P-1 and MW-5)
True Hydraulic Gradient, i2
True Hydraulic Gradient, i1
=P-1 - MW-7A
=
=
=
690
618
1,320
JOB NO.
SHEET NO.
DATE
JOB NAME
SUBJECT
PURPOSE:
To determine the average groundwater flow velocity.
CALCULATION:
V = Ki
n
Where:V =Average Linear Groundwater Flow Velocity (feet/year = ft/yr)
K =Hydraulic Conductivity (ft/yr)
i =Average True Hydraulic Gradient (ft/ft)
n =Effective Soil Porosity (percent)
5.95E-05 cm/sec
5.95E-05 *1.9685
=0.00011713 ft/min
Convert KA ZONE
from ft/min to ft/yr =0.00011713 ft/min * 1440 min/day
=0.16866108 ft/day *365 day/yr
=61.561 ft/year
Average True Gradient, iAVG (MW-3B to MW-5):0.0190 ft/ft
n:15%
V = KA ZONE
i
n
V =61.561 ft/yr * 0.0197 ft/ft =7.7978 ft/yr
0.15
CONCLUSION:
The average groundwater flow velocity, V, equals 7.798 ft/yr.
Velocity Calculation
KA ZONE
=
Convert KA ZONE
from cm/sec to ft/min =
CHECKED BY SPW
Edgecombe County Landfill
4305-15-172A
1 of 1
7/28/2016
COMPUTED BY CBI/JP

Appendix V – Time Series Graphs for Monitor Wells
Page 1
Cobalt Total
Time-Series Graph of MW-3B
Sample Date
C o n c e n t r a t i o n (p p b )
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
2 /2 5 /2 0 0 4
1 2 /2 /2 0 0 5
9 /9 /2 0 0 7
6 /1 6 /2 0 0 9
3 /2 4 /2 0 1 1
1 2 /2 9 /2 0 1 2
1 0 /6 /2 0 1 4
7 /1 4 /2 0 1 6
Page 1
Vanadium Total
Time-Series Graph of MW-3B
Sample Date
C o n c e n t r a t i o n
(p p b )
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
2 /2 5 /2 0 0 4
1 2 /2 /2 0 0 5
9 /9 /2 0 0 7
6 /1 6 /2 0 0 9
3 /2 4 /2 0 1 1
1 2 /2 9 /2 0 1 2
1 0 /6 /2 0 1 4
7 /1 4 /2 0 1 6
Page 1
Vanadium Total
Time-Series Graph of MW-4
Sample Date
C o n c e n t r a t i o n
(p p b )
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
9 /1 /1 9 9 4
1 0 /1 6 /1 9 9 7
1 1 /3 0 /2 0 0 0
1 /1 5 /2 0 0 4
3 /1 /2 0 0 7
4 /1 5 /2 0 1 0
5 /3 0 /2 0 1 3
7 /1 4 /2 0 1 6
Page 1
Benzene
Time-Series Graph of MW-5
Sample Date
C o n c e n t r a t i o n
(p p b )
0
5
10
15
20
9 /1 /1 9 9 4
1 0 /1 6 /1 9 9 7
1 1 /3 0 /2 0 0 0
1 /1 5 /2 0 0 4
3 /1 /2 0 0 7
4 /1 5 /2 0 1 0
5 /3 0 /2 0 1 3
7 /1 4 /2 0 1 6
Page 1
Chlorobenzene
Time-Series Graph of MW-5
Sample Date
C o n c e n t r a t i o n
(p p b )
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
9 /1 /1 9 9 4
1 0 /1 6 /1 9 9 7
1 1 /3 0 /2 0 0 0
1 /1 5 /2 0 0 4
3 /1 /2 0 0 7
4 /1 5 /2 0 1 0
5 /3 0 /2 0 1 3
7 /1 4 /2 0 1 6
Page 1
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
Time-Series Graph of MW-5
Sample Date
C o n c e n t r a t i o n
(p p b )
0
5
10
15
20
9 /1 /1 9 9 4
1 0 /1 6 /1 9 9 7
1 1 /3 0 /2 0 0 0
1 /1 5 /2 0 0 4
3 /1 /2 0 0 7
4 /1 5 /2 0 1 0
5 /3 0 /2 0 1 3
7 /1 4 /2 0 1 6
Page 1
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene
Time-Series Graph of MW-5
Sample Date
C o n c e n t r a t i o n
(p p b )
0
200
400
600
800
1000
9 /1 /1 9 9 4
1 0 /1 6 /1 9 9 7
1 1 /3 0 /2 0 0 0
1 /1 5 /2 0 0 4
3 /1 /2 0 0 7
4 /1 5 /2 0 1 0
5 /3 0 /2 0 1 3
7 /1 4 /2 0 1 6
Page 1
Vinyl chloride
Time-Series Graph of MW-5
Sample Date
C o n c e n t r a t i o n
(p p b )
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
9 /1 /1 9 9 4
1 0 /1 6 /1 9 9 7
1 1 /3 0 /2 0 0 0
1 /1 5 /2 0 0 4
3 /1 /2 0 0 7
4 /1 5 /2 0 1 0
5 /3 0 /2 0 1 3
7 /1 4 /2 0 1 6
Page 1
Arsenic Total
Time-Series Graph of MW-5
Sample Date
C o n c e n t r a t i o n
(p p b )
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
9 /1 /1 9 9 4
1 0 /1 6 /1 9 9 7
1 1 /3 0 /2 0 0 0
1 /1 5 /2 0 0 4
3 /1 /2 0 0 7
4 /1 5 /2 0 1 0
5 /3 0 /2 0 1 3
7 /1 4 /2 0 1 6
Page 1
Barium Total
Time-Series Graph of MW-5
Sample Date
C o n c e n t r a t i o n
(p p b )
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
9 /1 /1 9 9 4
1 0 /1 6 /1 9 9 7
1 1 /3 0 /2 0 0 0
1 /1 5 /2 0 0 4
3 /1 /2 0 0 7
4 /1 5 /2 0 1 0
5 /3 0 /2 0 1 3
7 /1 4 /2 0 1 6
Page 1
Cobalt Total
Time-Series Graph of MW-5
Sample Date
C o n c e n t r a t i o n
(p p b )
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
9 /1 /1 9 9 4
1 0 /1 6 /1 9 9 7
1 1 /3 0 /2 0 0 0
1 /1 5 /2 0 0 4
3 /1 /2 0 0 7
4 /1 5 /2 0 1 0
5 /3 0 /2 0 1 3
7 /1 4 /2 0 1 6
Page 1
Nickel Total
Time-Series Graph of MW-5
Sample Date
C o n c e n t r a t i o n
(p p b )
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
9 /1 /1 9 9 4
6 /9 /1 9 9 7
3 /1 7 /2 0 0 0
1 2 /2 4 /2 0 0 2
1 0 /1 /2 0 0 5
7 /9 /2 0 0 8
4 /1 7 /2 0 1 1
1 /2 4 /2 0 1 4
Page 1
Zinc Total
Time-Series Graph of MW-5
Sample Date
C o n c e n t r a t i o n
(p p b )
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
9 /1 /1 9 9 4
1 0 /1 6 /1 9 9 7
1 1 /3 0 /2 0 0 0
1 /1 5 /2 0 0 4
3 /1 /2 0 0 7
4 /1 5 /2 0 1 0
5 /3 0 /2 0 1 3
7 /1 4 /2 0 1 6
Page 1
Barium Total
Time-Series Graph of MW-6
Sample Date
C o n c e n t r a t i o n
(p p b )
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
9 /1 /1 9 9 4
1 0 /1 6 /1 9 9 7
1 1 /3 0 /2 0 0 0
1 /1 5 /2 0 0 4
3 /1 /2 0 0 7
4 /1 5 /2 0 1 0
5 /3 0 /2 0 1 3
7 /1 4 /2 0 1 6
Page 1
Cobalt Total
Time-Series Graph of MW-6
Sample Date
C o n c e n t r a t i o n
(p p b )
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
9 /1 /1 9 9 4
1 0 /1 6 /1 9 9 7
1 1 /3 0 /2 0 0 0
1 /1 5 /2 0 0 4
3 /1 /2 0 0 7
4 /1 5 /2 0 1 0
5 /3 0 /2 0 1 3
7 /1 4 /2 0 1 6
Page 1
Seasonal Kendall Analysis
Parameter: Cobalt Total
Well: MW-6
Original Data (Not Transformed)
Non-Detects Replaced with Detection Limit
For Season 1
Xj Xk Xj - Xk Positives Negatives
15 (2/1/1995)15 (1/1/1995)0 0 0
12 (3/1/1995)15 (1/1/1995)-3 0 1
ND<0 (3/26/1996)15 (1/1/1995)-15 0 2
ND<0 (2/16/2001)15 (1/1/1995)-15 0 3
18 (1/1/2002)15 (1/1/1995)3 1 3
ND<0 (1/9/2003)15 (1/1/1995)-15 1 4
ND<0 (1/14/2004)15 (1/1/1995)-15 1 5
ND<0 (1/11/2005)15 (1/1/1995)-15 1 6
ND<0 (1/24/2007)15 (1/1/1995)-15 1 7
6.6 (1/10/2008)15 (1/1/1995)-8.4 1 8
5.1 (1/8/2009)15 (1/1/1995)-9.9 1 9
6.32 (1/20/2010)15 (1/1/1995)-8.7 1 10
8.63 (1/18/2011)15 (1/1/1995)-6.4 1 11
12.7 (1/25/2012)15 (1/1/1995)-2.3 1 12
16.9 (1/27/2013)15 (1/1/1995)1.9 2 12
37.1 (1/24/2014)15 (1/1/1995)22 3 12
30.4 (1/6/2015)15 (1/1/1995)15 4 12
25.7 (1/18/2016)15 (1/1/1995)11 5 12
12 (3/1/1995)15 (2/1/1995)-3 5 13
ND<0 (3/26/1996)15 (2/1/1995)-15 5 14
ND<0 (2/16/2001)15 (2/1/1995)-15 5 15
18 (1/1/2002)15 (2/1/1995)3 6 15
ND<0 (1/9/2003)15 (2/1/1995)-15 6 16
ND<0 (1/14/2004)15 (2/1/1995)-15 6 17
ND<0 (1/11/2005)15 (2/1/1995)-15 6 18
ND<0 (1/24/2007)15 (2/1/1995)-15 6 19
6.6 (1/10/2008)15 (2/1/1995)-8.4 6 20
5.1 (1/8/2009)15 (2/1/1995)-9.9 6 21
6.32 (1/20/2010)15 (2/1/1995)-8.7 6 22
8.63 (1/18/2011)15 (2/1/1995)-6.4 6 23
12.7 (1/25/2012)15 (2/1/1995)-2.3 6 24
16.9 (1/27/2013)15 (2/1/1995)1.9 7 24
37.1 (1/24/2014)15 (2/1/1995)22 8 24
30.4 (1/6/2015)15 (2/1/1995)15 9 24
25.7 (1/18/2016)15 (2/1/1995)11 10 24
ND<0 (3/26/1996)12 (3/1/1995)-12 10 25
ND<0 (2/16/2001)12 (3/1/1995)-12 10 26
18 (1/1/2002)12 (3/1/1995)6 11 26
ND<0 (1/9/2003)12 (3/1/1995)-12 11 27
ND<0 (1/14/2004)12 (3/1/1995)-12 11 28
ND<0 (1/11/2005)12 (3/1/1995)-12 11 29
ND<0 (1/24/2007)12 (3/1/1995)-12 11 30
6.6 (1/10/2008)12 (3/1/1995)-5.4 11 31
5.1 (1/8/2009)12 (3/1/1995)-6.9 11 32
6.32 (1/20/2010)12 (3/1/1995)-5.7 11 33
8.63 (1/18/2011)12 (3/1/1995)-3.4 11 34
12.7 (1/25/2012)12 (3/1/1995)0.7 12 34
16.9 (1/27/2013)12 (3/1/1995)4.9 13 34
37.1 (1/24/2014)12 (3/1/1995)25 14 34
30.4 (1/6/2015)12 (3/1/1995)18 15 34
25.7 (1/18/2016)12 (3/1/1995)14 16 34
ND<0 (2/16/2001)ND<0 (3/26/1996)0 16 34
18 (1/1/2002)ND<0 (3/26/1996)18 17 34
ND<0 (1/9/2003)ND<0 (3/26/1996)0 17 34
ND<0 (1/14/2004)ND<0 (3/26/1996)0 17 34
ND<0 (1/11/2005)ND<0 (3/26/1996)0 17 34
ND<0 (1/24/2007)ND<0 (3/26/1996)0 17 34
6.6 (1/10/2008)ND<0 (3/26/1996)6.6 18 34
Page 2
5.1 (1/8/2009)ND<0 (3/26/1996)5.1 19 34
6.32 (1/20/2010)ND<0 (3/26/1996)6.3 20 34
8.63 (1/18/2011)ND<0 (3/26/1996)8.6 21 34
12.7 (1/25/2012)ND<0 (3/26/1996)13 22 34
16.9 (1/27/2013)ND<0 (3/26/1996)17 23 34
37.1 (1/24/2014)ND<0 (3/26/1996)37 24 34
30.4 (1/6/2015)ND<0 (3/26/1996)30 25 34
25.7 (1/18/2016)ND<0 (3/26/1996)26 26 34
18 (1/1/2002)ND<0 (2/16/2001)18 27 34
ND<0 (1/9/2003)ND<0 (2/16/2001)0 27 34
ND<0 (1/14/2004)ND<0 (2/16/2001)0 27 34
ND<0 (1/11/2005)ND<0 (2/16/2001)0 27 34
ND<0 (1/24/2007)ND<0 (2/16/2001)0 27 34
6.6 (1/10/2008)ND<0 (2/16/2001)6.6 28 34
5.1 (1/8/2009)ND<0 (2/16/2001)5.1 29 34
6.32 (1/20/2010)ND<0 (2/16/2001)6.3 30 34
8.63 (1/18/2011)ND<0 (2/16/2001)8.6 31 34
12.7 (1/25/2012)ND<0 (2/16/2001)13 32 34
16.9 (1/27/2013)ND<0 (2/16/2001)17 33 34
37.1 (1/24/2014)ND<0 (2/16/2001)37 34 34
30.4 (1/6/2015)ND<0 (2/16/2001)30 35 34
25.7 (1/18/2016)ND<0 (2/16/2001)26 36 34
ND<0 (1/9/2003)18 (1/1/2002)-18 36 35
ND<0 (1/14/2004)18 (1/1/2002)-18 36 36
ND<0 (1/11/2005)18 (1/1/2002)-18 36 37
ND<0 (1/24/2007)18 (1/1/2002)-18 36 38
6.6 (1/10/2008)18 (1/1/2002)-11 36 39
5.1 (1/8/2009)18 (1/1/2002)-13 36 40
6.32 (1/20/2010)18 (1/1/2002)-12 36 41
8.63 (1/18/2011)18 (1/1/2002)-9.4 36 42
12.7 (1/25/2012)18 (1/1/2002)-5.3 36 43
16.9 (1/27/2013)18 (1/1/2002)-1.1 36 44
37.1 (1/24/2014)18 (1/1/2002)19 37 44
30.4 (1/6/2015)18 (1/1/2002)12 38 44
25.7 (1/18/2016)18 (1/1/2002)7.7 39 44
ND<0 (1/14/2004)ND<0 (1/9/2003)0 39 44
ND<0 (1/11/2005)ND<0 (1/9/2003)0 39 44
ND<0 (1/24/2007)ND<0 (1/9/2003)0 39 44
6.6 (1/10/2008)ND<0 (1/9/2003)6.6 40 44
5.1 (1/8/2009)ND<0 (1/9/2003)5.1 41 44
6.32 (1/20/2010)ND<0 (1/9/2003)6.3 42 44
8.63 (1/18/2011)ND<0 (1/9/2003)8.6 43 44
12.7 (1/25/2012)ND<0 (1/9/2003)13 44 44
16.9 (1/27/2013)ND<0 (1/9/2003)17 45 44
37.1 (1/24/2014)ND<0 (1/9/2003)37 46 44
30.4 (1/6/2015)ND<0 (1/9/2003)30 47 44
25.7 (1/18/2016)ND<0 (1/9/2003)26 48 44
ND<0 (1/11/2005)ND<0 (1/14/2004)0 48 44
ND<0 (1/24/2007)ND<0 (1/14/2004)0 48 44
6.6 (1/10/2008)ND<0 (1/14/2004)6.6 49 44
5.1 (1/8/2009)ND<0 (1/14/2004)5.1 50 44
6.32 (1/20/2010)ND<0 (1/14/2004)6.3 51 44
8.63 (1/18/2011)ND<0 (1/14/2004)8.6 52 44
12.7 (1/25/2012)ND<0 (1/14/2004)13 53 44
16.9 (1/27/2013)ND<0 (1/14/2004)17 54 44
37.1 (1/24/2014)ND<0 (1/14/2004)37 55 44
30.4 (1/6/2015)ND<0 (1/14/2004)30 56 44
25.7 (1/18/2016)ND<0 (1/14/2004)26 57 44
ND<0 (1/24/2007)ND<0 (1/11/2005)0 57 44
6.6 (1/10/2008)ND<0 (1/11/2005)6.6 58 44
5.1 (1/8/2009)ND<0 (1/11/2005)5.1 59 44
6.32 (1/20/2010)ND<0 (1/11/2005)6.3 60 44
8.63 (1/18/2011)ND<0 (1/11/2005)8.6 61 44
12.7 (1/25/2012)ND<0 (1/11/2005)13 62 44
16.9 (1/27/2013)ND<0 (1/11/2005)17 63 44
37.1 (1/24/2014)ND<0 (1/11/2005)37 64 44
Page 3
30.4 (1/6/2015)ND<0 (1/11/2005)30 65 44
25.7 (1/18/2016)ND<0 (1/11/2005)26 66 44
6.6 (1/10/2008)ND<0 (1/24/2007)6.6 67 44
5.1 (1/8/2009)ND<0 (1/24/2007)5.1 68 44
6.32 (1/20/2010)ND<0 (1/24/2007)6.3 69 44
8.63 (1/18/2011)ND<0 (1/24/2007)8.6 70 44
12.7 (1/25/2012)ND<0 (1/24/2007)13 71 44
16.9 (1/27/2013)ND<0 (1/24/2007)17 72 44
37.1 (1/24/2014)ND<0 (1/24/2007)37 73 44
30.4 (1/6/2015)ND<0 (1/24/2007)30 74 44
25.7 (1/18/2016)ND<0 (1/24/2007)26 75 44
5.1 (1/8/2009)6.6 (1/10/2008)-1.5 75 45
6.32 (1/20/2010)6.6 (1/10/2008)-0.28 75 46
8.63 (1/18/2011)6.6 (1/10/2008)2 76 46
12.7 (1/25/2012)6.6 (1/10/2008)6.1 77 46
16.9 (1/27/2013)6.6 (1/10/2008)10 78 46
37.1 (1/24/2014)6.6 (1/10/2008)31 79 46
30.4 (1/6/2015)6.6 (1/10/2008)24 80 46
25.7 (1/18/2016)6.6 (1/10/2008)19 81 46
6.32 (1/20/2010)5.1 (1/8/2009)1.2 82 46
8.63 (1/18/2011)5.1 (1/8/2009)3.5 83 46
12.7 (1/25/2012)5.1 (1/8/2009)7.6 84 46
16.9 (1/27/2013)5.1 (1/8/2009)12 85 46
37.1 (1/24/2014)5.1 (1/8/2009)32 86 46
30.4 (1/6/2015)5.1 (1/8/2009)25 87 46
25.7 (1/18/2016)5.1 (1/8/2009)21 88 46
8.63 (1/18/2011)6.32 (1/20/2010)2.3 89 46
12.7 (1/25/2012)6.32 (1/20/2010)6.4 90 46
16.9 (1/27/2013)6.32 (1/20/2010)11 91 46
37.1 (1/24/2014)6.32 (1/20/2010)31 92 46
30.4 (1/6/2015)6.32 (1/20/2010)24 93 46
25.7 (1/18/2016)6.32 (1/20/2010)19 94 46
12.7 (1/25/2012)8.63 (1/18/2011)4.1 95 46
16.9 (1/27/2013)8.63 (1/18/2011)8.3 96 46
37.1 (1/24/2014)8.63 (1/18/2011)28 97 46
30.4 (1/6/2015)8.63 (1/18/2011)22 98 46
25.7 (1/18/2016)8.63 (1/18/2011)17 99 46
16.9 (1/27/2013)12.7 (1/25/2012)4.2 100 46
37.1 (1/24/2014)12.7 (1/25/2012)24 101 46
30.4 (1/6/2015)12.7 (1/25/2012)18 102 46
25.7 (1/18/2016)12.7 (1/25/2012)13 103 46
37.1 (1/24/2014)16.9 (1/27/2013)20 104 46
30.4 (1/6/2015)16.9 (1/27/2013)14 105 46
25.7 (1/18/2016)16.9 (1/27/2013)8.8 106 46
30.4 (1/6/2015)37.1 (1/24/2014)-6.7 106 47
25.7 (1/18/2016)37.1 (1/24/2014)-11 106 48
25.7 (1/18/2016)30.4 (1/6/2015)-4.7 106 49
S Statistic for season 0 = 106 - 49 = 57
Tied Group Value Members
1 15 2
2 0 6
Time Period Observations
1/1/1995 3
3/26/1996 1
2/16/2001 1
1/1/2002 1
1/9/2003 1
1/14/2004 1
Page 4
1/11/2005 1
1/24/2007 1
1/10/2008 1
1/8/2009 1
1/20/2010 1
1/18/2011 1
1/25/2012 1
1/27/2013 1
1/24/2014 1
1/6/2015 1
1/18/2016 1
There are 1 time periods with multiple data
A = 528
B = 66
C = 120
D = 6
E = 32
F = 6
a = 14706
b = 52326
c = 684
Group Variance for season 1 = 784.294
For Season 2
Xj Xk Xj - Xk Positives Negatives
ND<0 (6/22/1998)ND<0 (6/25/1996)0 0 0
ND<0 (6/3/1999)ND<0 (6/25/1996)0 0 0
ND<0 (6/14/2000)ND<0 (6/25/1996)0 0 0
ND<0 (6/14/2001)ND<0 (6/25/1996)0 0 0
ND<0 (6/6/2002)ND<0 (6/25/1996)0 0 0
ND<0 (6/25/2003)ND<0 (6/25/1996)0 0 0
ND<0 (6/29/2004)ND<0 (6/25/1996)0 0 0
ND<0 (6/15/2005)ND<0 (6/25/1996)0 0 0
5.16 (6/27/2007)ND<0 (6/25/1996)5.2 1 0
ND<0 (6/3/1999)ND<0 (6/22/1998)0 1 0
ND<0 (6/14/2000)ND<0 (6/22/1998)0 1 0
ND<0 (6/14/2001)ND<0 (6/22/1998)0 1 0
ND<0 (6/6/2002)ND<0 (6/22/1998)0 1 0
ND<0 (6/25/2003)ND<0 (6/22/1998)0 1 0
ND<0 (6/29/2004)ND<0 (6/22/1998)0 1 0
ND<0 (6/15/2005)ND<0 (6/22/1998)0 1 0
5.16 (6/27/2007)ND<0 (6/22/1998)5.2 2 0
ND<0 (6/14/2000)ND<0 (6/3/1999)0 2 0
ND<0 (6/14/2001)ND<0 (6/3/1999)0 2 0
ND<0 (6/6/2002)ND<0 (6/3/1999)0 2 0
ND<0 (6/25/2003)ND<0 (6/3/1999)0 2 0
ND<0 (6/29/2004)ND<0 (6/3/1999)0 2 0
ND<0 (6/15/2005)ND<0 (6/3/1999)0 2 0
5.16 (6/27/2007)ND<0 (6/3/1999)5.2 3 0
ND<0 (6/14/2001)ND<0 (6/14/2000)0 3 0
ND<0 (6/6/2002)ND<0 (6/14/2000)0 3 0
ND<0 (6/25/2003)ND<0 (6/14/2000)0 3 0
ND<0 (6/29/2004)ND<0 (6/14/2000)0 3 0
ND<0 (6/15/2005)ND<0 (6/14/2000)0 3 0
5.16 (6/27/2007)ND<0 (6/14/2000)5.2 4 0
ND<0 (6/6/2002)ND<0 (6/14/2001)0 4 0
ND<0 (6/25/2003)ND<0 (6/14/2001)0 4 0
ND<0 (6/29/2004)ND<0 (6/14/2001)0 4 0
ND<0 (6/15/2005)ND<0 (6/14/2001)0 4 0
5.16 (6/27/2007)ND<0 (6/14/2001)5.2 5 0
ND<0 (6/25/2003)ND<0 (6/6/2002)0 5 0
ND<0 (6/29/2004)ND<0 (6/6/2002)0 5 0
ND<0 (6/15/2005)ND<0 (6/6/2002)0 5 0
5.16 (6/27/2007)ND<0 (6/6/2002)5.2 6 0
Page 5
ND<0 (6/29/2004)ND<0 (6/25/2003)0 6 0
ND<0 (6/15/2005)ND<0 (6/25/2003)0 6 0
5.16 (6/27/2007)ND<0 (6/25/2003)5.2 7 0
ND<0 (6/15/2005)ND<0 (6/29/2004)0 7 0
5.16 (6/27/2007)ND<0 (6/29/2004)5.2 8 0
5.16 (6/27/2007)ND<0 (6/15/2005)5.2 9 0
S Statistic for season 1 = 9 - 0 = 9
Tied Group Value Members
1 0 9
Time Period Observations
6/25/1996 1
6/22/1998 1
6/3/1999 1
6/14/2000 1
6/14/2001 1
6/6/2002 1
6/25/2003 1
6/29/2004 1
6/15/2005 1
6/27/2007 1
There are 0 time periods with multiple data
A = 1656
B = 0
C = 504
D = 0
E = 72
F = 0
a = 2250
b = 6480
c = 180
Group Variance for season 2 = 33
For Season 3
Xj Xk Xj - Xk Positives Negatives
ND<0 (7/11/2006)16 (9/1/1994)-16 0 1
3.3 (7/9/2008)16 (9/1/1994)-13 0 2
1.87 (7/15/2009)16 (9/1/1994)-14 0 3
1.56 (7/20/2010)16 (9/1/1994)-14 0 4
2.88 (7/27/2011)16 (9/1/1994)-13 0 5
5.28 (7/25/2012)16 (9/1/1994)-11 0 6
5.28 (7/26/2013)16 (9/1/1994)-11 0 7
20.5 (7/29/2014)16 (9/1/1994)4.5 1 7
15.4 (7/22/2015)16 (9/1/1994)-0.6 1 8
36.5 (7/14/2016)16 (9/1/1994)21 2 8
3.3 (7/9/2008)ND<0 (7/11/2006)3.3 3 8
1.87 (7/15/2009)ND<0 (7/11/2006)1.9 4 8
1.56 (7/20/2010)ND<0 (7/11/2006)1.6 5 8
2.88 (7/27/2011)ND<0 (7/11/2006)2.9 6 8
5.28 (7/25/2012)ND<0 (7/11/2006)5.3 7 8
5.28 (7/26/2013)ND<0 (7/11/2006)5.3 8 8
20.5 (7/29/2014)ND<0 (7/11/2006)21 9 8
15.4 (7/22/2015)ND<0 (7/11/2006)15 10 8
36.5 (7/14/2016)ND<0 (7/11/2006)37 11 8
1.87 (7/15/2009)3.3 (7/9/2008)-1.4 11 9
1.56 (7/20/2010)3.3 (7/9/2008)-1.7 11 10
2.88 (7/27/2011)3.3 (7/9/2008)-0.42 11 11
5.28 (7/25/2012)3.3 (7/9/2008)2 12 11
5.28 (7/26/2013)3.3 (7/9/2008)2 13 11
20.5 (7/29/2014)3.3 (7/9/2008)17 14 11
15.4 (7/22/2015)3.3 (7/9/2008)12 15 11
36.5 (7/14/2016)3.3 (7/9/2008)33 16 11
Page 6
1.56 (7/20/2010)1.87 (7/15/2009)-0.31 16 12
2.88 (7/27/2011)1.87 (7/15/2009)1 17 12
5.28 (7/25/2012)1.87 (7/15/2009)3.4 18 12
5.28 (7/26/2013)1.87 (7/15/2009)3.4 19 12
20.5 (7/29/2014)1.87 (7/15/2009)19 20 12
15.4 (7/22/2015)1.87 (7/15/2009)14 21 12
36.5 (7/14/2016)1.87 (7/15/2009)35 22 12
2.88 (7/27/2011)1.56 (7/20/2010)1.3 23 12
5.28 (7/25/2012)1.56 (7/20/2010)3.7 24 12
5.28 (7/26/2013)1.56 (7/20/2010)3.7 25 12
20.5 (7/29/2014)1.56 (7/20/2010)19 26 12
15.4 (7/22/2015)1.56 (7/20/2010)14 27 12
36.5 (7/14/2016)1.56 (7/20/2010)35 28 12
5.28 (7/25/2012)2.88 (7/27/2011)2.4 29 12
5.28 (7/26/2013)2.88 (7/27/2011)2.4 30 12
20.5 (7/29/2014)2.88 (7/27/2011)18 31 12
15.4 (7/22/2015)2.88 (7/27/2011)13 32 12
36.5 (7/14/2016)2.88 (7/27/2011)34 33 12
5.28 (7/26/2013)5.28 (7/25/2012)0 33 12
20.5 (7/29/2014)5.28 (7/25/2012)15 34 12
15.4 (7/22/2015)5.28 (7/25/2012)10 35 12
36.5 (7/14/2016)5.28 (7/25/2012)31 36 12
20.5 (7/29/2014)5.28 (7/26/2013)15 37 12
15.4 (7/22/2015)5.28 (7/26/2013)10 38 12
36.5 (7/14/2016)5.28 (7/26/2013)31 39 12
15.4 (7/22/2015)20.5 (7/29/2014)-5.1 39 13
36.5 (7/14/2016)20.5 (7/29/2014)16 40 13
36.5 (7/14/2016)15.4 (7/22/2015)21 41 13
S Statistic for season 2 = 41 - 13 = 28
Tied Group Value Members
1 5.28 2
Time Period Observations
9/1/1994 1
7/11/2006 1
7/9/2008 1
7/15/2009 1
7/20/2010 1
7/27/2011 1
7/25/2012 1
7/26/2013 1
7/29/2014 1
7/22/2015 1
7/14/2016 1
There are 0 time periods with multiple data
A = 18
B = 0
C = 0
D = 0
E = 2
F = 0
a = 2970
b = 8910
c = 220
Group Variance for season 3 = 164
For Season 4
Xj Xk Xj - Xk Positives Negatives
ND<0 (11/19/1996)ND<0 (10/7/1996)0 0 0
Page 7
ND<0 (11/15/1997)ND<0 (10/7/1996)0 0 0
ND<0 (12/15/1997)ND<0 (10/7/1996)0 0 0
ND<0 (12/7/1998)ND<0 (10/7/1996)0 0 0
ND<0 (12/21/2005)ND<0 (10/7/1996)0 0 0
ND<0 (11/15/1997)ND<0 (11/19/1996)0 0 0
ND<0 (12/15/1997)ND<0 (11/19/1996)0 0 0
ND<0 (12/7/1998)ND<0 (11/19/1996)0 0 0
ND<0 (12/21/2005)ND<0 (11/19/1996)0 0 0
ND<0 (12/15/1997)ND<0 (11/15/1997)0 0 0
ND<0 (12/7/1998)ND<0 (11/15/1997)0 0 0
ND<0 (12/21/2005)ND<0 (11/15/1997)0 0 0
ND<0 (12/7/1998)ND<0 (12/15/1997)0 0 0
ND<0 (12/21/2005)ND<0 (12/15/1997)0 0 0
ND<0 (12/21/2005)ND<0 (12/7/1998)0 0 0
S Statistic for season 3 = 0 - 0 = 0
Tied Group Value Members
1 0 6
Time Period Observations
10/7/1996 2
11/15/1997 2
12/7/1998 1
12/21/2005 1
There are 2 time periods with multiple data
A = 510
B = 36
C = 120
D = 0
E = 30
F = 4
a = 510
b = 1080
c = 60
Group Variance for season 4 = 0
Season S VAR(S)
1 57 784.294
2 9 33
3 28 164
4 0 0
Sum 94 981.294
Z-Score = 2.96882
Comparison Level at 0.95% confidence level = 1.65463
2.96882 > 1.65463 indicating a seasonal trend
Page 1
Vanadium Total
Time-Series Graph of MW-6
Sample Date
C o n c e n t r a t i o n
(p p b )
0
5
10
15
20
9 /1 /1 9 9 4
1 0 /1 6 /1 9 9 7
1 1 /3 0 /2 0 0 0
1 /1 5 /2 0 0 4
3 /1 /2 0 0 7
4 /1 5 /2 0 1 0
5 /3 0 /2 0 1 3
7 /1 4 /2 0 1 6
Page 1
Zinc Total
Time-Series Graph of MW-6
Sample Date
C o n c e n t r a t i o n
(p p b )
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
9 /1 /1 9 9 4
1 0 /1 6 /1 9 9 7
1 1 /3 0 /2 0 0 0
1 /1 5 /2 0 0 4
3 /1 /2 0 0 7
4 /1 5 /2 0 1 0
5 /3 0 /2 0 1 3
7 /1 4 /2 0 1 6
Page 1
Benzene
Time-Series Graph of MW-7A
Sample Date
C o n c e n t r a t i o n
(p p b )
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
1 /6 /2 0 0 0
5 /1 7 /2 0 0 2
9 /2 5 /2 0 0 4
2 /4 /2 0 0 7
6 /1 5 /2 0 0 9
1 0 /2 5 /2 0 1 1
3 /5 /2 0 1 4
7 /1 4 /2 0 1 6
Page 1
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
Time-Series Graph of MW-7A
Sample Date
C o n c e n t r a t i o n
(p p b )
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
1 /6 /2 0 0 0
5 /1 7 /2 0 0 2
9 /2 5 /2 0 0 4
2 /4 /2 0 0 7
6 /1 5 /2 0 0 9
1 0 /2 5 /2 0 1 1
3 /5 /2 0 1 4
7 /1 4 /2 0 1 6
Page 1
Arsenic Total
Time-Series Graph of MW-7A
Sample Date
C o n c e n t r a t i o n
(p p b )
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
1 /6 /2 0 0 0
5 /1 7 /2 0 0 2
9 /2 5 /2 0 0 4
2 /4 /2 0 0 7
6 /1 5 /2 0 0 9
1 0 /2 5 /2 0 1 1
3 /5 /2 0 1 4
7 /1 4 /2 0 1 6
Page 1
Barium Total
Time-Series Graph of MW-7A
Sample Date
C o n c e n t r a t i o n
(p p b )
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
1 /6 /2 0 0 0
5 /1 7 /2 0 0 2
9 /2 5 /2 0 0 4
2 /4 /2 0 0 7
6 /1 5 /2 0 0 9
1 0 /2 5 /2 0 1 1
3 /5 /2 0 1 4
7 /1 4 /2 0 1 6
Page 1
Seasonal Kendall Analysis
Parameter: Barium Total
Well: MW-7A
Original Data (Not Transformed)
Non-Detects Replaced with Detection Limit
For Season 1
Xj Xk Xj - Xk Positives Negatives
ND<0 (2/16/2001)ND<0 (1/6/2000)0 0 0
ND<0 (1/1/2002)ND<0 (1/6/2000)0 0 0
ND<0 (1/9/2003)ND<0 (1/6/2000)0 0 0
ND<0 (1/14/2004)ND<0 (1/6/2000)0 0 0
ND<0 (1/11/2005)ND<0 (1/6/2000)0 0 0
112 (1/24/2007)ND<0 (1/6/2000)1.1e+002 1 0
90 (1/10/2008)ND<0 (1/6/2000)90 2 0
176 (1/19/2011)ND<0 (1/6/2000)1.8e+002 3 0
192 (1/25/2012)ND<0 (1/6/2000)1.9e+002 4 0
221 (1/27/2013)ND<0 (1/6/2000)2.2e+002 5 0
289 (1/24/2014)ND<0 (1/6/2000)2.9e+002 6 0
267 (1/6/2015)ND<0 (1/6/2000)2.7e+002 7 0
253 (1/18/2016)ND<0 (1/6/2000)2.5e+002 8 0
ND<0 (1/1/2002)ND<0 (2/16/2001)0 8 0
ND<0 (1/9/2003)ND<0 (2/16/2001)0 8 0
ND<0 (1/14/2004)ND<0 (2/16/2001)0 8 0
ND<0 (1/11/2005)ND<0 (2/16/2001)0 8 0
112 (1/24/2007)ND<0 (2/16/2001)1.1e+002 9 0
90 (1/10/2008)ND<0 (2/16/2001)90 10 0
176 (1/19/2011)ND<0 (2/16/2001)1.8e+002 11 0
192 (1/25/2012)ND<0 (2/16/2001)1.9e+002 12 0
221 (1/27/2013)ND<0 (2/16/2001)2.2e+002 13 0
289 (1/24/2014)ND<0 (2/16/2001)2.9e+002 14 0
267 (1/6/2015)ND<0 (2/16/2001)2.7e+002 15 0
253 (1/18/2016)ND<0 (2/16/2001)2.5e+002 16 0
ND<0 (1/9/2003)ND<0 (1/1/2002)0 16 0
ND<0 (1/14/2004)ND<0 (1/1/2002)0 16 0
ND<0 (1/11/2005)ND<0 (1/1/2002)0 16 0
112 (1/24/2007)ND<0 (1/1/2002)1.1e+002 17 0
90 (1/10/2008)ND<0 (1/1/2002)90 18 0
176 (1/19/2011)ND<0 (1/1/2002)1.8e+002 19 0
192 (1/25/2012)ND<0 (1/1/2002)1.9e+002 20 0
221 (1/27/2013)ND<0 (1/1/2002)2.2e+002 21 0
289 (1/24/2014)ND<0 (1/1/2002)2.9e+002 22 0
267 (1/6/2015)ND<0 (1/1/2002)2.7e+002 23 0
253 (1/18/2016)ND<0 (1/1/2002)2.5e+002 24 0
ND<0 (1/14/2004)ND<0 (1/9/2003)0 24 0
ND<0 (1/11/2005)ND<0 (1/9/2003)0 24 0
112 (1/24/2007)ND<0 (1/9/2003)1.1e+002 25 0
90 (1/10/2008)ND<0 (1/9/2003)90 26 0
176 (1/19/2011)ND<0 (1/9/2003)1.8e+002 27 0
192 (1/25/2012)ND<0 (1/9/2003)1.9e+002 28 0
221 (1/27/2013)ND<0 (1/9/2003)2.2e+002 29 0
289 (1/24/2014)ND<0 (1/9/2003)2.9e+002 30 0
267 (1/6/2015)ND<0 (1/9/2003)2.7e+002 31 0
253 (1/18/2016)ND<0 (1/9/2003)2.5e+002 32 0
ND<0 (1/11/2005)ND<0 (1/14/2004)0 32 0
112 (1/24/2007)ND<0 (1/14/2004)1.1e+002 33 0
90 (1/10/2008)ND<0 (1/14/2004)90 34 0
176 (1/19/2011)ND<0 (1/14/2004)1.8e+002 35 0
192 (1/25/2012)ND<0 (1/14/2004)1.9e+002 36 0
221 (1/27/2013)ND<0 (1/14/2004)2.2e+002 37 0
289 (1/24/2014)ND<0 (1/14/2004)2.9e+002 38 0
267 (1/6/2015)ND<0 (1/14/2004)2.7e+002 39 0
253 (1/18/2016)ND<0 (1/14/2004)2.5e+002 40 0
112 (1/24/2007)ND<0 (1/11/2005)1.1e+002 41 0
Page 2
90 (1/10/2008)ND<0 (1/11/2005)90 42 0
176 (1/19/2011)ND<0 (1/11/2005)1.8e+002 43 0
192 (1/25/2012)ND<0 (1/11/2005)1.9e+002 44 0
221 (1/27/2013)ND<0 (1/11/2005)2.2e+002 45 0
289 (1/24/2014)ND<0 (1/11/2005)2.9e+002 46 0
267 (1/6/2015)ND<0 (1/11/2005)2.7e+002 47 0
253 (1/18/2016)ND<0 (1/11/2005)2.5e+002 48 0
90 (1/10/2008)112 (1/24/2007)-22 48 1
176 (1/19/2011)112 (1/24/2007)64 49 1
192 (1/25/2012)112 (1/24/2007)80 50 1
221 (1/27/2013)112 (1/24/2007)1.1e+002 51 1
289 (1/24/2014)112 (1/24/2007)1.8e+002 52 1
267 (1/6/2015)112 (1/24/2007)1.6e+002 53 1
253 (1/18/2016)112 (1/24/2007)1.4e+002 54 1
176 (1/19/2011)90 (1/10/2008)86 55 1
192 (1/25/2012)90 (1/10/2008)1e+002 56 1
221 (1/27/2013)90 (1/10/2008)1.3e+002 57 1
289 (1/24/2014)90 (1/10/2008)2e+002 58 1
267 (1/6/2015)90 (1/10/2008)1.8e+002 59 1
253 (1/18/2016)90 (1/10/2008)1.6e+002 60 1
192 (1/25/2012)176 (1/19/2011)16 61 1
221 (1/27/2013)176 (1/19/2011)45 62 1
289 (1/24/2014)176 (1/19/2011)1.1e+002 63 1
267 (1/6/2015)176 (1/19/2011)91 64 1
253 (1/18/2016)176 (1/19/2011)77 65 1
221 (1/27/2013)192 (1/25/2012)29 66 1
289 (1/24/2014)192 (1/25/2012)97 67 1
267 (1/6/2015)192 (1/25/2012)75 68 1
253 (1/18/2016)192 (1/25/2012)61 69 1
289 (1/24/2014)221 (1/27/2013)68 70 1
267 (1/6/2015)221 (1/27/2013)46 71 1
253 (1/18/2016)221 (1/27/2013)32 72 1
267 (1/6/2015)289 (1/24/2014)-22 72 2
253 (1/18/2016)289 (1/24/2014)-36 72 3
253 (1/18/2016)267 (1/6/2015)-14 72 4
S Statistic for season 0 = 72 - 4 = 68
Tied Group Value Members
1 0 6
Time Period Observations
1/6/2000 1
2/16/2001 1
1/1/2002 1
1/9/2003 1
1/14/2004 1
1/11/2005 1
1/24/2007 1
1/10/2008 1
1/19/2011 1
1/25/2012 1
1/27/2013 1
1/24/2014 1
1/6/2015 1
1/18/2016 1
There are 0 time periods with multiple data
A = 510
B = 0
C = 120
D = 0
E = 30
Page 3
F = 0
a = 6006
b = 19656
c = 364
Group Variance for season 1 = 305.333
For Season 2
Xj Xk Xj - Xk Positives Negatives
ND<0 (6/14/2001)ND<0 (6/14/2000)0 0 0
ND<0 (6/6/2002)ND<0 (6/14/2000)0 0 0
ND<0 (6/25/2003)ND<0 (6/14/2000)0 0 0
ND<0 (6/29/2004)ND<0 (6/14/2000)0 0 0
ND<0 (6/15/2005)ND<0 (6/14/2000)0 0 0
152 (6/26/2007)ND<0 (6/14/2000)1.5e+002 1 0
ND<0 (6/6/2002)ND<0 (6/14/2001)0 1 0
ND<0 (6/25/2003)ND<0 (6/14/2001)0 1 0
ND<0 (6/29/2004)ND<0 (6/14/2001)0 1 0
ND<0 (6/15/2005)ND<0 (6/14/2001)0 1 0
152 (6/26/2007)ND<0 (6/14/2001)1.5e+002 2 0
ND<0 (6/25/2003)ND<0 (6/6/2002)0 2 0
ND<0 (6/29/2004)ND<0 (6/6/2002)0 2 0
ND<0 (6/15/2005)ND<0 (6/6/2002)0 2 0
152 (6/26/2007)ND<0 (6/6/2002)1.5e+002 3 0
ND<0 (6/29/2004)ND<0 (6/25/2003)0 3 0
ND<0 (6/15/2005)ND<0 (6/25/2003)0 3 0
152 (6/26/2007)ND<0 (6/25/2003)1.5e+002 4 0
ND<0 (6/15/2005)ND<0 (6/29/2004)0 4 0
152 (6/26/2007)ND<0 (6/29/2004)1.5e+002 5 0
152 (6/26/2007)ND<0 (6/15/2005)1.5e+002 6 0
S Statistic for season 1 = 6 - 0 = 6
Tied Group Value Members
1 0 6
Time Period Observations
6/14/2000 1
6/14/2001 1
6/6/2002 1
6/25/2003 1
6/29/2004 1
6/15/2005 1
6/26/2007 1
There are 0 time periods with multiple data
A = 510
B = 0
C = 120
D = 0
E = 30
F = 0
a = 798
b = 1890
c = 84
Group Variance for season 2 = 16
For Season 3
Xj Xk Xj - Xk Positives Negatives
150 (7/9/2008)ND<0 (7/11/2006)1.5e+002 1 0
284 (7/21/2010)ND<0 (7/11/2006)2.8e+002 2 0
215 (7/27/2011)ND<0 (7/11/2006)2.2e+002 3 0
280 (7/25/2012)ND<0 (7/11/2006)2.8e+002 4 0
280 (7/26/2013)ND<0 (7/11/2006)2.8e+002 5 0
247 (7/29/2014)ND<0 (7/11/2006)2.5e+002 6 0
Page 4
299 (7/22/2015)ND<0 (7/11/2006)3e+002 7 0
306 (7/14/2016)ND<0 (7/11/2006)3.1e+002 8 0
284 (7/21/2010)150 (7/9/2008)1.3e+002 9 0
215 (7/27/2011)150 (7/9/2008)65 10 0
280 (7/25/2012)150 (7/9/2008)1.3e+002 11 0
280 (7/26/2013)150 (7/9/2008)1.3e+002 12 0
247 (7/29/2014)150 (7/9/2008)97 13 0
299 (7/22/2015)150 (7/9/2008)1.5e+002 14 0
306 (7/14/2016)150 (7/9/2008)1.6e+002 15 0
215 (7/27/2011)284 (7/21/2010)-69 15 1
280 (7/25/2012)284 (7/21/2010)-4 15 2
280 (7/26/2013)284 (7/21/2010)-4 15 3
247 (7/29/2014)284 (7/21/2010)-37 15 4
299 (7/22/2015)284 (7/21/2010)15 16 4
306 (7/14/2016)284 (7/21/2010)22 17 4
280 (7/25/2012)215 (7/27/2011)65 18 4
280 (7/26/2013)215 (7/27/2011)65 19 4
247 (7/29/2014)215 (7/27/2011)32 20 4
299 (7/22/2015)215 (7/27/2011)84 21 4
306 (7/14/2016)215 (7/27/2011)91 22 4
280 (7/26/2013)280 (7/25/2012)0 22 4
247 (7/29/2014)280 (7/25/2012)-33 22 5
299 (7/22/2015)280 (7/25/2012)19 23 5
306 (7/14/2016)280 (7/25/2012)26 24 5
247 (7/29/2014)280 (7/26/2013)-33 24 6
299 (7/22/2015)280 (7/26/2013)19 25 6
306 (7/14/2016)280 (7/26/2013)26 26 6
299 (7/22/2015)247 (7/29/2014)52 27 6
306 (7/14/2016)247 (7/29/2014)59 28 6
306 (7/14/2016)299 (7/22/2015)7 29 6
S Statistic for season 2 = 29 - 6 = 23
Tied Group Value Members
1 280 2
Time Period Observations
7/11/2006 1
7/9/2008 1
7/21/2010 1
7/27/2011 1
7/25/2012 1
7/26/2013 1
7/29/2014 1
7/22/2015 1
7/14/2016 1
There are 0 time periods with multiple data
A = 18
B = 0
C = 0
D = 0
E = 2
F = 0
a = 1656
b = 4536
c = 144
Group Variance for season 3 = 91
For Season 4
Xj Xk Xj - Xk Positives Negatives
Page 5
Season S VAR(S)
1 68 305.333
2 6 16
3 23 91
4 0 0
Sum 97 412.333
Z-Score = 4.72767
Comparison Level at 0.95% confidence level = 1.65463
4.72767 > 1.65463 indicating a seasonal trend
Page 1
Barium Total
Time-Series Graph of MW-9
Sample Date
C o n c e n t r a t i o n
(p p b )
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
1 /1 /2 0 0 2
1 /2 9 /2 0 0 4
2 /2 5 /2 0 0 6
3 /2 4 /2 0 0 8
4 /2 2 /2 0 1 0
5 /1 9 /2 0 1 2
6 /1 6 /2 0 1 4
7 /1 4 /2 0 1 6
Page 1
Benzene
Time-Series Graph of MW-12
Sample Date
C o n c e n t r a t i o n
(p p b )
0
1
2
3
4
5
1 /8 /2 0 0 9
2 /4 /2 0 1 0
3 /3 /2 0 1 1
3 /2 9 /2 0 1 2
4 /2 5 /2 0 1 3
5 /2 2 /2 0 1 4
6 /1 8 /2 0 1 5
7 /1 4 /2 0 1 6
Page 1
Chlorobenzene
Time-Series Graph of MW-12
Sample Date
C o n c e n t r a t i o n
(p p b )
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
1 /8 /2 0 0 9
2 /4 /2 0 1 0
3 /3 /2 0 1 1
3 /2 9 /2 0 1 2
4 /2 5 /2 0 1 3
5 /2 2 /2 0 1 4
6 /1 8 /2 0 1 5
7 /1 4 /2 0 1 6
Page 1
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
Time-Series Graph of MW-12
Sample Date
C o n c e n t r a t i o n
(p p b )
0
5
10
15
20
1 /8 /2 0 0 9
2 /4 /2 0 1 0
3 /3 /2 0 1 1
3 /2 9 /2 0 1 2
4 /2 5 /2 0 1 3
5 /2 2 /2 0 1 4
6 /1 8 /2 0 1 5
7 /1 4 /2 0 1 6
Page 1
Barium Total
Time-Series Graph of MW-12
Sample Date
C o n c e n t r a t i o n
(p p b )
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
7 /2 1 /2 0 1 0
5 /2 9 /2 0 1 1
4 /5 /2 0 1 2
2 /1 1 /2 0 1 3
1 2 /2 0 /2 0 1 3
1 0 /2 8 /2 0 1 4
9 /5 /2 0 1 5
7 /1 4 /2 0 1 6
Page 1
Chlorobenzene
Time-Series Graph of MW-13
Sample Date
C o n c e n t r a t i o n
(p p b )
0
5
10
15
20
1 /8 /2 0 0 9
2 /4 /2 0 1 0
3 /3 /2 0 1 1
3 /2 9 /2 0 1 2
4 /2 5 /2 0 1 3
5 /2 2 /2 0 1 4
6 /1 8 /2 0 1 5
7 /1 4 /2 0 1 6
Page 1
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
Time-Series Graph of MW-13
Sample Date
C o n c e n t r a t i o n
(p p b )
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
1 /8 /2 0 0 9
2 /4 /2 0 1 0
3 /3 /2 0 1 1
3 /2 9 /2 0 1 2
4 /2 5 /2 0 1 3
5 /2 2 /2 0 1 4
6 /1 8 /2 0 1 5
7 /1 4 /2 0 1 6
Page 1
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene
Time-Series Graph of MW-13
Sample Date
C o n c e n t r a t i o n
(p p b )
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
1 /8 /2 0 0 9
2 /4 /2 0 1 0
3 /3 /2 0 1 1
3 /2 9 /2 0 1 2
4 /2 5 /2 0 1 3
5 /2 2 /2 0 1 4
6 /1 8 /2 0 1 5
7 /1 4 /2 0 1 6
Page 1
Vinyl chloride
Time-Series Graph of MW-13
Sample Date
C o n c e n t r a t i o n
(p p b )
0
1
2
3
4
5
1 /8 /2 0 0 9
2 /4 /2 0 1 0
3 /3 /2 0 1 1
3 /2 9 /2 0 1 2
4 /2 5 /2 0 1 3
5 /2 2 /2 0 1 4
6 /1 8 /2 0 1 5
7 /1 4 /2 0 1 6
Page 1
Arsenic Total
Time-Series Graph of MW-13
Sample Date
C o n c e n t r a t i o n
(p p b )
0
5
10
15
20
7 /2 1 /2 0 1 0
5 /2 9 /2 0 1 1
4 /5 /2 0 1 2
2 /1 1 /2 0 1 3
1 2 /2 0 /2 0 1 3
1 0 /2 8 /2 0 1 4
9 /5 /2 0 1 5
7 /1 4 /2 0 1 6
Page 1
Barium Total
Time-Series Graph of MW-13
Sample Date
C o n c e n t r a t i o n
(p p b )
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
7 /2 1 /2 0 1 0
5 /2 9 /2 0 1 1
4 /5 /2 0 1 2
2 /1 1 /2 0 1 3
1 2 /2 0 /2 0 1 3
1 0 /2 8 /2 0 1 4
9 /5 /2 0 1 5
7 /1 4 /2 0 1 6
Page 1
Cobalt Total
Time-Series Graph of MW-13
Sample Date
C o n c e n t r a t i o n
(p p b )
0
500
1000
1500
2000
1 /8 /2 0 0 9
2 /4 /2 0 1 0
3 /3 /2 0 1 1
3 /2 9 /2 0 1 2
4 /2 5 /2 0 1 3
5 /2 2 /2 0 1 4
6 /1 8 /2 0 1 5
7 /1 4 /2 0 1 6
Page 1
Nickel Total
Time-Series Graph of MW-13
Sample Date
C o n c e n t r a t i o n
(p p b )
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
7 /2 1 /2 0 1 0
1 /2 0 /2 0 1 1
7 /2 2 /2 0 1 1
1 /2 1 /2 0 1 2
7 /2 3 /2 0 1 2
1 /2 2 /2 0 1 3
7 /2 4 /2 0 1 3
1 /2 4 /2 0 1 4
Page 1
Thallium Total
Time-Series Graph of MW-13
Sample Date
C o n c e n t r a t i o n
(p p b )
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
7 /2 1 /2 0 1 0
5 /2 9 /2 0 1 1
4 /5 /2 0 1 2
2 /1 1 /2 0 1 3
1 2 /2 0 /2 0 1 3
1 0 /2 8 /2 0 1 4
9 /5 /2 0 1 5
7 /1 4 /2 0 1 6
Page 1
Zinc Total
Time-Series Graph of MW-13
Sample Date
C o n c e n t r a t i o n
(p p b )
0
50
100
150
200
7 /2 1 /2 0 1 0
5 /2 9 /2 0 1 1
4 /5 /2 0 1 2
2 /1 1 /2 0 1 3
1 2 /2 0 /2 0 1 3
1 0 /2 8 /2 0 1 4
9 /5 /2 0 1 5
7 /1 4 /2 0 1 6
Page 1
Barium Total
Time-Series Graph of MW-14
Sample Date
C o n c e n t r a t i o n
(p p b )
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
7 /2 0 /2 0 1 0
5 /2 8 /2 0 1 1
4 /4 /2 0 1 2
2 /1 0 /2 0 1 3
1 2 /2 0 /2 0 1 3
1 0 /2 8 /2 0 1 4
9 /5 /2 0 1 5
7 /1 4 /2 0 1 6
Page 1
1,2-Dichloropropane
Time-Series Graph of MW-15
Sample Date
C o n c e n t r a t i o n
(p p b )
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
1 /8 /2 0 0 9
2 /4 /2 0 1 0
3 /3 /2 0 1 1
3 /2 9 /2 0 1 2
4 /2 5 /2 0 1 3
5 /2 2 /2 0 1 4
6 /1 8 /2 0 1 5
7 /1 4 /2 0 1 6
Page 1
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene
Time-Series Graph of MW-15
Sample Date
C o n c e n t r a t i o n
(p p b )
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
1 /8 /2 0 0 9
2 /4 /2 0 1 0
3 /3 /2 0 1 1
3 /2 9 /2 0 1 2
4 /2 5 /2 0 1 3
5 /2 2 /2 0 1 4
6 /1 8 /2 0 1 5
7 /1 4 /2 0 1 6
Page 1
Barium Total
Time-Series Graph of MW-15
Sample Date
C o n c e n t r a t i o n
(p p b )
0
100
200
300
400
500
7 /2 1 /2 0 1 0
5 /2 9 /2 0 1 1
4 /5 /2 0 1 2
2 /1 1 /2 0 1 3
1 2 /2 0 /2 0 1 3
1 0 /2 8 /2 0 1 4
9 /5 /2 0 1 5
7 /1 4 /2 0 1 6
Page 1
Cobalt Total
Time-Series Graph of MW-15
Sample Date
C o n c e n t r a t i o n
(p p b )
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
1 /8 /2 0 0 9
2 /4 /2 0 1 0
3 /3 /2 0 1 1
3 /2 9 /2 0 1 2
4 /2 5 /2 0 1 3
5 /2 2 /2 0 1 4
6 /1 8 /2 0 1 5
7 /1 4 /2 0 1 6
Page 1
Vinyl chloride
Time-Series Graph of MW-15
Sample Date
C o n c e n t r a t i o n
(p p b )
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
1 /8 /2 0 0 9
2 /4 /2 0 1 0
3 /3 /2 0 1 1
3 /2 9 /2 0 1 2
4 /2 5 /2 0 1 3
5 /2 2 /2 0 1 4
6 /1 8 /2 0 1 5
7 /1 4 /2 0 1 6
Page 1
Arsenic Total
Time-Series Graph of MW-15
Sample Date
C o n c e n t r a t i o n
(p p b )
0
5
10
15
20
7 /2 1 /2 0 1 0
5 /2 9 /2 0 1 1
4 /5 /2 0 1 2
2 /1 1 /2 0 1 3
1 2 /2 0 /2 0 1 3
1 0 /2 8 /2 0 1 4
9 /5 /2 0 1 5
7 /1 4 /2 0 1 6
Page 1
Cobalt Total
Time-Series Graph of MW-16
Sample Date
C o n c e n t r a t i o n
(p p b )
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
1 /8 /2 0 0 9
2 /4 /2 0 1 0
3 /3 /2 0 1 1
3 /2 9 /2 0 1 2
4 /2 5 /2 0 1 3
5 /2 2 /2 0 1 4
6 /1 8 /2 0 1 5
7 /1 4 /2 0 1 6
Page 1
Barium Total
Time-Series Graph of MW-16
Sample Date
C o n c e n t r a t i o n
(p p b )
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
7 /2 0 /2 0 1 0
5 /2 8 /2 0 1 1
4 /4 /2 0 1 2
2 /1 0 /2 0 1 3
1 2 /2 0 /2 0 1 3
1 0 /2 8 /2 0 1 4
9 /5 /2 0 1 5
7 /1 4 /2 0 1 6

Appendix VI – Selected Geochemical/MNA Parameter Charts

0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
C h l o r i d e
i n
m g /l
Date
Chloride
MW-5
MW-12
MW-15
MW-16
Jan-2010 July-2010 Jan-2011 July-2011 July-2016
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
A l k a l i n i t y
i n
m g /l
Date
Alkalinity
MW-5
MW-12
MW-15
MW-16
Jan-2010 July-2010 Jan-2011 July-2011 July-2016
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
C O 2
i n
m g /l
Date
Carbon Dioxide
MW-5
MW-12
MW-15
MW-16
Jan-2010 July-2010 Jan-2011 July-2011 July-2016
-150
-100
-50
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
O R P
i n
M V
Date
Oxygen Reduction Potential (ORP)
MW-5
MW-12
MW-15
MW-16
Jan-2010 July-2010 Jan-2011 July-2011 July-2016
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
6.00
7.00
p H
Date
pH in Monitoring Wells
MW-5
MW-12
MW-15
MW-16
Jan-2010 July-2010 Jan-2011 July-2011 July-2016
0.00
5.00
10.00
15.00
20.00
25.00
T e m p e r a t u r e
i n
D e g r e e s
C
Date
Temperature
MW-5
MW-12
MW-15
MW-16
Jan-2010 July-2010 Jan-2011 July-2011 July-2016
0.000
0.200
0.400
0.600
0.800
1.000
1.200
1.400
C o n d u c t a n c e
i n
m S /c m
Date
Specific Conductance
MW-5
MW-12
MW-15
MW-16
Jan-2010 July-2010 Jan-2011 July-2011 July-2016
0.00
2.00
4.00
6.00
8.00
10.00
12.00
14.00
D O
i n
m g /l
Date
Dissolved Oxygen (DO)
MW-5
MW-12
MW-15
MW-16
Jan-2010 July-2010 Jan-2011 July-2011 July-2016

Appendix VII – BIOCHLOR Model Inputs and Results

BIOCHLOR Natural Attenuation Decision Support System Edgecombe County Data Input Instructions:
Version 2.2 MW-5 115 1. Enter value directly....or
Excel 2000 Run Name 2. Calculate by filling in gray
TYPE OF CHLORINATED SOLVENT:Ethenes 5. GENERAL 0.02 cells. Press Enter, then
Ethanes Simulation Time* 5 (yr)(To restore formulas, hit "Restore Formulas" button )
1. ADVECTION Modeled Area Width*200 (ft)Variable* Data used directly in model.
Seepage Velocity*Vs 7.8 (ft/yr)Modeled Area Length*200 (ft)Test if
or Zone 1 Length*200 (ft)Biotransformation
Hydraulic Conductivity K 6.0E-05 (cm/sec)Zone 2 Length*0 (ft)is Occurring
Hydraulic Gradient i 0.019 (ft/ft)
Effective Porosity n 0.15 (-)6. SOURCE DATA TYPE: Continuous
2. DISPERSION Single Planar
Alpha x* 20 (ft)
(Alpha y) / (Alpha x)*2 (-) Source Thickness in Sat. Zone*15 (ft)
(Alpha z) / (Alpha x)*1.E-99 (-)Y1
3. ADSORPTION Width* (ft)2,000Retardation Factor*R ks*
or Conc. (mg/L)*C1 (1/yr)
Soil Bulk Density, rho (kg/L)PCE 0
FractionOrganicCarbon, foc (-)TCE 0 View of Plume Looking Down
Partition Coefficient Koc DCE .2 0
PCE (L/kg)(-)VC .018 0 Observed Centerline Conc. at Monitoring Wells
TCE (L/kg)(-)ETH 0
DCE (L/kg)(-)
VC (L/kg)(-)7. FIELD DATA FOR COMPARISON
ETH (L/kg)(-)PCE Conc. (mg/L)
Common R (used in model)* =1.96 TCE Conc. (mg/L)
4. BIOTRANSFORMATION -1st Order Decay Coefficient* DCE Conc. (mg/L).2
Zone 1 l (1/yr)half-life (yrs)Yield VC Conc. (mg/L)0.018
PCE TCE 0.000 0.79 ETH Conc. (mg/L)
TCE DCE 0.000 0.74 Distance from Source (ft)50
DCE VC 1.200 0.64 Date Data Collected
VC ETH 2.700 0.45 8. CHOOSE TYPE OF OUTPUT TO SEE:
Zone 2 l (1/yr)half-life (yrs)
PCE TCE 0.000
TCE DCE 0.000
DCE VC 0.000
VC ETH 0.000
Vertical Plane Source: Determine Source Well
Location and Input Solvent Concentrations
Paste
Restore
RUN CENTERLINE Help
Natural Attenuation
L
W
or
RUN ARRAY
Zone 2=
C
RESET
Source Options
SEE OUTPUT
l
HELP
Calc.
Start Here PCE
DISSOLVED SOLVENT CONCENTRATIONS IN PLUME TCE
Transverse DCE
Distance (ft)Distance from Source (ft) VC
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 ETH
80 0.200 0.142 0.073 0.025 0.005 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
40 0.200 0.142 0.073 0.025 0.005 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
0 0.200 0.142 0.073 0.025 0.005 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
-40 0.200 0.142 0.073 0.025 0.005 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
-80 0.200 0.142 0.073 0.025 0.005 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.00098.500
MASS 5.4E+2 3.9E+1 2.0E+1 6.7E+0 1.5E+0 2.1E-1 1.8E-2 9.9E-4 3.3E-5 6.8E-7 8.5E-9
RATE Displayed Compound
(mg/day)Time:5 yr Target Level: 0.070 mg/L Displayed Model: No Degradation DCE
Plume Mass (Order-of-Magnitude Accuracy)

Plume Mass If No Degradation 0.2 (Kg)

- Plume Mass If Biotransformation/Production 0.1 (Kg)

Mass Removed 0.1 (Kg)
% Biotransformed =+51.2%
% Change in Mass Rate = 100.0 %
Current Volume of Ground Water in Plume 0.34 MGal
Flow Rate of Water Through Source Area 0.001 MGD

Pumping Rate (gpm)
# Pore Volumes Removed Per Yr.0.00
# Pore Volumes to Clean-Up
Clean-Up Time (yr)
Return to InputPlot All Data Plot Data > Target Mass HELP
See
Gallons
Show No
Degradation
Show
Biotransformation
To Centerline
If "Can't Calc.",
make model area longer
80
0.000001
-80
0.00
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.10
0.12
0.14
0.16
0.18
0.20
0
20
40
60
80
10
0
12
0
14
0
16
0
18
0
20
0
ft.
Co
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n

(
m
g
/
L
)
Distance from Source (ft.)
Compare to Pump and Treat
(source to edge)
See
acre-ft
Start Here PCE
DISSOLVED SOLVENT CONCENTRATIONS IN PLUME TCE
Transverse DCE
Distance (ft)Distance from Source (ft) VC
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 ETH
80 0.200 0.053 0.013 0.003 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
40 0.200 0.053 0.013 0.003 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
0 0.200 0.053 0.013 0.003 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
-40 0.200 0.053 0.013 0.003 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
-80 0.200 0.053 0.013 0.003 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.00098.500
MASS 5.4E+2 1.4E+1 3.6E+0 7.6E-1 1.3E-1 1.5E-2 1.2E-3 5.8E-5 1.7E-6 2.5E-8 3.0E-10
RATE Displayed Compound
(mg/day)Time:5 yr Target Level: 0.070 mg/L Displayed Model: Biotransformation DCE
Plume Mass (Order-of-Magnitude Accuracy)

Plume Mass If No Degradation 0.2 (Kg)

- Plume Mass If Biotransformation/Production 0.1 (Kg)

Mass Removed 0.1 (Kg)
% Biotransformed =+51.2%
% Change in Mass Rate = 100.0 %
Current Volume of Ground Water in Plume 0.20 MGal
Flow Rate of Water Through Source Area 0.001 MGD

Pumping Rate (gpm)
# Pore Volumes Removed Per Yr.0.00
# Pore Volumes to Clean-Up
Clean-Up Time (yr)
Return to InputPlot All Data Plot Data > Target Mass HELP
See
Gallons
Show No
Degradation
Show
Biotransformation
To Centerline
If "Can't Calc.",
make model area longer
80
0.000001
-80
0.00
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.10
0.12
0.14
0.16
0.18
0.20
0
20
40
60
80
10
0
12
0
14
0
16
0
18
0
20
0
ft.
Co
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n

(
m
g
/
L
)
Distance from Source (ft.)
Compare to Pump and Treat
(source to edge)
See
acre-ft
Start Here PCE
DISSOLVED SOLVENT CONCENTRATIONS IN PLUME TCE
Transverse DCE
Distance (ft)Distance from Source (ft) VC
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 ETH
80 0.018 0.013 0.007 0.002 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
40 0.018 0.013 0.007 0.002 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
0 0.018 0.013 0.007 0.002 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
-40 0.018 0.013 0.007 0.002 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
-80 0.018 0.013 0.007 0.002 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.00098.500
MASS 4.9E+1 3.5E+0 1.8E+0 6.1E-1 1.3E-1 1.9E-2 1.6E-3 8.9E-5 3.0E-6 6.1E-8 7.7E-10
RATE Displayed Compound
(mg/day)Time:5 yr Target Level: 0.002 mg/L Displayed Model: No Degradation VC
Plume Mass (Order-of-Magnitude Accuracy)

Plume Mass If No Degradation 0.0 (Kg)

- Plume Mass If Biotransformation/Production 0.0 (Kg)

Mass Removed 0.0 (Kg)
% Biotransformed =-8.4 %
% Change in Mass Rate = 100.0 %
Current Volume of Ground Water in Plume 0.20 MGal
Flow Rate of Water Through Source Area 0.001 MGD

Pumping Rate (gpm)
# Pore Volumes Removed Per Yr.0.00
# Pore Volumes to Clean-Up
Clean-Up Time (yr)
Return to InputPlot All Data Plot Data > Target Mass HELP
See
Gallons
Show No
Degradation
Show
Biotransformation
To Centerline
If "Can't Calc.",
make model area longer
80
0.000001
-80
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.02
0.02
0
20
40
60
80
10
0
12
0
14
0
16
0
18
0
20
0
ft.
Co
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n

(
m
g
/
L
)
Distance from Source (ft.)
Compare to Pump and Treat
(source to edge)
See
acre-ft
Start Here PCE
DISSOLVED SOLVENT CONCENTRATIONS IN PLUME TCE
Transverse DCE
Distance (ft)Distance from Source (ft) VC
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 ETH
80 0.018 0.017 0.006 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
40 0.018 0.017 0.006 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
0 0.018 0.017 0.006 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
-40 0.018 0.017 0.006 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
-80 0.018 0.017 0.006 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.00098.500
MASS 4.9E+1 4.8E+0 1.5E+0 3.6E-1 6.2E-2 7.4E-3 5.8E-4 3.0E-5 8.5E-7 1.3E-8 1.5E-10
RATE Displayed Compound
(mg/day)Time:5 yr Target Level: 0.002 mg/L Displayed Model: Biotransformation VC
Plume Mass (Order-of-Magnitude Accuracy)

Plume Mass If No Degradation 0.0 (Kg)

- Plume Mass If Biotransformation/Production 0.0 (Kg)

Mass Removed 0.0 (Kg)
% Biotransformed =-8.4 %
% Change in Mass Rate = 100.0 %
Current Volume of Ground Water in Plume 0.20 MGal
Flow Rate of Water Through Source Area 0.001 MGD

Pumping Rate (gpm)
# Pore Volumes Removed Per Yr.0.00
# Pore Volumes to Clean-Up
Clean-Up Time (yr)
Return to InputPlot All Data Plot Data > Target Mass HELP
See
Gallons
Show No
Degradation
Show
Biotransformation
To Centerline
If "Can't Calc.",
make model area longer
80
0.000001
-80
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.02
0.02
0.02
0
20
40
60
80
10
0
12
0
14
0
16
0
18
0
20
0
ft.
Co
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n

(
m
g
/
L
)
Distance from Source (ft.)
Compare to Pump and Treat
(source to edge)
See
acre-ft
BIOCHLOR Natural Attenuation Decision Support System Edgecombe County Data Input Instructions:
Version 2.2 MW-5 115 1. Enter value directly....or
Excel 2000 Run Name 2. Calculate by filling in gray
TYPE OF CHLORINATED SOLVENT:Ethenes 5. GENERAL 0.02 cells. Press Enter, then
Ethanes Simulation Time* 15 (yr)(To restore formulas, hit "Restore Formulas" button )
1. ADVECTION Modeled Area Width*200 (ft)Variable* Data used directly in model.
Seepage Velocity*Vs 7.8 (ft/yr)Modeled Area Length*200 (ft)Test if
or Zone 1 Length*200 (ft)Biotransformation
Hydraulic Conductivity K 6.0E-05 (cm/sec)Zone 2 Length*0 (ft)is Occurring
Hydraulic Gradient i 0.019 (ft/ft)
Effective Porosity n 0.15 (-)6. SOURCE DATA TYPE: Continuous
2. DISPERSION Single Planar
Alpha x* 20 (ft)
(Alpha y) / (Alpha x)*2 (-) Source Thickness in Sat. Zone*15 (ft)
(Alpha z) / (Alpha x)*1.E-99 (-)Y1
3. ADSORPTION Width* (ft)2,000Retardation Factor*R ks*
or Conc. (mg/L)*C1 (1/yr)
Soil Bulk Density, rho (kg/L)PCE 0
FractionOrganicCarbon, foc (-)TCE 0 View of Plume Looking Down
Partition Coefficient Koc DCE .2 0
PCE (L/kg)(-)VC .018 0 Observed Centerline Conc. at Monitoring Wells
TCE (L/kg)(-)ETH 0
DCE (L/kg)(-)
VC (L/kg)(-)7. FIELD DATA FOR COMPARISON
ETH (L/kg)(-)PCE Conc. (mg/L)
Common R (used in model)* =1.96 TCE Conc. (mg/L)
4. BIOTRANSFORMATION -1st Order Decay Coefficient* DCE Conc. (mg/L).2
Zone 1 l (1/yr)half-life (yrs)Yield VC Conc. (mg/L)0.018
PCE TCE 0.000 0.79 ETH Conc. (mg/L)
TCE DCE 0.000 0.74 Distance from Source (ft)50
DCE VC 1.200 0.64 Date Data Collected
VC ETH 2.700 0.45 8. CHOOSE TYPE OF OUTPUT TO SEE:
Zone 2 l (1/yr)half-life (yrs)
PCE TCE 0.000
TCE DCE 0.000
DCE VC 0.000
VC ETH 0.000
Vertical Plane Source: Determine Source Well
Location and Input Solvent Concentrations
Paste
Restore
RUN CENTERLINE Help
Natural Attenuation
L
W
or
RUN ARRAY
Zone 2=
C
RESET
Source Options
SEE OUTPUT
l
HELP
Calc.
Start Here PCE
DISSOLVED SOLVENT CONCENTRATIONS IN PLUME TCE
Transverse DCE
Distance (ft)Distance from Source (ft) VC
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 ETH
80 0.200 0.186 0.162 0.128 0.091 0.057 0.031 0.015 0.006 0.002 0.001
40 0.200 0.186 0.162 0.128 0.091 0.057 0.031 0.015 0.006 0.002 0.001
0 0.200 0.186 0.162 0.128 0.091 0.057 0.031 0.015 0.006 0.002 0.001
-40 0.200 0.186 0.162 0.128 0.091 0.057 0.031 0.015 0.006 0.002 0.001
-80 0.200 0.186 0.162 0.128 0.091 0.057 0.031 0.015 0.006 0.002 0.00198.500
MASS 5.4E+2 5.1E+1 4.4E+1 3.5E+1 2.5E+1 1.6E+1 8.5E+0 4.0E+0 1.7E+0 5.8E-1 1.7E-1
RATE Displayed Compound
(mg/day)Time:15 yr Target Level: 0.070 mg/L Displayed Model: No Degradation DCE
Plume Mass (Order-of-Magnitude Accuracy)

Plume Mass If No Degradation 0.4 (Kg)

- Plume Mass If Biotransformation/Production 0.1 (Kg)

Mass Removed 0.3 (Kg)
% Biotransformed =+77.9%
% Change in Mass Rate = 100.0 %
Current Volume of Ground Water in Plume 0.61 MGal
Flow Rate of Water Through Source Area 0.001 MGD

Pumping Rate (gpm)
# Pore Volumes Removed Per Yr.0.00
# Pore Volumes to Clean-Up
Clean-Up Time (yr)
Return to InputPlot All Data Plot Data > Target Mass HELP
See
Gallons
Show No
Degradation
Show
Biotransformation
To Centerline
If "Can't Calc.",
make model area longer
80
0.000001
-80
0.00
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.10
0.12
0.14
0.16
0.18
0.20
0
20
40
60
80
10
0
12
0
14
0
16
0
18
0
20
0
ft.
Co
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n

(
m
g
/
L
)
Distance from Source (ft.)
Compare to Pump and Treat
(source to edge)
See
acre-ft
Start Here PCE
DISSOLVED SOLVENT CONCENTRATIONS IN PLUME TCE
Transverse DCE
Distance (ft)Distance from Source (ft) VC
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 ETH
80 0.200 0.053 0.014 0.004 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
40 0.200 0.053 0.014 0.004 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
0 0.200 0.053 0.014 0.004 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
-40 0.200 0.053 0.014 0.004 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
-80 0.200 0.053 0.014 0.004 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.00098.500
MASS 5.4E+2 1.4E+1 3.9E+0 1.0E+0 2.7E-1 7.2E-2 1.9E-2 4.9E-3 1.2E-3 3.0E-4 6.2E-5
RATE Displayed Compound
(mg/day)Time:15 yr Target Level: 0.070 mg/L Displayed Model: Biotransformation DCE
Plume Mass (Order-of-Magnitude Accuracy)

Plume Mass If No Degradation 0.4 (Kg)

- Plume Mass If Biotransformation/Production 0.1 (Kg)

Mass Removed 0.3 (Kg)
% Biotransformed =+77.9%
% Change in Mass Rate = 100.0 %
Current Volume of Ground Water in Plume 0.20 MGal
Flow Rate of Water Through Source Area 0.001 MGD

Pumping Rate (gpm)
# Pore Volumes Removed Per Yr.0.00
# Pore Volumes to Clean-Up
Clean-Up Time (yr)
Return to InputPlot All Data Plot Data > Target Mass HELP
See
Gallons
Show No
Degradation
Show
Biotransformation
To Centerline
If "Can't Calc.",
make model area longer
80
0.000001
-80
0.00
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.10
0.12
0.14
0.16
0.18
0.20
0
20
40
60
80
10
0
12
0
14
0
16
0
18
0
20
0
ft.
Co
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n

(
m
g
/
L
)
Distance from Source (ft.)
Compare to Pump and Treat
(source to edge)
See
acre-ft
Start Here PCE
DISSOLVED SOLVENT CONCENTRATIONS IN PLUME TCE
Transverse DCE
Distance (ft)Distance from Source (ft) VC
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 ETH
80 0.018 0.018 0.006 0.002 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
40 0.018 0.018 0.006 0.002 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
0 0.018 0.018 0.006 0.002 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
-40 0.018 0.018 0.006 0.002 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
-80 0.018 0.018 0.006 0.002 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.00098.500
MASS 4.9E+1 4.8E+0 1.7E+0 4.9E-1 1.4E-1 3.7E-2 9.7E-3 2.5E-3 6.4E-4 1.5E-4 3.2E-5
RATE Displayed Compound
(mg/day)Time:15 yr Target Level: 0.002 mg/L Displayed Model: Biotransformation VC
Plume Mass (Order-of-Magnitude Accuracy)

Plume Mass If No Degradation 0.0 (Kg)

- Plume Mass If Biotransformation/Production 0.0 (Kg)

Mass Removed 0.0 (Kg)
% Biotransformed =+49.3%
% Change in Mass Rate = 100.0 %
Current Volume of Ground Water in Plume 0.20 MGal
Flow Rate of Water Through Source Area 0.001 MGD

Pumping Rate (gpm)
# Pore Volumes Removed Per Yr.0.00
# Pore Volumes to Clean-Up
Clean-Up Time (yr)
Return to InputPlot All Data Plot Data > Target Mass HELP
See
Gallons
Show No
Degradation
Show
Biotransformation
To Centerline
If "Can't Calc.",
make model area longer
80
0.000001
-80
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.02
0.02
0.02
0
20
40
60
80
10
0
12
0
14
0
16
0
18
0
20
0
ft.
Co
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n

(
m
g
/
L
)
Distance from Source (ft.)
Compare to Pump and Treat
(source to edge)
See
acre-ft
Start Here PCE
DISSOLVED SOLVENT CONCENTRATIONS IN PLUME TCE
Transverse DCE
Distance (ft)Distance from Source (ft) VC
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 ETH
80 0.018 0.017 0.015 0.012 0.008 0.005 0.003 0.001 0.001 0.000 0.000
40 0.018 0.017 0.015 0.012 0.008 0.005 0.003 0.001 0.001 0.000 0.000
0 0.018 0.017 0.015 0.012 0.008 0.005 0.003 0.001 0.001 0.000 0.000
-40 0.018 0.017 0.015 0.012 0.008 0.005 0.003 0.001 0.001 0.000 0.000
-80 0.018 0.017 0.015 0.012 0.008 0.005 0.003 0.001 0.001 0.000 0.00098.500
MASS 4.9E+1 4.6E+0 4.0E+0 3.1E+0 2.2E+0 1.4E+0 7.6E-1 3.6E-1 1.5E-1 5.2E-2 1.6E-2
RATE Displayed Compound
(mg/day)Time:15 yr Target Level: 0.002 mg/L Displayed Model: No Degradation VC
Plume Mass (Order-of-Magnitude Accuracy)

Plume Mass If No Degradation 0.0 (Kg)

- Plume Mass If Biotransformation/Production 0.0 (Kg)

Mass Removed 0.0 (Kg)
% Biotransformed =+49.3%
% Change in Mass Rate = 100.0 %
Current Volume of Ground Water in Plume 0.40 MGal
Flow Rate of Water Through Source Area 0.001 MGD

Pumping Rate (gpm)
# Pore Volumes Removed Per Yr.0.00
# Pore Volumes to Clean-Up
Clean-Up Time (yr)
Return to InputPlot All Data Plot Data > Target Mass HELP
See
Gallons
Show No
Degradation
Show
Biotransformation
To Centerline
If "Can't Calc.",
make model area longer
80
0.000001
-80
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.02
0.02
0
20
40
60
80
10
0
12
0
14
0
16
0
18
0
20
0
ft.
Co
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n

(
m
g
/
L
)
Distance from Source (ft.)
Compare to Pump and Treat
(source to edge)
See
acre-ft