Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
SDMS DocID 236668
. . , „ . . BI02837D
DRAFT DATA EVALUATION
ADDENDUM 2
REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION/FEASIBILITY STUDY
NUTMEG VALLEY ROAD SITE WOLCOTT, CONNECTICUT
RESPONSE ACTION CONTRACT (RAC), REGION I
For U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
By Tetra Tech NUS, Inc.
EPA Contract No. 68-W6-0045 EPA Work Assignment No. 107-RICO-0198
TtNUS Project No. GN4131
July 2005
TETRA TECH NUS, INC.
RI02837D
DRAFT DATA EVALUATION
ADDENDUM 2
REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION/FEASIBILITY STUDY
NUTMEG VALLEY ROAD SITE WOLCOTT, CONNECTICUT
RESPONSE ACTION CONTRACT (RAC), REGION I
For U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
By Tetra Tech NUS, Inc.
EPA Contract No. 68-W6-0045 EPA Work Assignment No. 107-RICO-0198
TtNUS Project No. GN4131
July 2005
Deborah A. Chisholm / George D. Gardner, P.E. Project Manager Program Manager
DRAFT
TABLE OF CONTENTS DRAFT DATA EVALUATION ADDENDUM 2
REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION/FEASIBILITY STUDY NUTMEG VALLEY ROAD SITE
WOLCOTT, CONNECTICUT
SECTION
1.0 INTRODUCTION.
2.0 DATA EVALUATION 2 2.1 Groundwater Analytical Data - Round 4 Results 4
2.1.1 Cross-gradient Groundwater Analytical Results 4 2.1.2 Upgradient Groundwater Analytical Results 5 2.1.3 Study Area Groundwater Analytical Results
Monitoring Wells 5 2.1.4 Study Area Groundwater Analytical Results
Supply Wells 10
3.0 HUMAN HEALTH RISK REVIEW 10 3.1 Additional Contaminants of Potential Concern 10 3.2 Thallium 11 3.3 Manganese 12
4.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 12
TABLES
NUMBER
1 -1 Groundwater Sampling and Analysis Summary - May and June 2005 1-2 Monitoring Wells Sampled at Nutmeg Valley Road Superfund Site 2-1 Summary of Results and Statistics - May and June 2005 2-2 Cross Gradient Analytical Results 2-3 Upgradient Analytical Results 2-4 Study Area Analytical Results
FIGURE
NUMBER
1 Wells Sampled - May and June 2005
RI02837D -i- Tetra Tech NUS, Inc.
1.0
DRAFT
INTRODUCTION
At the request of the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Tetra Tech NUS, Inc.
(TtNUS) prepared this Data Evaluation Addendum, which presents groundwater analytical
results from the most recent field investigation performed at the Nutmeg Valley Road Site,
located in Wolcott, Connecticut. This work was performed under Contract No. 68-W6-0045,
Work Assignment No. 107-RICO-0198.
The May - June, 2005 groundwater sampling represented the fourth round of monitoring
performed by TtNUS in support of the site on-going Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study
(RI/FS). Round 4 consisted of collecting groundwater samples from previously existing U.S.
Geological Survey (USGS) monitoring wells, and EPA monitoring wells within the investigation
area. The sampling was performed from May 24 through June 2, 2005. Field sampling
activities were conducted in accordance with the procedures detailed in the Quality Assurance
Project Plan (QAPP), Revision 1 (TtNUS, September 2000), QAPP Addendum 1 (TtNUS, July
2002) and QAPP Addendum 2 (TtNUS, May 2005). Sample analyses were performed by
Contract Laboratory Program (CLP) laboratories assigned by the EPA.
Previous groundwater sampling events were performed by TtNUS in January 2001 (Round 1),
June 2001 (Round 2), and July 2002 (Round 3). The compiled information was used to assess
the nature and extent of the site groundwater contamination, assess potential contaminant
migration pathways, and provide information to support the baseline human health and
ecological risk assessments. The data from Rounds 1 and 2 were summarized in the Draft
Data Evaluation report (TtNUS, February 2002). The data from Round 3 were summarized in
the Draft Data Evaluation Addendum report (TtNUS, December 2002). This Draft Data
Evaluation Addendum 2 report summarizes the data collected in the Round 4 sampling.
The objective of the Round 4 sampling event was to conduct additional sampling and analysis
of groundwater to assess whether data support the site being delisted.
The purpose of this Data Evaluation Addendum is to present the Round 4 analytical results,
compare the results to results from previous rounds, and discuss the implication of these
results on risk. Section 1 summarizes the sampling and analysis procedures implemented for
Round 4. Section 2 presents and compares the analytical results to federal and state
RI02837D -1- Tetra Tech NUS, Inc.
DRAFT
regulatory criteria and discusses whether the Round 4 data confirm interpretations and
evaluations of the Data Evaluation report and the Data Evaluation Addendum from December,
2002. Section 3 discusses the implications of the Round 4 analytical results on the baseline
risk assessment. Section 4 presents the Summary and Conclusions.
The fourth round of groundwater sampling was conducted by TtNUS from May 24 through
June 2, 2005. Sample collection, handling, preservation, and shipping were conducted in
accordance with the QAPP, Revision 1 (TtNUS, September 2000), and QAPP Addendum 2
(TtNUS, May 2005), which provided detailed procedures for previous periodic sampling events
(Round 1, Round 2 and Round 3). Table 1-1 presents a list of all wells sampled during Round 4
and the analyses performed. The locations of these wells are shown on Figure 1. Table 1-2
indicates the wells sampled during each of the four rounds of sampling.
Prior to the initiation of groundwater sampling, all monitoring wells were inspected to assess
whether there were any conditions that could compromise the sampling and to verify whether
each well contained sufficient water for sampling. A single round of synoptic water level
measurements was performed prior to purging and sampling the monitoring wells within the
study area. All proposed monitoring wells, with the exception of USGS well number WC-110,
the EPA well numbers MW3B and MW3S, and the commercial supply wells located at 1 and 15
Nutmeg Valley Road, were successfully purged and sampled. As in Round 3, WC-110 could
not be located. EPA well numbers MW3B and MW3S have been destroyed and are
inaccessible for sampling. The commercial wells located at 1 and 15 Nutmeg Valley Road are
no longer being used. These locations are now using the public water supply.
Samples were sent to CLP-assigned laboratories for analysis of low-concentration volatile
organic compounds (VOCs), semi-volatile organic compounds (SVOCs), pesticide/PCBs,
metals and cyanide.
DATA EVALUATION
This Section 2 of the Data Evaluation Addendum provides an assessment of the May and June
2005 Round 4 groundwater monitoring results, compares the results to available screening
benchmarks, and discusses whether the Round 4 data confirm interpretations and evaluations
of the Draft Data Evaluation Report (TtNUS, February 2002), and the Draft Data Evaluation
RI02837D -2- Tetra Tech NUS, Inc.
2.0
DRAFT
Addendum (TtNUS, December, 2002), as they relate to the Rounds 1, 2, and 3 groundwater
sampling results.
Table 2-1 presents a summary of results from Round 4 and a comparison to federal Maximum
Contaminant Levels (MCLs) or 2000 EPA Region IX Preliminary Remediation Goals (PRGs).
The primary benchmarks for comparison are MCLs. If an MCL is not available for a particular
contaminant, the PRO is used. The Region IX PRGs for non-carcinogens have been adjusted
to correspond to a hazard index (HI) of 0.1, rather than an HI of 1.0. The term benchmark
criteria will be used in this document in reference to either the MCL or the Region IX PRG, as
applicable for each contaminant.
Tables 2-2, 2-3, and 2-4 present analytical results of each sample from all four rounds, and
available screening benchmarks for comparison purposes for cross-gradient, upgradient, and
study area wells, respectively. The benchmarks include MCLs, PRGs, Connecticut
Groundwater Protection Criteria for GA aquifers (CTGAGPs), and Connecticut Surface Water
Protection Criteria (SWPs).
Differences in quantitation limits observed over the course of groundwater sampling can be
explained by updates in the analytical methods. The analytical method used to analyze for low
concentration VOC during groundwater sampling Rounds 1 and 2 was OLC02.1. The required
quantitation limits for this method are 1 ppb and 5 ppb. The method used to analyze for low
concentration VOC during groundwater sample Rounds 3 and 4 was the updated method
OLC03.2 which has contract required quantitation limits (CRQL) of 0.5 ppb and 5 ppb. The
analytical method used to analyze for metals during groundwater sampling Rounds 1, 2, and 3
was ILM04.3. This method required non-detected results to be reported down to the instrument
detection limit (IDL). According to the ILM05.3 statement of work, the analytical method used
for groundwater samples during Round 4, non-detected results (values below the method
detection limit (MDL)) are reported by the laboratory at the CRQL with a "U" qualifier. The
CRQL is an order of magnitude above the IDL or MDL. Some of the screening benchmarks for
methods at this site are below the CRQL values. In order to meet the screening benchmarks,
the non-detected results for Round 4 are reported down to the MDL value. The non-detected
results are qualified in the tables as the MDL value with a UJ qualifier to reflect uncertainty at
lower reporting limits.
RI02837O ~3~ Tetra Tech NUS, Inc.
DRAFT
2.1 Groundwater Analytical Data - Round 4 Results
As stated in Section 1, the Round 4 groundwater samples were collected for analysis of low
concentration VOCs, low concentration SVOCs, low concentration pesticide/PCBs, unfiltered
metals, cyanide, and filtered metals only for those samples where turbidity measurements
exceeded 20 NTUs after purging. The results are summarized in subsections below, according
to area (cross-gradient, upgradient, and study area).
2.1.1 Cross-gradient Groundwater Analytical Results
Following the evaluation of data from Rounds 1 and 2 and the Draft Data Evaluation Report,
eight additional "cross-gradient" overburden wells were added to the sampling program for
Round 3 to provide additional regional groundwater quality data, with respect to metals
concentrations, to compare to the "study area" groundwater metals concentrations. The wells
were selected by EPA and the U.S Geological Survey, and are located southeast of the study
area, across Old Tannery Brook and associated wetlands, in areas not impacted by study area
sources under investigation (Figure 1). The cross-gradient wells were sampled during the
Round 3 and again during the Round 4 event. The samples collected during the Round 3 and
Round 4 events were analyzed for metals and cyanide. The samples collected during Round 3
were also analyzed for low concentration thallium by ICP-MS.
Table 2-2 shows that in one or more of the cross-gradient wells, six metals (aluminum,
antimony, iron, lead, manganese, and thallium), were detected at levels exceeding benchmark
criteria. Antimony was detected for the first time in Round 4 in Well WC84. It was not detected
in any other location and was not detected in the corresponding filtered metals sample.
Thallium was detected in well WC86, but no filtered metals sample was collected. Thallium was
also detected in well WC84, but was not detected in the corresponding filtered metals sample.
Aluminum, iron, manganese, and thallium in one well, exceeded the benchmark criteria in the
unfiltered metals sample but not in the corresponding filtered metals sample. Aluminum, iron,
lead, and manganese concentrations in one unfiltered sample exceeded the benchmark
criterion, but not in the corresponding filtered sample. Cyanide was not detected in any of the
cross-gradient wells.
RI02837D -4- Tetra Tech NUS, Inc.
DRAFT
2.1.2 Upgradient Groundwater Analytical Results
The upgradient wells sampled during Round 4 (MW-1S and MW-1B) were analyzed for VOCs,
SVOCs, pesticides, PCBs, metals, and cyanide. Results are presented in Table 2-3. These
wells were also sampled during Rounds 1, 2, and 3.
A review of Round 4 results from the upgradient monitoring well locations MW1S and MW1B
indicated that, with the exception of a trace detection of five VOCs (1,1-dichloroethene (0.1
ug/l), 1,4-dichlorobenzene (0.12 pg/l), dichlorodifluoromethane (0.3 ug/l), tetrachloroethene
(0.18 pg/l), and trichlorofluoromethane (0.2 ug/l) at MW1S), only metals were detected. Of
those detected metals only manganese was present at levels exceeding benchmark criteria,
however, only in an unfiltered sample. As in Rounds 1, 2, and 3, neither thallium nor cyanide
was detected in the two upgradient wells.
As summarized in the Draft Data Evaluation, the analytical results from Rounds 1, 2, and 3 for
these upgradient wells also indicated only the presence of metals, with benchmark criteria
exceeded for aluminum, chromium, iron, manganese, and nickel. Only the manganese criterion
was exceeded during Round 4.
2.1.3 Study Area Groundwater Analytical Results - Monitoring Wells
The study area wells sampled during Round 4, listed on Table 1-1, were analyzed for VOCs,
SVOCs, pesticides, PCBs, and metals. These wells were also sampled during Rounds 1, 2,
and 3 (see Table 1-2).
A discussion of the analytical results for the Round 4 groundwater sampling of monitoring wells
located in the study area is presented below according to analysis group. A summary of results
for previous sampling rounds is provided for comparison purposes in Table 2-4.
VOCs
The analytical results for the Round 4 sampling event indicate the detection of three VOCs at
low levels, at or near instrument detection limits. No VOCs were detected at levels exceeding
RW2837D -5- Tetra Tech NUS, Inc.
DRAFT
benchmark criteria. The VOCs detected at low levels during the Round 4 event include cis-1,2
dichloroethene, methyl tert-butyl ether (MTBE), trichloroethene, and tetrachloroethene.
As summarized in the Draft Data Evaluation, and the Draft Data Evaluation Addendum the
analytical results for Rounds 1, 2, and 3 also indicated a few incidences of positive detects of
VOCs at low levels, at or near instrument detection limits, with no exceedances of benchmark
criteria. The detected VOCs in Rounds 1, 2, and 3 were MTBE, bromomethane, 1,1
dichloroethene, 1,1,1-trichloroethane, carbon disulfide, chloroform, cis-1,2-dichloroethene,
trichloroethene, and tetrachloroethene. Samples from all four rounds were analyzed for low
concentration VOCs; however, the sample quantitation limits for many of the compounds are
lower for the Rounds 3 and 4 events than for Rounds 1 and 2.
As stated in the Draft Data Evaluation and in the Draft Data Evaluation Addendum and based
on the four rounds of sampling results, the low levels of VOCs present do not a'ppear to
significantly impact the site's groundwater quality.
SVOCs
No SVOCs were detected in study area monitoring wells during the Round 4 sampling event.
The Draft Data Evaluation for Rounds 1, 2, and 3 also states that no SVOCs were detected in
study area monitoring wells. However, upon further review of the data, it is noted that phenol
was detected (1 J ug/l) below the required quantitation limit, in one well (WC95) during
Round 1.
Pesticides/PCBs
The analytical results for the Round 4 sampling event indicate the detection of three pesticides
at low levels, at or near instrument detection limits. No pesticides were detected at levels
exceeding benchmark criteria. The pesticides detected at low levels during the Round 4 event
include 4,4'-DDT, endrin ketone, and beta-BHC.
During the Round 3 sampling event, dieldrin was detected in well WC91 at a concentration of
0.0104 ug/L. This value exceeds the benchmark criterion of 0.0042 ug/L. The only other
pesticide detection in groundwater was, as stated in the Draft Data Evaluation report, during the
RI02837D -6- Tetra Tech NUS, Inc.
DRAFT
Round 2 sampling event where beta-BHC was reported in well MW-3S at 0.12 ug/L, exceeding
the benchmark criterion of 0.037 ug/L. These isolated detections of two pesticide compounds
do not appear to significantly impact the groundwater quality at the site. PCBs were not
detected during Round 4, nor were they detected during Rounds 1, 2, and 3.
As stated in the Draft Data Evaluation and in the Draft Data Evaluation Addendum and based
on the four rounds of sampling results, the isolated detection of two pesticides in Rounds 1,2,
and 3 and the low levels of pesticides detected in Round 4 do not appear to significantly impact
the site's groundwater quality.
Metals and Cyanide
As in the Rounds 1, 2, and 3 sampling events, a broad range of elevated levels of metals were
detected in Round 4 groundwater samples collected from monitoring wells within the study
area. Exceedances of benchmark criteria were again noted for iron and manganese during the
Round 4 event. Two Round 4 samples (from wells WC91 and WC93) also exceeded the
benchmark criterion for aluminum; however, aluminum was not detected in the filtered samples
from those wells. As in Round 3, vanadium was detected in well WC93 at a concentration
exceeding the benchmark criteria, but was not detected in the filtered sample.
Analytical results from the Round 4 groundwater samples indicated that low concentrations of
cyanide continue to be detected at the same seven study area wells that had detections during
Rounds 1, 2, and 3 (MW2S, MW2B, MW3S, WC91, WC92, WC93, and WC95). Low level
concentrations of cyanide were detected for the first time in study area well MW2D. Cyanide
concentrations did not exceed the benchmark criterion of 200 ug/L during any round. The
CTDEP surface water protection criterion for cyanide of 52 ug/L, which was exceeded during
Round 1 for wells MW-2S and WC92, was not exceeded during Round 4.
The only MCL that had been exceeded in the previous sampling events (thallium, in two wells
during Round 2) was not exceeded during the Round 4 event. Since thallium and manganese
have been determined to be the two primary contributors to the non-carcinogenic health risk, as
reported in the Human Health Risk Assessment, these metals will be the primary focus of this
discussion.
KI02837D -7- Tetra Tech NUS, Inc.
DRAFT
Thallium: The evaluation of Round 3 ICP-MS results for thallium (detected once at 0.37 ug/L)
indicated that the risks calculated for Rounds 1 and 2 were likely attributable to false positives
and that actual concentrations are less than 1.0 ug/L. A thallium concentration of 1.0 ug/L
corresponds to a hazard quotient of approximately 0.3, indicating that non-carcinogenic adverse
health effects from thallium would not be anticipated. So it is unlikely that thallium is a concern
at these low concentrations.
Thallium was not detected in samples taken from the study area during Round 4, however,
Round 4 samples were not analyzed for low concentration thallium by ICP-MS. The samples
were analyzed through the contract laboratory program (CLP) by method ILM05.3. The samples
analyzed during Rounds 1, 2, and 3 were analyzed by CLP method ILM04.1. Method ILM05.3
has a higher reporting limit (25 ug/l) than reporting limits obtained in the previous Rounds,
however, since it had been determined that the presence of thallium at the site was because of
false positive results, additional investigations into the presence of thallium was not warranted.
As mentioned section 2.0, in order to meet the screening benchmarks, the data validator
changed the CRQL(U) values to the corresponding MDL values reported by the laboratory. The
non-detected results are presented in the tables as the MDL value with a UJ qualifier to reflect
uncertainty at lower reporting limits.
The reader is referred to the Draft Data Evaluation, Section 3.7.2, for a summary of the
potential for false positives for thallium using the ICP/AES analytical method used solely during
Rounds 1 and 2, and to Attachment A, the EPA OTS Alert regarding potential false positives for
thallium using the ICP/AES instrument as described in the standard analytical method for
drinking water samples.
Manganese: The manganese detections for the Round 4 samples were comparable to
previous sampling rounds with respect to the locations and general concentrations reported
within the study area. The same wells that previously exceeded the benchmark-criterion for
manganese continued to exceed the benchmark criterion in Round 4 samples, including
MW-2S, MW-2D, WC93, and WC96. It is noted that several cross-gradient and upgradient
wells also exceeded the benchmark criterion (WC85, WC97, and MW-1S and MW-1B during
Round 1), but concentrations were generally one order of magnitude lower than concentrations
in study area wells. The four highest concentrations of manganese were reported in four study
area wells, MW-2S, MW-2D, WC93, and WC96 during all four sampling events. However,
RI02837D -8- Tetra Tech NUS, Inc.
DRAFT
manganese concentrations in nearby wells downgradient of the North End Disposal Area (and
upgradient of the study area) sampled by USGS in 1998, exceeded the concentrations detected
in the study area wells by TtNUS.
As summarized in the Draft Data Evaluation Report, elevated manganese and iron
concentrations may be attributable to regional groundwater conditions, as indicated by elevated
levels in cross-gradient and upgradient wells. It is difficult to determine whether activities at the
study area properties have influenced the levels of manganese and iron associated with onsite
groundwater. It is notable that analytical results for soil sampling, as summarized in the Draft
Data Evaluation, indicated that the onsite soil samples from the sites under investigation, 1 and
15 Nutmeg Valley Road, did not exceed benchmark criteria for manganese.
As discussed in Section 3.7.2 of the Draft Data Evaluation Report, a potential source of the
manganese in the groundwater is landfill leachate from the North End Disposal Area. The
landfill is located upgradient from the study area, and leachate samples collected between April
1997 and January 1998 contained high concentrations of manganese (9,350 - 11,100 ug/L).
Another potential source of manganese in the groundwater is the reductive dissolution of
manganese (III, IV) oxide grain coatings. In suboxic, nitrate-poor environments,
microorganisms can use manganese oxides as electron acceptors during the oxidation of
organic compounds. As electrons are transferred from the organic matter to the oxidized
manganese, the manganese(lll) and (IV) is reduced to manganese(ll) and the manganese
oxides dissolve. The dissolution of manganese oxides not only adds manganese to the
groundwater, it also adds trace elements that were attached to the oxide surfaces.
Manganese(ll) will reoxidize to manganese(lll) or manganese(IV) and precipitate from solution
if it encounters oxidizing conditions. On the other hand, manganese(ll) will remain in solution
and migrate with the groundwater as long as the groundwater remains mildly reducing. The
nitrate and organic carbon contents of the groundwater in the study area are unknown, but the
dissolved oxygen content and Eh of the manganese-rich groundwater samples are generally
low. Therefore, it is possible that manganese from the Disposal Area is impacting wells in the
study area, and the reductive dissolution of manganese oxide grain coatings is exacerbating the
problem.
RI02837D -9- Tetra Tech NUS, Inc.
••
DRAFT fc
2.1.4 Study Area Groundwater Analytical Results - Supply Wells *
Two bedrock supply wells were sampled during the Rounds 1, 2, and 3 events. The businesses
at these locations are now using the public water supply, and samples were not able to be
collected from the supply wells. «n
During Rounds 1, 2, and 3 positive detections were infrequent, and if present, were at lower
levels than the general monitoring well groundwater results for metals. No benchmark criteria *"
were exceeded.
M
3.0 HUMAN HEALTH RISK REVIEW
The objective of the human health risk review was to discuss the findings of the baseline human
heath risk assessment reported in the Draft Final Human Health Risk Assessment (TtNUS, m
February 2002) and reviewed in the Draft Data Evaluation Addendum report (TtNUS, December
2002) in light of the new study area groundwater data collected during May and June 2005 m
(Round 4). In general, results of Round 4 were consistent with previous rounds of sampling.
Since thallium and manganese have been determined to be the two primary contributors to the
non-carcinogenic health risk, as reported in the Human Health Risk Assessment, these
contaminants and any newly identified COPCs will be the primary focus of this discussion. •»
3.1 Additional Contaminants of Potential Concern •to
Analytical results from the May and June 2005 round of study area groundwater sampling were
compared to the Maximum Concentration Limits (MCLs) and Region IX Preliminary
Remediation goals (PRGs) for tap water. The Region IX PRGs for non-carcinogens were
adjusted downward to correspond to a hazard quotient (HQ) of 0.1, rather than 1.0. These were *
the same criteria used to identify contaminants of potential concern (COPCs) in the baseline
risk assessment for Nutmeg Valley (TtNUS, 2002). Three COPCs, which were not previously *
identified as COPCs in the baseline risk assessment, were identified through the comparison of
the Round 3 data to these criteria. No additional COPCs were identified for Round 4. •
As described in the Draft Data Evaluation Addendum report (TtNUS, December 2002), 1,1- „,
dichloroethene (1,1-DCE) had not previously been detected in Rounds 1 and 2, but it was
RI02837D -10- Tetra Tech NUS, Inc.
DRAFT
detected in one sample at a concentration of 0.1J ug/L in Round 3. This concentration is less
than the MCL, however, it did exceed the 2000 Region IX PRO. In August of 2002, the EPA
withdrew the cancer slope factor on which the Region IX PRG for 1,1-DCE was based, from the
Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS), stating that EPA can no longer support quantitative
cancer risk evaluation of 1,1-DCE. This withdrawal effectively invalidates the 2000 Region IX
PRG for 1,1-DCE. A non-cancer toxicity value is now available for 1,1-DCE and a new Region
IX PRG (2004) based on non-cancer effects of 1,1-DCE of 340 ug/L has been developed.
Since the detected concentration of 1,1-DCE was less than both the adjusted 2004 Region IX
PRG of 34 ug/L and the MCL, a quantitative evaluation is not necessary. 1,1-DCE was not
detected in Round 4.
Dieldrin was detected in the July 2002 round of sampling in one sample at a concentration
exceeding the adjusted Region IX PRG. This concentration (0.01 ug/L) corresponds to a hazard
quotient of approximately 0.25. Dieldrin affects the liver. Since no other COPCs identified in the
baseline risk assessment for Nutmeg Valley affect the liver, the total organ-specific hazard
index for the liver would be less than 1.0, indicating that non-carcinogenic adverse health
effects are not anticipated. Dieldrin was not detected in Round 4.
Vanadium was detected in the July 2002 round of sampling in one sample (well WC93) at a
concentration exceeding the PRG and again in Round 4 at the same location. When these
samples are averaged with the previous samples from the same well, the average for this well
is less than the adjusted Region IX PRG. Since the adjusted Region IX PRG corresponds to a
hazard quotient of 0.1, vanadium concentrations do not represent a concern.
3.2 Thallium
Thallium was identified as a Contaminant of Concern (COC) in the baseline risk assessment for
Nutmeg Valley. These results were based on an analytical methodology (ICP/AES) that has
been shown to produce false positive results above MCLs for thallium (OTS Alert #2,
Appendix A). In addition, the method detection limits for this ICP/AES method is at or above
the MCL for thallium. For these reasons, Round 3 samples were also analyzed by the ICP-MS
method that not only avoids the false positive results, but also allows for lower detection limits.
The results of the ICP-MS method indicated that thallium was present in only one sample at a
concentration less than the MCL and only somewhat higher than the adjusted Region IX PRG.
RI02837D -11- Tetra Tech NUS, Inc.
DRAFT
The concentration detected by the ICP-MS method corresponds to a HQ of approximately 0.15.
These results indicate that the risks calculated previously were likely attributable to false
positives, and that actual hazard quotients are less than 1.0, indicating that non-carcinogenic
adverse health effects from thallium are not anticipated.
No positive result for thallium were detected in samples taken from the study area during
Round 4, however these samples were not analyzed for thallium by ICP-MS.
3.3 Manganese
Manganese was also identified as a COC in the baseline risk assessment for Nutmeg Valley.
Resampling and analysis for manganese is consistent with past results. A revised maximum
within well average for manganese of 2110 ug/L at well MW2S, slightly exceeding the previous
maximum within well average, corresponds to a hazard quotient of approximately 2.7. The
presence of manganese in upgradient and cross-gradient samples indicate that manganese at
the site is representative of regional conditions. This is discussed in detail in Sections 3.7.2 and
3.7.4 of the Data Evaluation Report (TtNUS, 2002b).
4.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
The groundwater sampling event in May and June 2005 represented the fourth round of
monitoring performed by TtNUS in support of the on-going Remedial Investigation/Feasibility
Study (RI/FS). Round 4 consisted of collecting groundwater samples from previously existing
U. S. Geological Survey (USGS) monitoring wells, and EPA monitoring wells within the
investigation area. The sampling was performed from May 24 through June 2, 2005.
The objectives of the Round 4 sampling event were to conduct additional sampling and analysis
of groundwater to assess whether data support the site being delisted.
As reported in the Human Health Risk Assessment (2002), based on sampling results from
Rounds 1 and 2, thallium and manganese have been determined to be the two primary
contributors to the non-carcinogenic health risk.
RI02837D -12- Tetra Tech NUS, Inc.
DRAFT
A review of the Round 4 analytical results and comparison of those to results to Round 1
(January 2001), Round 2 (June 2001), and Round 3 (July 2002) were performed. Based on the
concentrations of contaminants detected during Round 4, it does not appear that VOCs,
SVOCs, pesticides or PCBs are significantly impacting groundwater in the study area. Several
metals were detected in study area wells during all four rounds, however only aluminum, iron,
manganese, thallium, and vanadium concentrations exceeded the MCL (or PRG if no MCL is
available) during any of the sampling rounds, and of these metals only manganese and thallium
were identified as contaminants of concern (COCs) in the baseline risk assessment. Although
manganese concentrations were somewhat higher in study area wells than in upgradient or
cross gradient wells, the adjusted Region IX PRG was exceeded in all three areas. This
indicates that manganese concentrations in and around the study area are elevated. This may
be due to landfill leachate from the upgradient, North End Disposal Area, or to regional
groundwater conditions supporting dissolution of manganese oxides.
Thallium concentrations detected in two wells (MW-2D and WC93) during Round 2 were likely
false positive results generated by the analytical instrument ICP/AES. To avoid this instrument
interferences, thallium analysis was also performed by ICP-MS. At well MW-2D thallium was
not detected by either analytical method during Round 3, nor was it detected during Round 4.
At well WC93 thallium was not detected using the standard metals analysis (ICP-AES), but was
detected during Round 3 at 0.37J (below the MCL) using the ICP-MS instrumentation with a
detection limit lower than the MCL for thallium. The concentration detected by the ICP-MS
method corresponds to a hazard quotient of approximately 0.15. These results indicate that the
risks calculated previously were likely attributable to false positives, and that actual hazard
quotients are less than 1.0, indicating that non-carcinogenic adverse health effects from
thallium are not anticipated.
To complement the Human Health Risk Assessment, in this report the analytical results from
Rounds 1 , 2, 3, and 4 were screened against MCLs and 2000 Region IX PRGs for tap water
adjusted to an HQ of 0.1. The results of the Round 3 screening identified 1,1-DCE, dieldrin,
and vanadium as additional COPCs. In light of recent changes to the cancer slope factor for
1,1-DCE on which the 2000 Region IX PRG is based, the concentrations of 1,1-DCE are
compared to an adjusted 2004 Region IX PRG and the MCL. No 1,1-DCE concentrations
exceeded the adjusted 2004 Region IX PRG or the MCL and a quantitative evaluation is not
necessary. For dieldrin, one sample location had a concentration exceeding the adjusted
RI02837D -1 3- Tetra Tech NUS, Inc.
DRAFT
Region IX PRG. Since no other COPCs identified in the baseline risk assessment affect the
liver (as dieldrin does) the total organ-specific hazard index for the liver would be less then 1.0
indicating that non-carcinogenic adverse health effects are not anticipated. Vanadium
concentrations from Rounds 3 and 4, when averaged with the previous samples from the same
well result in a within-well average less than the adjusted Region IX PRG. Since the adjusted
Region IX PRG corresponds to an HQ of 0.1, vanadium concentrations do not represent a
concern.
In summary, based on four rounds of analytical results, there are currently no site-related
contaminants that are significantly impacting groundwater quality and posing risks to human
health and the environment at the Nutmeg Valley Road site.
RI02837D -14- Tetra Tech NUS, Inc.
TABLES
M
S-o
5 o> X X X X X X X U) •_• +*
o o <N
LU
,52 co
X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X -0
O "c 1- re
8•S » X X X X X X X X X X X£o
0 Q.
10 O O X X X X X X X X X X X
10 JO O "3 X X X X X X X X X X X > 5 in
tj o> 3 £ P •o
cD> M :*
O0) re P 5 tn o> § o
n ~ a> 5
75CO
S T3 CO S c
c .S o O in CD oo 0) T— in CO CD Q (O CD CO
00 oo oo oo oo oo fe§ O) S O) o> CN CN CN S10
2 O O O O O O o o O o o O O i o
«o
1 2 Ii
1 S
tudy
Ar
0 z3 x X X X X X x X X X x x x x X X X X X X x x X o cc
UJt to ro
a z
0 z x X X X X X x X X X x x x x X X X X X X x X X
3 oU. Of Of UJ a.2 CO
CN
Q Z X X X x x X X X X X X X X X X O cc
o z. UJ X X X x x X X X X X X X X X X oo:
"55 "55 Ul 5 u. CO CO CO F= CO CD CD c.c UJ 'co Q CO
mm in CD 00 0) (£ m Q CO CO CO CN co in CO CD CO
1 3 co co 00 oo oo cn 8 1 CN CN CM co co O) o> O) s o a> * o O O O O O O o z- Z > § o O O o O O§ozEO
o T— S ^ 2 s 2 ^^ ^
2
z O g lit
c c .g> o> CD i.CD CD Q}
T3 CO CD CD CD CD CD CD CD TO "c 2 12 2 1 £ £ £ £ .CD 0) 3 D] CD O) 9sICD OJ I1 I1 1IIICO CO (O CO CO CO CO CO
CO CO (0 ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ 2 2CO •o T3 T3 •o T5 •a T3 •o o "§ CD CD 13 32 2 2 12 3 13 1 a. a. o O O O O O O 6 CO 55 55 55 55 CO CO CO CO CO CO 55 55 z> D
9 8
Num
ber
ofE
xcee
danc
es o
f M
CU
Reg
ion
IX P
RO
|
cb ^
S
5* in o o o CD CO (0 u o UJ CO CM CM in 8 CN o o CD N. c a CO C s 8 8 8o c II c c\ cr CO CO CM - 8
Tetra
Tec
h
»I§• 01 a. ' &
c c: | > §< < O CD
if tjj t If t t If tf t t: S t <§I<
1
§ §s J !!$
$IIt|§ ,fII ! j-F
T-A
VG
siss
S
sSQinS Q o U
9 S s S S s 8 IR s s s S s s S s s SQs sc s s s s s SuU
9 S to co C a CO 0 CO a o CO c» CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO1 CO en o o O O o O o o O 8 8 8 O O o o o 0 o O o O 8 o O 0 8' o
£ £ ^
ss 9 s99 9 S s s 9 9 9C 9C 9S 9 s oi ist o
£ S S s £ s 2? & S £ £ :f £ £ s <: f£ s s s <: s<
g (f 19 1 <? i9 ii ? % 9 i9^ 1£ ^
1<? S 1<? C c? 9 <? 5 9 9 9 9 9 9 91<? £ £ £*i £ij e> *4 s 5 £7 5 z £ 2
^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^^§s .> & ^
-3 -^ in CM in in in GO Tf CN § in CO' ^T 1 i5E8 ino o8 in CM
o O in o oo O os §
CM 00 0 T»- CM, CM.
O 8CM (CO
t*~ 3cc CO oCO (C itj-CO 00
CO IT -3 * a ^ 6^ CO N0^ ~* CO CO CO (0 CO in in CO m CM CO CM CM CM CO o 3 ?§o UJ
—3 -3 in 0 01^8 CM m in m m m in CO —3 => 5. |»- sin —1 o —3 -i -5 in CO -3
R S • C) • (0 § CO CM cri in. *g 1 CO ^- o i CM (D CO o en oi ' 1in s 01 s
n T- m o m o o CO O O O in UJ CM «. o in o cb in CO o o OI h- tM CO o u> fl*. Q§s
0 ^ s t? oo s 0 Q r^ S CO CD <D CM • in O) oli GC *• 0 CO (0 CO in o CM CO h- CO
> o s^y5 Z UJ 5 111 t- H 2P8• §S3 ^g° 8 5 3 £
UJ D ^~ = CO CM O) o 10 r* o CD •<t CO CM 01 u> o CO CM' O h- tf CM eoj r^CM CO CO CO 8 8 a §• o ^ <o CO CO CD ^ r-. a CO o> CN CD in CO oi
(D h-J r^ g in in oi co
CM CO o-rilli H i•t 1 ' o (D CO in § CO r^ * F b >. I ^ uj < < £ §
t rf •«* ^t t ^t CO CO CO CO CO 00 CO CO CO CO CO CO CU CO CO CO CO CO 3"^° ^3iMi" ^8
i'if 1 t T- ^f CM ^ ^t CO CO CO (O CM CM CO CO CO CO CD1 CO CM CO- CO CO CO
^l£2
a: 2 c5 Q
PO
SIT
IVE
DE
TE
CTIO
NS
s 10 , ,I 1 I _J 1 i 1 1 1 1 i i i 1s ^ CD O CD 0 0 ^ CD ^i 1§ 8 S S B B S B B 1 B S- § B B, B § § § s S S B S. B t BB
Cal
ciut
n 1
Cad
miu
m
'
PA
RA
ME
TE
R
lE
Man
gane
se
Van
adiu
m
1
s I
^> -> S 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 S 2- 2 2: 2 2 2 s 2, 5 2 2 2 2; 2i 2 2 2
1
Cad
miu
m
Cal
cium
C
hrom
ium
Pot
assiu
m
1 1I I E
Alu
min
um
Pot
assiu
m
5
Ant
imon
y §• i&
Cal
cium
Sod
ium
E »cl
I_J, 1 o5 1 T3 1 |j; 8
O(0 CO o~Z. CD oO
1 E1i 1 o ±£ ±±
nfllte
red
nfilte
red
nfilte
red
!1
t nfllte
red
nfllt
ered
nf
llter
ed
nfilte
red
nfllt
ered
11•n •D
ID D"2 1111> 5 0soD |111
5 OD D 0 0 FD IB Hi5 ±= rr ? 2LL u_ U r> o D D D D n D D n D D D D D 01 <D ^ g ^
3
c c :<L E' a. £ U. I ) s i 5 D B .2 5 £ i i iCO
£S
5 I •6 •5 tu P3 ra ^ 1p 9 fU 0 1 P P P P P
) O) CjJ> tp at <p) tjj) 91 V1 < < < fO
3 ES
s° 1 p I P p p p Q
V V V 9 9> °? <? <? » >, >, CO ii 1 •& T) •e? T) CM § D f U o
3I) )
1)
PP pJ
?J
Ii ?i > ) j c; PJ j
1) C) CJ
1o o
f O-f
o UIV C) O o O ta to. w C/l w o:
8
'S C9 •S 8 rf
1 j3| 18Si
S «
N <-> <-> w u <-> u <-> ^ ^
u UJ UJ <->
u UJ u u u u u u u
^
X
^ 1 §
* S
CO CO
CM CO r~ o c CO
0
IN
* in 8 8 8
T ~
o o CM
o o ^~
00 00
COh 8 (C CM in u> CM d
h-S O
0
•l><
o o
? i 0 5
-050
5-A
V Jd
-9090-( -0
505-
FT
-050
5-F
T
-050
5-F
T
-050
5-F
T
1-05
05-F
T
z in in m in in in in in in in in in in in in in in in to" in in in to IO IO 8 88 8 SS8 s g g 8 8 8 88 gg S8 g g
9 9 9 9 999 9 9 9 9 9S9O QJ
lC (M O) CM
o 03 Ol O] o> a a> o>
O m en CM q en q q en en en CN en
CS SCJ C 110C oC c c |1|g 58 5 % 5 5 5 5 =J 5 ^ % 5 % % 5 § 5 5 5
iP 5
^ ^ CD S9 9 9 9 ? ^V 9 5 o iy 7 <V sy iy iy > 9 5 5 § § g 5 5§ 5
S13 ^9 y9 9 ^9 99 9<?fi z z z z z z z z 5 z z z z z z
^ ^ ^zz z5 S z z zz z z z z z
^^ ^ S o -< >" •
—3 -3
- m* —5 o —3 -3 -3 in in o r^ CM CO r
0 o 8 8 8 8 o 0 fc° O —J -3 in OJ CO CM 0 0 o —3 * 0 —> r^ r*- S CO CO CM o CO CO CO m CO *S d rn in <-> 0 d a CM ]d C3 d cS
0.00
73 0
.007
3 J
|
—3 —5 C -5 -3 —> -3
||l o CM O) in in -5 CM O o -3 —3 o 8 —3 in 18 h- q -3 <0 ICO to —3 -3 CM in in S —3 S in CM eM 8 s IO 0.0
1 5
J
in
-3 CM d o d d dCO CO CO CM
in o CM r-~ O o IO o CO CO o N. O) CM CM m CO CO o CO 8
O)o CO CO oi o S CM 8 in 8 o d d o' S S CD
to sg in s CM in
8 6
Sid o fs. CO en od CO c\ CO CN dm 0
| LU 0
U,u,«
o CM o CO CM en to CM CO to CM CO CO in in in UJ CO CM N.' in d in to 0> d c> o' d 6 § CO
CM CO 8 S 8 8 IO CO § § in en § p•a- d CM 8 CO S in R
tM o 0 ^~ m O P
otas
sium
5 ° en OJ en O) o> O) O) O) en o> O) en o O) U) O) en en O) O) en en O) CM CM CM
UB s°hz 55
09 CO CM *- •*" CO CO •» !••- CM *- O) in CM CM i*- CD 0) 00 ^ c» CM O) CO *- rf CO *- ^ *- • CM CM *~
111 O
IO Pfj. [jj 0 Q
UJ (0
z <=! *J =J <J O ^ 3 O 0
T i S S S § § S o S § sj o iS B 1o 0 0 0 § § s § S
Q
i K § fc
< £H UJ eS UJ O m2 C .c C 01 P •p m(0 S <n m 8 r S 1
Pot
assi
um
End
rin K
et
Met
hyl t
ert
Alu
min
um
Bar
ium
Ber
ylliu
m E
to 1|o
Sel
eniu
m
Sod
ium
11D.
£ 5 Cal
cium
0) 6
Sod
ium
ujn
ueg
CMT3
Ilo
1 raI i _
1 gi O o !O O (D .2 |5 Z oo
w o I0§UJ
^1^5 2 2 |I'1 s %2. 2 2 2 2 5 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 S 2 2 2 2 2 5 § § a. 2 2 2Sn p S o E? < c § i
Mi5, ^-S^z1^-3° Z 11 S.
1 S= !S I ±± i111«H ±= i 3e
JD 1 I0,0 ^ 3 0 « 111±± r c r 1r r r f r r r r f r r r LL LL LL u. LL LL D D D Z) D Z) D D J) D
(B CO CO "c s lSSE"* i sS N i ie £ \ e 1 i i11 1 <D <n m < t- UJ .3* .5 r*"j 5 LL 5 ONJ ^ ^ ^ *t •
<t , <c <( ^ <! ^ •Q •n T3 ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^
f f f •§• •o f $ f* f t f f t f f t f ff f t t f |f ff D D t
OJ D3l|lo^ 1c? 1- (0 Q Z ? D. CO 0 UJ » to w >J CO JJ fl UJ J> jj » J-* </> •<J » w CO co jj •a CO co. (0 co W CO -J D
1
5
-3
^ ° •S o •S8 £ 6 Six •p 5 ° « H z 8*1 co"
UJ K
j- o CO (N r- g cj m oc CO c
2
?l£
C?
s X
z 2 5 5g 8 8 8 8 <^ 8 8 8 CO a 3 CO CD CD S CO CO Cl18 9
: - U
nfilte
red
2g 1|1||1|1111 j <* s 5
(J ^ ^ ^ ^ 9 q 9( ( <? ( ( *t i§ = § 11|f § § i
z ° U
nfilte
red
0 -, -J -. cill o. CO 2 uj c*; ft g* Q c
cc t? •sj 0 IT
to O o 0 0 d
z° 31-6§0 z
igIIIO8 —3 —3 ^ ^ O O10 1O ~)
OJ (O CO if o o 8 OJ s cr o 01 o d d d 0^ o to 01 o. § 18
o8 o d d d oOJ 8°s 1
is* UJ UJ ^
o OJ (O OJ CNJ CD 8 8111
R d d d dCO CN 1 o 8
CNJ OJ CN CM tM CM OJ CM CN
1*112 I* ry OJ <M CJ <VJ '*~ ' ^~ "*~ *~ *to
ii10 0. uj o Q
Z ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^™)
UJ t
3 §
,
§^J
S B 8^j
s Q D S S § O
i CO «
o £U c s § ID i^ 1§ 1j5 •g $ g _ p
5 z (t) p p 3 oCO • s£s D. Ifr 1 11||1i OT =
5 ii11CO |1I1§8
§
\t
I** »5. 5. lip S s. O 0
_J §
5 5 S P5 3 § ai I
-rui 5 > Zi i f^gs0,0 <C ^ 0 «
1 - U
nfilt
ered
||Upg
radi
enl :
- Unf
ilter
ed
1
[jUpg
radi
enl :
- Unf
llter
ed
[Upg
radi
enl :
- U
nfilter
ed:-
Unf
ilter
ed
Upg
radi
enl !
- Unf
ilter
ed
1 j*- >-<>!-" fe • fr Q m C O 8^5 ° S o «
[[Upg
radi
enl :
[Upg
radt
enl
Upg
radi
enl
Upg
radi
ent
Upg
radi
enl
S iS^Sjs-si i l* ptt-
V)
5? ui t-Q Q 3D < O < O p
<* CM
LJ 8 f- Z Ul
o
I*8«l w iL
1
Ilk
Q
s 2 a.
•ni
II
1
m
a
m
m
§9egrf°"S t.Z
C£ &}
O Q
3«y , -es§2 mio§P O Q Z 5 Q.
•ih
55
ii !?. life
2i
^M5 § S F
ut
2O co y 8 t g
CD O ^ h-
H O Q 2
Q
S
co 3 Z
I S
-GW
--G
W-
GW
- 1B
02
-FT
01
-AV
G
01-F
T-A
VG
*?
o £° o m
3 in
{2 = 10 3s
s e>
Z o m O O ^* ^
CO
E y ^ 3 O
Isllt ing
3.i
<?s 18 i' IS
§
I (9
1Q. i ^5
I
3^< 2 i
r? Ct
ratlo
n V
ola
tile
Org
a
£ SS I
5li 6
I .u a
.y £ 8I S § I Q
I 2CM m1
3
:? =
CO
Z
m
Is O
Q m
3 in
•i
m U CM
1 1
33
s
{21
w a
M J|5g; 8 £ 2<?a3 (<l 0 O
NU
TM
EG
VA
LLE
Y R
O AD
W
OLC
OT
T, C
ON
NE
CTIC
UT
PA
GE
2 O
F 1
3
Type
pled
ow C
once
ntra
tion
V
naly
sis
(UG
/U (c
o
ylene
s
ncen
A
nal
TA
BLE
UP
GR
DR
AF
T
S
RI0
in D Z
Mlill
ti it
.I2. I
1s
S3^S CO O
3* =
Ms^2s v = < ui Ij
8 ^ < ^ CM
m O
«
1
I
=) Q Z S 0.
g eo
Z
! m ^ O
si t
3 ^
o 5
sd
(A Q
a£§!S § s §
-TZ < >-Z
!-<p tlleg!
* 2
i
1 ol
li
e CO s
3 O 2
3 3 3 3
CO 3 Z
I
g
ield
Dup
. NV
-GW
B
-010
1-FT
ing 1*
si C3 . -'. o
^s Z o
1Lli
3 UJ </) Q UJ Q
ill! ~<^£ l ^ g j y g8£< t ;*85 •c?i ^ > t o Q Q O t OVk — O in
Q Z 5 0.
Hit
Illlt
|
ot*~s
2
h ij Q 0]
O OQ
£
3*
§c,
I! « 21 y a:
Mil
Ii5
ii < z
II Ili I! fi <••
' s <x § " « Q Z 5 0. ;5
1 ts
i
z o
l Z o
=> tu W D
III_s|i|
I
"I
3 x
*.§8Q:
»T3 > UJZ§ < uj _i o
di Q Q O t
«
ii
Si
• 1 I s
. K 'S.S
fl'
p6
Q.
8 1 I
3 Ul
IS|
iiii> T P U
i! 5
«? I 5 > F & if<CM O D O t O
\ sSO S ia. K I <g
3 O
1 i
si
n- co _§ a
ea: i
s
1I
s e D
<n
tla < > t o g ^ S 5 ?
o z
I 1
2 o
UJ Q Q 3
^3 lB
o
3
§" ll (0
z
5 ^
o ,• o
El
!i :i
P
UJ O CM O |U"Z I
5
i ? 2 5 o < 2 H CO Q Z 5 D. J_
IO 3 Z
2
3
8
2
5 ^
3 3 in in
= 1
) ^
: 5
O 2oc a. i x
a
<
1i » | i It £
I
HIil
5 > j i i ? I? SI2 o B I I J S
i- w a
ple
E E "!§ m 3 •«•* 1. a
8
112 it 9s ?I to z
< z
g
i.
ll i
IS CD 04
I
=u
I5 II^ fllII
O T• o 2 5
S e
(0 li 5) Q
SS
old ^ = ih h |
-zl" s i 2i"LU
2 o -11^<I* I
I <
O
S
H OT Q 2 S CL I
ilns1 fiSSz$f3 SSSS "St = m = 3 t < P 0£ H W Q
=
-I ujin= 1 a o
u. <
WO
LC
OT
T,
CO
NN
EC
TIC
PA
GE
5 O
F 4
3
GN
V-
1
0101
-FT
pl
e
in -, "" d J J 1S C
III INV-
GW-W
0505
! * I 0 o o o o o o o o 0 o o 0 o o u in IT 0 0 0 o o 0 0 o o o d
Icr J
c 8 -•
Ove
rbur
de
c
Ove
rbur
de[M
onito
ring
1
Mon
itorin
g
6721
/200
1 7/
24/2
002 I d o o 0 d 0 0 0 o o 0 o o o o o o o o o o 0 o o
Ii 1 Sha
llow
(Sha
llow
IWC
951 CM
3
Z ik IVVC
95
D 3 J z z3 c
INV-
GW-W
ill
ill
§1.If
0702
-FT
01
01
z z z z z Z Z z z z 2 z Z Z Z 2 z Z z z z z 2* Z z zi
NV
-GW
-WC
93
5/24
/200
5 5/
24/2
005
h S -,
c
lit o ~*
0 0 o 0 o 0 0 o O o 0 o o 0 in in in in o 0 d o 0 0 d d 0 d d
3I 1
Zzl 4 i zZ z z 2 Z z z z z Z z z z z 2 Z Z Z z z Z z z z z z
N
ill ! 1 = 3 3 3 3 3 - 3 3 13 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3-^ -^
NV
-GW
-WC
93
Sha
llow
Sha
llow
Sha
llow
Ove
rbur
den
c
Ove
rbur
de
c
I/Veil
Typ
e
Ove
rbur
deM
onito
ring
Mon
itorin
g
Mon
itorin
g
0702
-FT
)
o o d 0 o d o o 0 o o O o 0 o 0 o 0 o d o d! dk
8 ' ig i |if
3>i D
3 5 ^ 3 3z
3 3 3 3 3 3 33
3 3 -* 3 3 3 3 0 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
L
6/19
/200
1
I
• S
o 5" o a 8§1 i * I
CO I i n 1 m in - <D
§ d §
1 8 8"
CO CO D
§ 8 8 1 § & CO 1 11 1 111 i1 I
CTG
AG
P
I in in in n CO in in (0 in
D S 8 D 8 8 ii
Reg
ion
IX P
RG
||1,2
-Dib
rom
oeth
ane
0.00
076CM
0 d . d dd ***
"MC
U
(0
siig
uj O r5 O lU
1IlLow
Con
cent
ratio
n V
ola
tile
Org
anic
A
naly
sis
(UG
/L)
||l,1
,1-T
richl
oroe
than
e
1 ,1
,2,2
-Tet
rach
loro
etha
ne
1 ,1
,2-T
richl
oro-
1 ,2
,2-tr
ifluo
roet
hane
11
1,1,
2-Tr
ichl
oroe
tnan
e
111,
1-D
ichl
oroe
than
e 11
1,1-
Dich
loro
ethe
ne
11 ,2
,3-T
richl
orob
enze
ne
111 ,2
,4-T
richl
orob
enze
ne
111 ,2
-Dib
rom
o-3-
chlo
ropr
opan
e
||1,2
-Dic
hlor
oben
zene
|1
,2-D
icrri
oroe
than
e
l|1 ,2
-Dic
hlor
opro
pane
I1
1 ,3
-Dic
hlor
oben
zene
111 ,4
-Dfc
hlor
oben
zene
||2
-But
anon
e
||2-H
<jxa
none
||4-M
ethy
l-2-P
enta
none
1 (
Ace
tone
IIBen
zene
IIBro
moc
hlor
omet
hane
||Bro
mod
fcN
orom
etha
ne
iBro
mof
orm
IIBro
mom
etha
ne
||Car
bonD
isul
fide
jjCar
bon T
etra
chlo
rkJe
IC
htor
oben
zene
||Chl
oroe
than
e
||Cht
orof
orm
llsam
ple
Num
ber
llSam
ole L
ocat
ion
IDat
e S
ampl
ed
Filt
ered
£ •Q
8 C)
§
in d
3 S
8 co" z
Illg
(0 O 2
8
I* is
Z>
in in d
sd
11S!
ii
,-
0. o
i O
I X
(O
TA
BLE
2
ST
UD
Y A
D
RA
FT
D
p9 o
QC uj >- Z UJ zfis 1"
!i^ 8 ? g1552 8i £
fe ;£ S^ S f < •5 »E"S iUj O co S «UJ
z 5 D. ^ 9 ^
ple
E
i.(2O
i i i Hi
5 IN 1
RI0
2837
D
SI:
I
in D
£
^ O . > S
-GW
-WC
93-
NV
-GW
-W-G
W-W
-GW
-W-F
T
0702
-FT
01
1
tratio
n
lvola
tile
lysi
(U
G/L
I (co
nt.)
D 3 o O
I!
3 . o: a in 3 a
S £
3 a
5u
°Q =ME !!f g 5>18. t s CM < o o c °
•g£
UJi a>
m 3 i u O o> 5. I§ I? '
=
_C s o in < H ji O £ D S < * <4 2 f c Q Z 5 Q.
_ o
RI0
21*to O S
g
Z b
,f! € •
g
JS
zl
It
if? 2 §| CO O 5
3 in
11
li
= •
zi
in
I o'
(o 9
WO
LCO
TT
, C
ON
NE
CT
ICt < < S i
iig
fiSS
C
ivol
(co
1&
Ic e
fi^CN < Q O
S ^ t ^ffi 3 S t< H K 3 HOT Q Z PA
GE
10
OF
43 s^n ul o
g. ? «c I «.
IJ S 1
°I* o: 2
1
!<
3iii 11^ re
is
a'
f 2 o §S
i0}
s O
UJ Q
o :,3*B
-rS ^ >• Z +* Z > III *9imi\A < Q o b '
K (0 Q
03 Z)Z
10. in o o
in
?5
CO
o 6
8 §
o
Ik 3
s ii<? £
o
Is
z z
a
Dee
pM
onit
3 in c>
zl
!ls it
Si S 5
I
I J5_
I
~u
3 2 5 I
£
(0 Q ^§
YT
IIC
A ^
ALL
EY
RO
AD
, CO
NN
EC
TIC i
|l»
_
f l l
43
Y A
F
T D
i^^f a < OF
>h (2 5 ^
S § ICM
S O UJ !•5^5 i
z f a. JLf"'** 3?2I 1co ~
£ I
Q I ID in in in m in m in in in in in 8 a a a a
If
INV-
GW-M
WZ
a1
|s/2
5/20
05
all i1losos
s s ssal D _)
-1 -> -> -> DN
a N c%l & c^ <•
|NV-
GW-M
\]C1
stil 10702
ct fc
§ I < 15 ^ —' —' ~* ~^ z Z % ^ rxl c l
§ 13
ri y 1 o
1 s§5 5
II o..«
i! si iiIsCSI S
D < < 0 D J-^ ^ • z Z S£ ioIN
Fiel
d D
up. N
VII s Si a y
MW
2D-0
101
it E (9
li &I
55 o o|5 z 5
-, -, Sf 3 3 0 o
in in n m tn m m in in in V) m m in m in in in 8 a a a a
5/24
/200
5 U
nfilte
red ,|j^
8 lig
D D • 3 D D3 3 -t 3 N in in m m in in in in in m m in in m in u> in in m m u) m in m in 8 a a a a
83i ili I
i?i D D •=> o D O D o 3 3 13 3 3 D O D D 3 D D D 01
it D ID
^ z m in in m in m in in in in m in in U) in in m in in in in m
l a a a a a
i•
6/19
/200
1
*i SIif s D O 3 3 ^
3 3—sz> D o O 3 ^| 3D O O D 13 3 3 u D 3§3 ^3 z S c 10 m in m m in in in in in in in in m in m m in in in in in a a a a a
is^
§8 ± o 3
CO CO f) CO N 0 d d ci d •* 0. I
s dN §§ 1 Sd d
CTG
AGP
I <D CO in in Xt N CO N CM to 5 § N s o i0 CO d 8 s
O 0 d 0 d
O d
MCL
VR
egio
n IX
PR
G
STU
DY
AR
EA
AN
ALY
TIC
AL
RE
S
DR
AF
T D
AT
A E
VA
LU
AT
ION
AD
I
{2§;x§5 «-i
IJLo
w C
once
ntra
tion S
emivol
atile
jprg
anlc
Ana
lysi
s (U
G/U
(co
nt.)
Hs.
S'-D
ichl
orob
enzi
dine
[|3
.Nitr
oan*
ine
||4,6
-Din
itro-
2-m
ethy
lpne
nol
||4-B
rom
ophe
nyl-p
heny
leth
er
||4-C
hlor
o-3-
met
hylp
heno
l ||4
-Chl
oroa
nilin
e
||4-C
hlor
ophe
nyl-p
heny
leth
er
||Bis
(2-C
hlor
oeth
y1)e
ther
TA
BLE
2-4
(cont.)
NU
TM
EG
VA
LLE
Y R
OA
DW
OLC
OTT. C
ON
NE
CTIC
UT
PA
GE
15 O
F 4
3
Lell
Typ
e
|[Bis
(2-C
hlor
oeth
qxy)
met
hane
1K
||Ben
zo<a
)ant
hrac
ene
a I
5T
s
?
& |JB
enzo
(g,h
,i)pe
ry1e
ne
i B
||2-M
ethy
lnap
htha
lene
||2
-Met
hylp
heno
l ||2
-Nrtr
oani
fine
1A
llsam
ple
Num
ber
jlSam
ple
Loca
tion
||Dat
e S
ampl
ed
T> 0 3
IJQC
Iden
tifier
[|4-N
itroa
n«irt
e ||4
-Nitr
pphe
nol
||Ace
naph
then
e llA
cena
phtrt
ylen
e
llAce
toph
enon
e
|2-C
hlor
ophe
nol
i i
2
||Atra
zlne
eiB 5. 5I
: 5 3 =O 2O
4 Srsi IN <N
1
I
• . g J H
8 II 5/
25/2
005
Unt
utor
ed
Iiff J
Zo ->
|1 IjN
V-G
W-M
)
[Dee
plO
verb
urde
Mon
itorin
g
0601
-AV
G
0702
Z) 3 ™* z
kl Fi
eld
Dup
. NV
iii§
IMW
2D-0
601
§ ri
1 Dee
pOve
rbur
Mon
itorin
g
NV
-GW
-MW
2
D J•~* ^ z ~* s |n
Fiel
d D
up. N
V
i|iCM
S O
3< a.*;
II Z 0 MW
2D-0
101
CM -, -, -, S c 0
5
[5/2
4/20
05
I J -> ~* -3 ~* ~* ~" z
S c 8
i|||g i> $Z 0
5 i
7/17
/200
2
CM 3 (M i
|||
ilal ii
NV
-GW
-WC
92-
NV
-GW
-WC
92
|010
1 06
01
—a 3 —; o 3 3 3 3 z 3 tn in to m in m m m in in m m in in m m tn tn in m » m m in in
8j ,
6/19
/200
1
1 D D D D D 3 3 13 ID 3 3
to in in m tn m m m m m m m in in m tn m m m in tn tn m in in
^II, fi'8
In
term
edia
teO
verb
urde
nM
onito
ring
III
a. o
i« d d 1 " 1 1 .
CM 8 8 a 1 1 « S 1 §
CTG
AG
P
I <D CM N flO CO
o' CM S 9, s 5 i § i 1d d 0dd d* 1
MC
L/R
egio
n IX
PR
G
ST
UD
Y A
RE
A A
NA
LY
TIC
AL
RE
i D
RA
FT
DA
TA
EV
ALU
AT
ION
AD
»>^
n
Low
Con
cent
ratio
n S
emiv
olat
lleO
raan
ic A
naly
sis
(UG
/L)
(con
t.)
bis(
2-E
thy1
hexy
l)pht
hala
te
But
ylbe
nzyl
phth
alat
e C
apro
lact
am
Dt-n
-But
ylph
thal
ate
||Di-n
-oct
y1ph
that
ate
pibe
nzo(
a, h
)a n
thra
cene
pf
benz
ofur
an
tlDte
thyl
phth
alat
e
£
||lnde
no{1
,2,3
-cd)
pyre
ne
Isop
horo
ne
E X
I
TA
BLE
2-4
(cont.)
NU
TM
EG
VA
LLE
Y R
OA
DW
OLC
OT
T, C
ON
NE
CT
ICU
TP
AG
E 1
6 O
F 4
3
Fluo
rant
hene
Fl
uore
ne
Hex
achl
orob
enze
ne
Hex
achl
orob
utad
iene
Hex
achl
oroe
than
e
|
C Nap
htha
lene
J
Pen
tacN
orop
heno
l
Q. L [[Tot
al P
AH
£ g
ell T
ype
Sam
ple
Num
ber
Sam
ple
Loca
tion
||Dat
e S
ampl
ed
i u_ QC
Iden
tifie
r
5. r
s a5
5. C
5 p \ QO
-1
ft
ft
ft
ft
§(0 O It
s
(±
1
IlZ
l II
9
I?
8 H rd
ein
g
5t
m S
ll
a
m 11ii i?
m gS
l
egio
n IX
PR
G
= 5w 9£§ ^§ p
iM
NU
TM
EG
VA
LLE
YR
OA
DW
OLC
OT
T, C
N
EC
TIC
U
PA
GE
19
OF
43
gS
fis 1 fe S w < 0 i a S.
.u 1SS£m D < 'SiI <*. o h-K o
o Li <H M O
1
"
a: D 3 3 11 3 D D 3 3 3 3 D = 3 3 -1 = = B 13
2 2 2 z 2 2 z z z 3 03 z
in W CM Z
Unf
iltere
d
1 Sto 3 tr §
IICD t/) ^*
1 o o 0 o o o o 0 0 O 0 0 o o 0 0 0 0 o 0ii ?
| 1ll o
-^ -^ ^ -1 • ^ ^ ^ ^ • ^
ii 2 2 2 2 2 2 -> z z z ^
8
16/2
1/20
01
NV
-GW
-1 jz
0101
06
01
o 1 D 3 D^ -^ -^ - ^ ^ ^ ^ -^ 2 Z 2 Z Z 2 z zz
NV
-GW
-01z
Z Z Z z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z z z Z z z Z z z z z z z z z Z z z3 1
h |1S> 5 Z 0 z
-) -> i ~0 ~ ~
1j U
nfilte
red
m co
Dee
pO
verb
urde
n
Mon
itorin
g
c
0
° •D CM CM 0 0 o 0 0 o 0 o O 0 O o 0 0 o o 0 0 0 o in tn in in m in in j ;! 1Z c ill S
O
ll Z D 3 D D D
If i c 8 in in in in in in in in CO m m in in in in m in in in in m m 0 in m in 0 m o o o o o 0 o 0 o o o o o o O o o o o o g
8 §1 3 1 Q O E 1
- Not
det
ecte
d; U
J Jt
ion
anal
ysis
; R -
F
*!
NV
-GW
-WC
91
ill
D D D D D D z z 2 z Z i Z z 3
- - CM - - - - in 8 m in in
1
D 1 - - - a
6/19
/200
1
0601
3 3 3 3D D D 3 D D 13 D
D D D 3 15 13 D u2 i z z ° i2z i zi 8
Ii 0) LL.
8 •S[s 3iff - O
0. S 5 1
1 i in i i i i
CTG
AG
P
m 10 m CM 8
O
M 8 11SI 1 1 i1
0 CM in tn in CM CO S g CM R D „ <D - O! § 1 s
5 i II
TA
BLE
2-4
(cont.)
ST
UD
Y A
RE
A A
NA
LY
TIC
AL
RE
J
DR
AF
T D
AT
A E
VA
LU
AT
ION
A
DI
NU
TM
EG
VA
LLE
Y R
OA
D
WO
LC
OTT, C
ON
NE
CTIC
UT
PA
GE
20
OF
43
IJLo
w C
once
ntra
tion V
olat
ile O
rgan
ic
Analy
sis
(UG
/L)
(con
t.)
|cis
-1 ,2
-Dic
hlor
oeth
ene
||cis
-1 ,3
-Dic
hlor
opro
pene
IJD
ibro
moc
hlor
omet
hane
£ i
||lsop
ropy
tben
zene
jjMet
hyl A
ceta
te
||Met
hyi t
ert-B
utyl
Eth
er
| (To
luen
e
||Tot
al X
ylen
es
lltra
ns-1
,2-D
ichl
oroe
then
e
ljtra
ns-1
,3-D
ichl
orop
rope
ne
IILow
Conce
ntratio
n S
em
ivola
tile
IjOra
anic
Analy
sis (U
G/L
) |l,1'-B
iphenyl
||1
,2,4
,5-T
etra
chlo
robe
nzen
e
||2,4
,5-T
rlchl
orop
heno
l
||2,4
.6-T
ricN
orop
heno
l |2
,4-D
icN
orop
heno
l
||2.4
-Dim
ethy
i phe
nol
||2,4
-Din
itrop
heno
l
||Vin
y1 C
hlor
ide 1
1 CM
jjMet
hyle
ne C
hlor
ide
I s,
1{(Sam
ple
Loca
tion
IjDat
e S
ampl
ed
||Fi!ter
ed
JJQC
Ide
ntifie
r
o
i35 j1 edAj. us J R
I028
37D
£ 1
_c
4i SD LJ
e3 3 3 3 0 :
in 8in o in in in m in in in in U) in m in a z
Iit ill -1 s Z 3
m co Z o i1 1 1
•J - - -» -* in in in in s
« 8 » » 8 * *
Unf
iltere
d
Non
e
Ii Z o o : 3 z i 3 ID a:
z 8 a 8 Z z in in in in in o in in o in in in in in in in m in in in in m in tn
CM CM
H >• •1 a M 1 §
B 3 z
NV
-GW
-01N
VR
01
01
01N
VR
Unf
iltere
d
Non
e 3 D 3 3 Ct
-1 z z in m in in u, o -n -n 8 8 in in in in in in in m in ms
O 2 CD CO »
B
lack
Backflro
untl
=R
in9M
7n C
riter
ia E
xcee
ded;
U •
Not
det
ecte
d; U
J -
Dete
ctio
n lim
it ap
prox
imat
e; J
- Q
uan
titat
ion
appr
oxlm
aKI
OZ8
37D
. . F
n)m
dn
ulio
n a
nalys
is; R
. R
ejec
ted;
NA -
Not
Ana
lyzed
Z Z Z Z Z Z z Z Z z z Z Z z Z z z z Z z Z Z Z z3
B u- Zill! rl i -, -, -> -> -> -t -, 1) 3 ^J
Dee
pO
verb
urde
n
Mon
itorin
g
?>til CO T- CO CO »- »- n m CO « CO CO CO en CO eo n CO n
Filte
red
Unf
flter
edU
nfflt
ered
Unf
flter
edcJ » r- (
Non
e N
one
Non
e
3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 D 3 d
c S 8in in in in 10 in in in in in tn in U) in in in in m in in m m m 8 " " 8 8 R
3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 = 3 3 D 3 3 3 r> 3 ra- D D-^ 3 1 z c m in in in in m in in 8 £CM 8 CM
!|5'1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 13 3 D D O 3 n => 33 3 i Z8 in tn m
CM (N S
til i s g f 1
CO CO n d d d d d "*
co
0. CM mSd d§ 1 d o
I
to o> co in o CO S N S ori •* id 2*~ d d C) d CD d o"
Reg
ion
IX P
RG
M
CU
QC
Iden
tifie
r
ST
UD
Y A
RE
A A
NA
LYT
ICA
L R
ES
D
RA
FT
DA
TA
EV
ALU
AT
ION
AD
I
pi§s
ntra
tlon S
emlv
olat
lleal
vsls
(U
G/L
) (c
ont.)
ue
ne
htha
lene
nol
htha
lene
met
hyl
• p
heno
l
Chl
oro-
3-m
ethy
lphe
nol
|4-C
Nor
oani
line
|4-C
hlor
ophe
nyl-p
heny
leth
er
|Ben
zo(a
)pyr
ene
l|Ben
zo(b
)fluo
rant
hene
|B
enzo
(g,h
,i)pe
ryle
ne
j[Ben
zo(k
)fluo
rant
hene
||B
!s(2
-Chl
oroe
thox
y)m
etha
ne
j|Bis
(2 C
hlor
oeth
yl)e
ther
TA
BLE
2-4
(cont.)
NU
TM
EG
VA
LLE
Y R
OA
D
WO
LCO
TT
, C
ON
NE
CT
ICU
TP
AG
E 2
1 O
F 4
3
Bro
mop
he ny
l-phe
nyte
ther
| | J | J
, « O s 2 w > £ -1 9 J 0
|4-N
itrop
heno
l [A
cena
phth
ene
llAce
naph
thyl
ene
||Ace
topn
enon
e
e
E
[jAtra
zine
|Ben
zo(a
)ant
hrac
ene
|
!
1
1 |II?1 II I
1! 851 git L i1
5*
tell T
ype
" ••= S S > c •- o o £oO S1| S Z Z co Z <i 5 « ™ (/} CO O
rfI O CM" CM CM CM M CM CM co" CO Tf" Tt
3 3D D Z) z -> -> tn
D Z
Bed
rock
S
uppl
y
z
?
NV
-GW
-1 5 i| U
nffle
red
8
Z
-1 Z
0505
05
05-F
T
0101
06
01
0702
01
01
NV
-GW
-1 CS
Unf
flere
d
iit o
u. -» -J -> N
V-G
W-1
16/2
1/20
01
i2O Z
A|ddns
-HO
Ojpag o
Z -> ~* ~* "* ~* RliI
z
if NV
-GW
-01
0
NV
-GW
-WC
91
z z Z z z z 2 z z z z z 2 $ i2 iz z z z z i z
m
1S FHte
red l
Dee
pD
eep
Ove
rbur
den
Z
Ove
rbur
dfM
onito
ring
M
onito
ring
'" -) n =? -) n 3 3 —> -) S ^ ^^
NV
-GW
-V m in in in in in in m in m m in m m m m in in in in m m in in m
1|i1 D D 3 i
8 m in in in in in in in m in in in in in in in in in in m in m m in m m
if g CM
zl III 1 i1 D D D D D D D Zi 3 3 3 3
Ove
rbur
den a
6/19
/200
1 m m in in in in in m m m in in in in in m m in in IJ in m in m m in 1
5 -r 3
Mon
itorin
g
Dee
p
D D D D z> D Z) Z) D
in m in in in in in m m m m in m in m in m in in in m tn m m in SI1,
NV
-GW
-WC
91
|010
1
3til n 00 fcg £ o
CO d o1 1 1 1I CM 1 3 8 s s 8 8 1§CM
CTG
AG
P
1 (O CM •o SI 00 00
ci S g s . i 1 1d
d d o' d d1 I "
Reg
ion
IX P
RG
M
CU
ST
UD
Y A
RE
A A
NA
LY
TIC
AL R
Ei
DR
AF
T D
AT
A E
VA
LU
AT
ION
AD
I
?i§s
IJLo
w C
once
ntra
tion S
emiv
olat
ileO
rqan
ic A
naly
sis
fUG
/U (
cont
.)
Ibis
(2-E
thyl
hexy
1)ph
thal
ate
j
|Dib
enzo
(a,h
)ant
hrac
ene
IjDib
enzo
fura
n
piet
hylp
htha
late
pi
met
hylp
htha
late
IjFlu
oran
then
e
iFlu
oren
e
llHex
achl
orob
enze
ne
jlHex
achl
orob
utad
iene
jHex
achl
oroc
yclo
pent
adie
ne
|lnde
no(1
,2,3
-cd)
pyre
ne
|N-N
itros
o-di
-n-p
ropy
lam
ine
,
iN-N
itros
o-di
phen
ylam
ine
Nap
htha
lene
llPen
tach
loro
phen
ol
I
TA
BLE
2-4
(cont.)
NU
TM
EG
VA
LLE
Y R
OA
D
WO
LC
OT
T,
CO
NN
EC
TIC
UT
PA
GE
22 O
F 4
3
Wel
l Typ
e
Sam
ple
Num
ber
ISam
ple
Loc
atio
n
Ipate
Sam
pled
LL I
JOW
pjapi ooll jjC
apro
lact
am
llChr
ysen
e
Ipi-n
-But
ylph
thal
ate
S S
u
llPhe
nant
hren
e
1 1 ||T
otal
PA
H
±
3 in Z
(O Q
g§
•£ -J K UJ HllfHSI,MO|5- - < ° e 5 8
H W Q
(0
OT
O
O c
= < H ri « H 2 D § ^ W Q Z 3 Q.
- -
I <?!
8
I
|
ind
I i
3 ,-
B ,
It> 5
*S
I
I5
JQC
IX
PR
G
5> O 111 QK <
?i!Piss^
NU
TM
EG
VY
RO
AD
WO
LC
OTT,C
NE
CTIC
UT
PA
GE
25
O
43
Sam
ple
N
§ I5
5ID
2 S f $ i
iIU >- H I! J Q "m 3 <i ^ ^ g 5
II
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
3 D D 3 D 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 D
in m in m in in U5 in in m in in in in in in in in in in in in in m CM d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d O d00 a 3
s 3 1
d
Tec
h N
US
, Inc.
Bed
rock
M
onito
ring
3 3 3 3 o 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 3 S
-CM - - - m S in in in in £
NV
-GW
-MW
3B-
NV
-GW
-MW
3B-
NV
-GW
-MW
3B
0101
06
01
0702
m 1
II 2oJ 3 z 3 13 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3ii Ii
CM in o in in in in - - - - - CM -
Mon
itorin
g
Bed
rock
-B
edro
ck
mj 1
3§
m CM 3 ID D 3 3 D z> 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
in m m in in in in m in in m in m m in in in in m in S in in in in in in o o o o o o o o o o o 0 o o o o o o 0 o
S li 3
1 S
m 3 ID 3 D 3 3 ID D D 3 3 D 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
" in in in in m in in m in m in in in in in in in m m in in o in in in o in
CM
1 o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o od
Mon
itorin
g
ion
appr
oxl
II s 3ii
-3 as Z z * IZ Z 2 ° 2 Z c 3 D D 13 ID 3 D D 3 D 3 D 3 3 3 3 3 3
3
S JS r> ||S I
3 13 3 3 ID 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
3
Z z i ii
NV
-GW
-M
Bed
rock
M
onito
ring
MW
2B
0702
01
01
0601
N
V-G
W-M
W2B
iJ j in in in in sl CM - -
in
jS fj -o
z 3 D D D 3 3 D D D D 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3OL
in m in in in in m m in m in m in in in in in in m in in in 0 in in in Q in ?.i
teria
Exc
eede
d; U
-Not
det
ects
NV
-GW
-1
* -
From
dilu
ion
anal
ysis
Unf
ilter
ed
I jK 3 13 3 13 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 32 i 3
CM in in in in in 3 81I zli
or ii Z Z
o o o o 0 o o o 0 o o o o o o o o o o
Bed
rock
o
K
Zin Sup
ply
1
s s Q. S II
CM •o 1§S i 1 i 1 s in in in CM 8
I in CM
1
CTG
AG
P
I 18CM >81 1 o CM in in in CM CO § £ 8 8 3 CM CD o* 1 " * 11 "
MC
L/R
egto
n IX
PR
G
\BLE
2-4
(cont.)
FU
DY
AR
EA
AN
ALY
TIC
AL
RE
5
RA
FT
DA
TA
EV
ALU
AT
ION
AD
pi§1
UTM
EG
VA
LLE
Y R
OA
D
OLC
OT
T,
CO
NN
EC
TIC
UT
\GE
26 O
F 4
3
ibro
moc
hlor
omet
hane
opro
pylb
enze
ne
ethy
l Ace
tate1,
:>
]I
nyl C
hlor
ide
DW C
once
ntratio
n S
em
ivola
tile
rqanic
Analy
sis
(UG
/L)
4,5-
Tric
hlor
ophe
not
4,6-
Tric
hlor
ophe
nol
4-D
ichl
orop
heno
l
4-D
imet
hylp
heno
l
2
DW C
once
ntra
tion V
olat
ile O
rgan
icnalv
sis
(UG
/L)
(con
t.)
O -i < u
ethy
l ter
t-But
yl E
ther
et
hytc
yclo
hexa
ne
i
ethy
lene
Chl
orid
e
i
etra
chlo
roet
hene
otal
Xyl
enes
ans-
1 ,2
-Dic
hlor
oeth
ene
ans-
1 ,3
-Dic
hlor
opro
pene
I— & i J O
2,4,
5-Tet
rach
loro
benz
ene
I f
s-1
,3-D
ichl
orop
rope
ne
1
u
4-D
initr
otol
uene
, CM CM CM CM CM CM CM
ampl
e Lo
catio
n
ate
Sam
pled
02B
37D
or
X
i N O oDnH CO Q 2 5 CL ^
= 3 3 3 co z
t? CM
>s I S
o ^
hZ o
CO
g
1,iib
ZS
S S a
3.i
t i § => 1
O ,
sis
H§§1p~<<: If- di^&$2 < " 2> t-o2 ^ 2 o b •»•UJ O CM
pte
pled
tratio
n S
eml
Ana
lysi
s (U
G/L
I
a ss S "UJ
3 ? 2 Bg?f-OTQ z 5a. £ £ RI0
Bedr
Mon
i
liJ z
ti
s if85
z!b
5
Mon
itorin
g
g
D
| 8
o T
S
I
c? « i
IM Z)
a <?s a *
£ o
s1 i
Reg
ion
IX P
RG
C
once
ntra
tion
Sem
lic
Ana
lysi
U
G/L
)
(0 Q111 Q OIL <
Sis!
Bed
rock
::- 3 u ' ^# o . §oo ^
~ uj p 5 . t ^
s. i5 i(N < D O E «o
2 >-H wgN
S = ll^ I- W Q Z S Q.
s. a
ellT
Sam
ple
i1 i g U.
n &
3(0Z
Q
co o
o p 9 o t < 3 F
T% < > Z •s 3 > iu z
w < Q O £ o> Uj >. j_ UJ O «M j Q IL S f 111 m i
§H CO Q Z 5 0. D:
m
in D Z
11k
= Miu a
3g
5 > < Q O
H M O 1
l
-J Z K ^ O O o p 9 o
§|§§ ? I^^z15^-102
et'SCM ill O en
-ffi
K- <0 Q Z 5 D.
It
?
a it
i Jo 2 5
It
II II
3 o
II
i o£ *
o
if : n L<
*s
It 8 o + Si
g
Is
s«
!i & IsSu- U
3 in
3 in
?§
^1
es
10 o
1 o
1.
I:
3 , s I 5
It U CM
a. tn
S
I !
a
O
0
3*5.l I
! §Q = ! C <3 O
° o Eu Q CM co UJ
i- m te.Q 5
zI I
I
S1
.£ i
il
!i§ J23 § S M
55
8 8.ii
I s
UJ
2m tr
8 ^
I
ftx
2 i 1o
ii
ii
II
V)
t
o < z
o50
u in
I
fi
. o: 'S if
If
5 II
•?
2 oc <
iu -r £ 5 > I-" o ri < O O b n m >- |_ IU O m -J ° feS J ""
H W Q 2 § Q.
I
I
t
|
6 I
f f I I s
cr
Bed
rock
-
Mon
ttorin
g
> " Z o
O
?§g? I ggs *&U. (S
S o
P
n Zl
in in
3.* It
I(3 1 g ga.
I X ci
S
< 2 Q § [ • £ 8
> 3 ° O J _l DC uj
g < UJ _l § CT En §
1is S^ a 5 > H o 5. ^ «N < Q O fc ^t ia s t ^ s s £ ¥ |
I
=i£
I
i
3 ? ^ = 5 o ^ f 9 !mH W Q Z S Q. I I J O I"I
3 in q q
d d
it ^ol§ I Ps
3
o
3 o o a q qd d
DD
W
-W
-W
3
a o C)
3
a qd
o o'
NV
-GW
-W02
-AV
G
5 *
,S
q o
qd
z o
43
-G 2
2
if
a§
i!i EY
RO
AD
ON
NE
CT
ICU
T
?°
1I?SS23>8. S32 O t in
Uj O co $il S O uj 2g ast I tf - Lb *J Sf
H w a z S il
ii
=CO Q
O cr Q
Sll
uj O co S O iu
05 Q Z
<0
li JS
I
o IE
II
H (O Q Z
It it QUJ> 2 ?! >
3
S5c?
Ilk
o c Q I
J« |lS in
Wel
l Typ
e
ow C
once
ntra
tiona
lvsi
s IU
G/U
(c
51
s d
| a12 n o i? ii a5
i! S c z gz o
i =>i!I
Ik £8
o
U a o
I X <o
<o
» g p Q g
fl £. = 2 o If
t{I lt 2 5 > tO cvi < Q O t TO 5
b f i ; s
I- W Q Z 5 Q. l O Ml
ell T
Num
be
3
!
A II
II
- ^
So II SI
z ii
it<?<-'•Lki
D. O
{25 Si 2§K <
S
t g I
I!' 5. s "
?.
CM < I ™.
i!I
illj
U I fi Q.
ro !!l& 1 t1 ~mIt. •55? ?o r1- (0 D
T D
AT
A E
VA
LUA
NE
G V
ALLE
Y R
O/
WO
LC
OT
T, C
ON
NE
CP
AG
E 4
0 O
F 4
3
eII
W D Z
i a
§|Ms t IE
rs
ID
2
Sf i 4S
as
$ D*& 8 °W a Z 5 Cu a;
Hit
i 10 z
FIGURES
Qriidoai Inciudes ©olor sodteg. t& 6-^
Upgradient Monitoring Wells
Study Area Wells (Including supply wells at 1 and 15 Nutmeg Valley Road)
Cross-gradient Monitoring Welte
200 400 Feet Wells Sampled - May and June 2005 FIGURE 1
NUTMEG VALLEY ROAD SITE
NOTES: WOLCOTT. CONNECTICUT It TETRA TECH NUS, INC. 1) PLAN NOT TO BE USED FOR DESIGN 3 ALL LOCATIONS TO BE CONSIDERED APPROXIMATE DRAWN BY: D. A. CHISHOLM DATE: Novwnbw 5, 2002 55 JONBPIN ROAD WILMINGTON, MA 01667 |
CHECKED BY: DRAFT FILE: ..^lutmeg-OWOb.APR {S.'S|658-.'S9«
