SDMS DocID 244302

New England District

US Army Corps of Engineers

USAGE Contract No. W912WJ-05-C-0005

TWENTY-EIGHTH GROUNDWATER MONITORING REPORT

NORWOOD PCB SUPERFUND SITE

Norwood, Massachusetts

June/July 2005

Monitoring Event

nd Records Center

S'TF.:

Prepared by OTHER:,

"It

TETRATECH EC. INC

133 Federal Street, Boston, MA 02110

and

WATERMARK

100 Foot of John Street, Lowell, MA 01852
New England District

US Army Corps of Engineers

USAGE CONTRACT NO. W912WJ-05-C-0005

TWENTY-EIGHTH GROUNDWATER MONITORING REPORT

NORWOOD PCB SUPERFUND SITE

Norwood, Massachusetts

June/July 2005

Monitoring Event

Prepared for

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

New England District

Concord, Massachusetts

Prepared by

Tetra Tech EC, Inc.

133 Federal Street

Boston, MA 02110

and

Watermark Environmental, Inc.

100 Foot of John Street

Lowell, MA 01852

Revision Date Prepared By Reviewed By Approved By Pages Affected

0 9/30/05 K. Craigie, J. Scaramuzzo J.Haley All

1 4/04/06 O. Westphalen J.Haley J. Haley All

TDOJ-006

April 21X16
TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ES-1

1.0 INTRODUCTION 1-1

2.0 FIELD INVESTIGATION PROGRAM 2-1

2.1 Monitoring Well Gauging and Monitoring Well Sampling 2-1

2.2 Groundwater Monitoring 2-1

2.3 Well Repairs and Maintenance 2-1

2.4 Sediment and Surface Water Sampling 2-2

3.0 FIELD AND HYDROGEOLOGICAL DATA ANALYSIS 3-1

3.1 Field Physical and Chemical Data 3-1

3.2 Water Level Elevations and Groundwater Flow 3-1

4.0 ANALYTICAL RESULTS 4-1

4.1 Comparison to Regulatory Criteria 4-1

4.2 Laboratory Analysis Methods 4-1

4.3 Evaluation of Laboratory QA/QC Data 4-2

4.4 Volatile Organic Analyses 4-2

4.4.1 Comparison to Standards 4-3

4.4.2 Volatile Contaminant Distributions 4-3

4.5 Semivolatile Organics 4-10

4.5.1 Comparison to Site Cleanup Standards 4-12

4.5.2 Semivolatile Contaminant Distributions 4-12

4.6 PCBs 4-12

4.6.1 Comparison to Standards 4-14

4.6.2 Contaminant Distribution 4-14

4.7 Inorganic/Metal Analyses 4-14

5.0 SUMMARY DISCUSSION 5-1

5.1 Hydrogeological Investigation Program 5-1

5.2 Analytical Results 5-1

5.2.1 Trends in Groundwater Volatile Data 5-1

5.2.2 Trends in Groundwater Semivolatile Data 5-1

5.2.3 1,2,4-Triehlorobenzene Migration 5-4

5.2.4 Trends in PCB Data 5-4

5.3 Comparison with Previous TCV Extraction Well Data 5-7

5.4 Comparison with Previous Monitoring Well Data - Plume Migration 5-7

5.4.1 Upgradient Western Site Areas 5-7

5.4.2 Downgradient Site Areas 5-13

5.5 Comparison of Chlorinated Hydrocarbon Product-Daughter Mole Ratio Data 5-16

5.6 Chlorinated Volatile Trends at Well MW-1A 5-16

5.7 Implications of Cessation of GWTP Operations 5-16

5.7.1 GWTP Mass Removal 5-18

6.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 6-1

7.0 REFERENCES 7-1

TD03-006

April 2006
TABLE OF CONTENTS - Cont 'd

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 2-1 Monitoring Well, Extraction Well and Piexometer Location Map 2-3

Figure 3-1 Groundwater Contour Map (Overburden) 3-2

Figure 3-2 Groundwater Contour Map (Bedrock) 3-3

Figure 4-1 Groundwater TCV Contour Map (Overburden) 4-4

Figure 4-2 Groundwater TCV Contour Map (Upper Overburden) 4-5

Figure 4-3 Groundwater TCV Contour Map (Shallow Bedrock) 4-6

Figure 4-4 Groundwater TCV Contour Map (Shallow Bedrock and Lower Overburden) 4-7

Figure 4-5 Chlorinated Volatile Hydrocarbons- Product-Daughter Mole Ratio 4-11

Figure 4-6 Groundwater PCB Contour Map (Overburden) 4-15

Figure 5-1 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene Concentrations at Well MW-1A 5-3

Figure 5-2 PCB Trends in Upper Overburden Wells 5-5

Figure 5-3 Extraction Well TCV Concentrations 5-9

Figure 5-4 Extraction Well Chlorinated Volatile Distribution 5-10

Figure 5-5 Extraction Well TCV Trends 5-11

Figure 5-6 Trends in Northern Site Areas 5-14

Figure 5-7 Downgradient Plume Trends 5-15

Figure 5-8 Chlorinated Volatiles Trends at Monitoring Well MW-1 A 5-17

Figure 5-9 Trends in TCV Mass Removal and Gallons Treated by Site Extraction Wells 5-19

LIST OF TABLES

Table 4-1 Target Compounds for Norwood PCB Superfund Site Groundwater 4-2

Table 4-2 Frequency of Volatile Organic Detections 4-3

Table 4-3 Frequency of Semivolatile Organic Detections 4-12

Table 4-4 Frequency of PCB Detections 4-13

Table 4-5 Monitoring and Extraction Wells Filtered and Unfiltered PCB Results ((.ig/L) 4-13

Table 4-6 Piezometer Filtered and Unfiltered PCB Results (|_ig/L) 4-13

Table 5-1 Comparison of TCV Extraction Well Results (|-ig/L) 5-8

Table 5-2 Comparison of TCV Monitoring Well Results (ug/L) 5-12

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix A Summary of Groundwater Sampling Field Data

Appendix B Laboratory Analytical Data

Appendix C QA/QC Data Review

Appendix D Summary of Well Repair and Maintenance Activities

Appendix E Sediment and Surface Water Sampling Results

TD03-006

April 2006
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

°C degrees centigrade

|.ig/L micrograms per liter

uS/cm microsiemens per centimeter

1,2-DCE 1,2-dichloroethene

1,2,4-TCB 1,2,4-trichlorobenzene

DO dissolved oxygen

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

GWTP groundwater treatment plant

MADEP Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection

MCP Massachusetts Contingency Plan

MOM Management of Migration

mV millivolts

NAPL non-aqueous phase liquid

NTU nephelometric turbidity unit

ORP oxidation-reduction potential

PCB polychlorinated biphenyl

PCE tetrachloroethene

QA Quality Assurance

QC Quality Control

REAL Risk Based Action Level

ROD Record of Decision

Site Norwood PCB Superfund Site

SOP standard operating procedure

SVOC semivolatile organic compound

TCE trichloroethylene

TCL target compound list

TCV target chlorinated volatiles

TtEC Tetra Tech EC, Inc.

USAGE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

VOC volatile organic compound

Watermark Watermark Environmental, Inc.

TD03-006

Apnl2006

111
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Watermark Environmental, Inc., under contract with the United States Army Corps of Engineers

(USAGE) - New England District, and in cooperation with Tetra Tech EC, Inc. (TtEC), has performed a

groundwater monitoring event at the Norwood PCB Superfund Site (Site). This report summarizes the

results of the 28th monitoring event conducted in June/July 2005.

The 28th groundwater monitoring event involved the collection and analysis of 31 monitoring well

samples, nine extraction well samples, and four piezometer samples. In addition, one surface water and

one sediment sample were collected. Monitoring and extraction wells are located across the Site and are

screened in both overburden and bedrock horizons. Piezometers are located directly adjacent to Meadow

Brook on the northeastern edge of the Site. Water level measurements continue to generally indicate east

to northeast flow directions in the overburden aquifer, and a general flow direction towards the east in the

bedrock aquifer with a southeast component. It should be noted that the groundwater extraction system

has been shut down since June 2000.

Laboratory analytical data for the current monitoring event are generally consistent with results observed

during the 27th monitoring event which occurred in October 2002.

In February 2005, an Explanation of Significant Differences (ESD) was published which presented Risk

Based Action Levels (RBALs) for VOCs, Semivolatile Organic Compounds (SVOCs), and PCBs.

Current groundwater data from site monitoring wells, extraction wells, and piezometers meets the

RBALs. Since RBALs have been met and groundwater quality has stabilized, additional groundwater

remediation is not likely needed. Nevertheless, groundwater, surface water and sediment quality should

continue to be monitored to verify that current site conditions remain stable or improve.

TD03-006 ES-1

April 2006
1.0 INTRODUCTION

Watermark Environmental, Inc. (Watermark) is under contract to the United States Army Corps of

Engineers (USAGE) to perform the 28th groundwater monitoring event at the Norwood PCB Superfund

Site (Site). To address the migration of dissolved contaminants at the Site, a groundwater extraction and

on-site physical-chemical treatment system was installed in 1995 and operated between early 1996 and

June 2000. In support of these remedial actions, a groundwater monitoring program consisting

of hydrogeological investigations and groundwater chemical analysis was implemented between

April 1996 and October 2002. The baseline component of the monitoring program, as well as the first

27 monitoring events have been completed and the results previously described (Foster Wheeler,

1996a,b,c; 1997a,c,d,e,f; 1998a,b,c,d; 1999a,b,c,d; 2000a,b,c,d; 2001a,b; Nobis Engineering Inc. 2001a,b;

2002a,b,c; 2003).

Note that groundwater cleanup levels were originally based on drinking water criteria as presented in the

1989 Record of Decision (ROD). Supplemental risk assessment activities were performed from 2001 to

2004 after it was determined by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Massachusetts

Department of Environmental Protection (MADEP) that drinking water criteria were not consistent with

current and future site use. These supplemental risk assessment activities included the installation of

piezometers and additional soil, sediment, and surface water sampling in 2004. The risk assessment is

summarized in a report entitled Phase II Ecological and Human Health Risk Summary Report

(July 2004). Subsequently, an Explanation of Significant Differences (ESD) was published in

February 2005 which presented revised groundwater cleanup levels referred to as Risk Based Action

Levels (RBALs). In addition, the ESD described the completion of "an additional round of groundwater

monitoring before the end of 2005." That "additional round" was completed in June and July 2005 as the

28th monitoring event. The findings of the 28th monitoring event are the subject of this report. As stated

in the ESD, the objectives of this 28th monitoring event are to:

• further assess the hydrological impacts since the shutdown of the groundwater treatment plant

(GWTP) in June 2000; and

• determine whether any additional (future) groundwater remediation will be necessary. If the

results of the monitoring lead the EPA to determine that additional active groundwater extraction

and treatment is not necessary, the GWTP will be decommissioned.

Section 2.0 of this report identifies the components of the field investigation program. Section 3.0

presents the results of the hydrogeological water level evaluations. Section 4.0 presents the results of the

chemical analysis program. Section 5.0 summarizes the results of the hydrogeological and chemical

analysis programs and considers implications for the Management of Migration (MOM) program.

Section 6.0 presents the conclusions and recommendations with respect to the objectives above. Section

7.0 provides a list of references. Appendix A presents supporting field data and information on

groundwater sampling. Appendix B contains the comprehensive laboratory analytical data. Appendix C

presents the results of the QA/QC review of the laboratory data. Appendix D provides a summary of well

repair and maintenance activities. Appendix E provides the sediment and surface water sampling results.

TD03-006 1-1

April 2006
2.0 FIELD INVESTIGATION PROGRAM

To implement the 28th (June/July 2005) monitoring event, a field investigation effort consisting of well

gauging and groundwater sampling was performed. Monitoring well, extraction well, and piezometer

sampling locations are shown on Figure 2-1. The field investigation was performed by technical staff

from Watermark in accordance with the Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) Addendum, Final

Groundwater Monitoring, Norwood PCB Superfund Site, Norwood, Massachusetts, May 2005. In

addition, minor well repairs and maintenance activities were performed and sediment/surface water

samples were collected for analyses as requested by the USAGE.

2.1 Monitoring Well Gauging and Monitoring Well Sampling

Monitoring well gauging was performed on July 13, 2005. The Site has 36 monitoring wells, 9 extraction

wells, and 4 piezometers for gauging water levels and/or sampling. The following summarizes the results

of the gauging and sampling:

• Forty-three (43) monitoring wells and extraction wells were gauged for water levels. MW-3IR was

not gauged since the roadbox was full of water on the day of the synchronous water level round.

MW-5A was not gauged since it is paved over, and the water levels in piezometers PZ-1 through PZ4 were not gauged since their elevations were not surveyed; and

• Forty-four (44) monitoring wells, extraction wells, and piezometers were sampled. Samples were

not collected from monitoring wells MW-5A, MW-5B, MW-6A, MW-6B and B-28 since these

monitoring wells are no longer sampled as part of the monitoring program per USAGE instructions.

A summary of Groundwater Sampling Field Data is included in Appendix A.

2.2 Groundwater Monitoring

This monitoring event was conducted to continue to monitor the ambient groundwater conditions

following the GWTP shutdown. This 28* (June/July 2005) monitoring event included completion of one

groundwater monitoring event. A total of 44 groundwater samples (obtained from 9 extraction wells,

31 monitoring wells, and 4 piezometers) were collected between June 1 and July 13, 2005. The most

recent event prior to this event was performed in October 2002 (Round 27).

All monitoring well samples were collected in accordance with the EPA Region I Low Stress (low flow)

Purging and Sampling Procedure (SOP #GW0001, July 30, 1996 Revision 2). A summary of

Groundwater Sampling Field Data is included in Appendix A.

2.3 Well Repairs and Maintenance

In accordance with contract W912WJ-05-C-0005, Watermark performed well repair and maintenance

activities including the following:

• PVC risers were trimmed on 10 wells;

• Expansion plugs were replaced on 16 wells; and

• Well covers and/or bolts were replaced on 16 wells.

A summary of well repair and maintenance activities is provided in Appendix D.

TD03-006 2-1

April 2006
2.4 Sediment and Surface Water Sampling

One sediment sample and one surface water sample were collected from Meadow Brook. A description

of sediment and surface water sampling activities is included in Appendix E.

TD03-006 2-2

April 2006
WEL

L SCHEDULE

NOTE:

BASE PLAN WAS PRODUCED BY METCALF & EDDY INC.

AND MODIFIED BY FOSTER WHEELER ENVIRONMENTAL

CORP. ON 6/26/96 AND NOBIS ENGINEERING ON 1/3/02.

Well

B4

B9

B-10

B-18

B-19R

B-28

MW-1A

MW-1BR

MW-1C

MW-2A

MW-2B

MW-3AR

MW-3B

MW-3IR

MW-4A

MW-4B

MW-5A

MW-5B

MW-6A

MW-6B

MW-7A

MW-7B

MW— 70

MW-8I

MW-9B

ME2

ME3

ME4

ME5

ME8

ME9

ME-10

ME-11A

ME-11B

ME-12A

ME-12B

ME-18B

EW4

EW5

EW8

EW9

EW-10

EW-11

EW-16

EW-17

EW-18

PZ-01

PZ-02

PZ-03

PZ-04

Screened

Interval

_JdefiiQ_

5-15

7-22

5-15

9-24

5-20

5-15

5-15

20-30

66-76

4.5-14.5

33-38

4-15

_aa=ia_

33-38

7-12

37-42

_^i,7-9.7

92-102

7.7-17.7

88.5-93.5

8.7-18.7

33.4-43.4

80-90

56.4-61.4

28.5-38.5

17-22

25-45

24-44

5.5-10.5

12-22

69-79

5-15

15-25

11.8-21.8

10.5-20.5

6.1-16.1

23-43

8.5-13.5

13-18

30.5-45.5

31-51

21.5-31.5

21-31

19-29

19-29

31-51

3-4

3-4

3-4

3-4

Stratum

Upper Overburden

Upper Overburden

Upper Overburden

Uj>per Overburden

Upper Overburden

Upper Overburden

Upper Overburden

Lower Overburden

Lower Bedrock

Upper Overburden

Shallow Bedrock

Upper Overburden

Shallow Bedrock

Lower Overburden

Upper Overburden

Shallow Bedrock

Upper Overburden

Shallow Bedrock

Upper Overburden

Deep Bedrock

Upper Overburden

Shallow Bedrock

uesa Bedrock

Lower Overburden

Shallow Bedrock

Lower Overburden

Shallow Bedrock

Shallow Bedrock

Upper Overburden

Shallow Bedrock

Deep Bedrock

Upper Overburden

Shallow Bedrock/Lower Overburden

Shallow Bedrock/Lower Overburden

Shallow Bedrock/Lower Overburden

Shallow Bedrock/Lower Overburden

Shallow Bedrock

Upper Overburden

Upper Overburden

Shallow Bedrock

Shallow Bedrock

Lower Overburden

Lower Overburden

Lower Overburden

Lower Overburden

Shallow Bedrock

Overburden

Overburden

Overburden

Overburden

US Army Corps

of Engineers

New England District

I!

in

O u. <

Z03

UJ

""S

EC

AL

TET

1 33

s«§

LEGEND:

-0- MONITORING WELL

+ EXTRACTION WELL

• PIEZOMETER

o:

Ld

(/> o t M

O Hi u

is -^ So £<=> ! £< *5 (/) ^ ' O _1 Z

z-jg

5^ l~\f<g.

0 . Q- Q §8 E

Z; o * 2 • ig

60 0 60 120

S5

SCALE IN FEET

Sheet Reference

Number:

FIGURE

2-1

5h««l 1 of 1
3.0 FIELD AND HYDROGEOLOGICAL DATA ANALYSIS

3.1 Field Physical and Chemical Data

During the low flow sampling process, physical and chemical data including water level, specific

conductivity, turbidity, temperature, pH, oxidation-reduction potential (ORP), and dissolved oxygen (DO)

were collected for each monitoring well and are included in Appendix A. Groundwater specific

conductivity levels ranged from 155 microsiemens per centimeter (uS/cm) (MW-3B) to 866 jaS/cm

(EW-5). Turbidity values ranged from 0.1 nephelometric turbidity units (NTUs) (EW-17) to 1,167.8

NTUs (ME-3). Groundwater temperatures ranged from 12.0 degrees centigrade (°C) (ME-12A) to

25.8°C. (B-19R). Note that the higher temperatures are likely associated with ambient temperatures

warming the flow-through cell and/or the pump. Groundwater pH levels ranged from pH 1.7 (EW-17) to

pH 8.1 (MW-7C). Note that the lower pH values are suspect since they were below the daily calibration

range and inconsistent with historic data. The cause of the low values may have been heat-related.

Groundwater ORP levels ranged from -267 millivolts (mV) (EW-10) to 687 mV (B-18). Groundwater

DO levels ranged from 0.2 mg/1 (P2-2, EW-11, EW-10, ME-8) to 10.6 mg/I (PZ-4). Note that despite

some of the anomalous values recorded for some of the water quality parameters, all parameters did

stabilize prior to sample collection.

3.2 Water Level Elevations and Groundwater Flow

Well gauging data collected on July 13, 2005 were entered into a computer spreadsheet to calculate the

groundwater levels for both the overburden and bedrock aquifers. The spreadsheet uses surveyed casing

references provided by the USAGE as amended by Nobis in 2002. For selected monitoring wells (B-4,

B-9, MW-1A, MW-3AR, MW-31R, MW-4A, ME-8, and ME-10), PVC elevations were corrected by

Watermark to account for well repairs as described in Section 2.3.

Overburden groundwater elevations were measured between 39.5 feet at monitoring well ME-12A to

48.28 feet at monitoring well MW-6A. Bedrock groundwater elevations were measured between

43.78 feet at monitoring well MW-9B to 50.37 feet at monitoring well MW-5B. Figures 3-1 and 3-2

present potentiometric surface maps for the overburden and bedrock aquifers. The overburden

potentiometric map illustrated the elevation of the water table using data collected from wells screened in

the overburden. Similarly, the bedrock water elevation map illustrates the elevation of the water table in

the wells screened only in bedrock. Monitoring wells ME-11A, ME-1 IB, ME-12A and ME-12B straddle

the lower overburden-shallow bedrock interface and are screened across both formations. Given the more

fractured nature of the upper bedrock, and the presumed hydraulic connection to the lower aquifer, these

wells were considered as overburden data points for plotting potentiometric maps. In cases where a well

cluster has two wells screened in the same formation (either bedrock or overburden), an arithmetic

average of the measurements was used to prepare the contour map. The elevations in the following well

clusters were averaged: MW-3AR and MW-3IR, MW-1BR and MW-1 A, and MW-7B and MW-7C.

The overburden contour map illustrates the site groundwater flow predominately to the east toward

Route 1 and Meadow Brook with a northeast component radiating towards Meadow Brook in the northern

portion of the Site. The bedrock groundwater contour map depicts groundwater flow generally to the east

with a southeast component southwest of the former Grant Gear building. The overburden and bedrock

groundwater flow directions are generally consistent with prior monitoring results.

TD03-006 3-1

April 2006
I

I

r,

N

LEGEM*

US Army Corps

of Engineers

Naw England District

fl

„

ii

§:

MONITORING WELL

EXTRACTION WELL

CONTOUR LINES REPRESENT

ELEVATION IN FEET

SEA LEVEL

{jOTES: i

1. GROUNDWATER REMEDIATION CONTRACT LIMITS

OF WORK INCLUDE THE IMMEDIATE VICINITY

OF GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELLS (AS SHOWN).

2. GROUNDWATER ELEVATIONS MEASURED 7/13/05.

* WATER ELEVATION SUSPECT; NOT USED TO

DEVELOP CONTOURS.

UJ

t

o£

5ioSUPERFL *SSACHU NORWOOD PCS NORWOOD. Mi

t—

o

Q.

Ul

K

Ul

I—GROUNDWA Q.

ce

D

O

Z

o

oGROUNDWATER z

LJ

0

OC.

in

o

o

CM

m >-

LJ =j

o^

NOTE:

BASE PLAN WAS PRODUCED BY METCALF & EDDY INC.

AND MODIFIED BY FOSTER WHEELER ENVIRONMENTAL

CORP. ON 6/26/96 AND NOBIS ENGINEERING ON 1/3/02.

60 0 60

—I LSCALE IN FEET

120

Sheet Reference

Number:

RGURE

3-1

Sh««t 1 of 1
N

US Army Corps

of Engineers

New England District

jOMlerwd t>r: 0. WESTPHALEN

jj

s\

5

s

1-

f U.S. ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT

CORPS OF ENGINEERS

CONCORD, MASSACHUSETTS

i{iv.s<21gs0-aLJ ^ f<K u<sK ^ ts

IIii11!|

,i10 §

NOTE:

BASE PLAN WAS PRODUCED BY METCALF & EDDY INC.

AND MODIFIED BY FOSTER WHEELER ENVIRONMENTAL

CORP. ON 6/26/96 AND NOBIS ENGINEERING ON 1/3/02.

-0- MONITORING WELL

4- EXTRACTION WELL

CONTOUR LINES REPRESENT

ELEVATION IN FEET

ABOVE SEA LEVEL

1. GROUNDWATER REMEDIATION CONTRACT LIMITS

OF WORK INCLUDE THE IMMEDIATE VICINITY

OF GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELLS (AS SHOWN). 2. GROUNDWATER ELEVATIONS MEASURED 7/13/05.

fei££ U .

Q.Q

§ <CD

O *^

S|o

ct: 60 0 60 120 —I I—

SCALE IN FEET

Sheet Reference

Number:

FIGURE

3-2

Sheet 1 of 1
4.0 ANALYTICAL RESULTS

The groundwater monitoring event completed in June/July of 2005 is the first groundwater sampling at

the Site since the 27th monitoring event completed in October 2002. In 2004, four piezometers were

installed along the site side of Meadow Brook. These piezometers were installed us part of the Meadow

Brook investigation to determine the source of PCBs found in the brook sediments and surface water

downstream and into the Neponset River. The construction of these piezometers is different than the

monitoring wells at the Site in many respects including the lack of a sand pack around the screen.

Therefore, the results from the piezometers may not be directly comparable to those for the monitoring

wells and extraction wells. However, the reader should be aware that piezometer results are included in

the discussion below for the 28th monitoring event.

This section summarizes the results of the groundwater off-site laboratory analysis program. The target

compounds that were analyzed in the groundwater monitoring wells are presented in Table 4-1. The

associated comprehensive analytical data tables are presented in Appendix B.

This section discusses the results of the groundwater analyses on a chemical class by class basis

(i.e., volatiles, semivolatiles, and PCBs) for the target compounds which were analyzed. Included are

evaluations of contaminant distributions, chemistry, and migration patterns. The list of target compounds

which have been analyzed is based on the target list identified in the Groundwater Monitoring Plan.

The results for the sediment and surface water sampling activities are included in Appendix E.

4.1 Comparison to Regulatory Criteria

The 1989 ROD specified groundwater cleanup levels. As discussed earlier in Section 1.0, new RBALs

were developed as summarized in the Phase II Ecological and Human Health Risk Summary Report

(July 2004). The RBALs were published in the ESD in February 2005. The RBALs are provided in

Table 4-1.

4.2 Laboratory Analysis Methods

Laboratory analyses of the groundwater samples were performed by Severn Trent Laboratory (Colchester,

Vermont). Analyses were performed according to EPA SW-846 referenced methods and are consistent

with requirements of the QAPP. The principal analytical methods which were utilized are summarized as

follows:

Parameter

Volatile Organics

Semivolatile Organics

Pesticide/PCBs

Technique

GC/MS

GC/MS

GC/ECD

Methods

Extraction

5030B

3510/3520

3510

Analysis

8260B

8270C

8082

In accordance with USAGE direction, no analysis for metals was performed during this sampling round.

TD03-006

April 2006

4-1
Table 4-1

Target Compounds for Norwood PCB Superfund Site Groundwater

Target Compound

Risk Based Action Levels

(RBALs):1 Groundwater

Cleanup Standards (mg/L)

Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs)

1,2-Dichloroethene (total)

1 , 1 ,2,2-Tetrachloroethane

Tetrachloroethene

1 , 1 ,2-Trichloroe thane

Trichloroethylene

Vinyl chloride

Chlorobenzene

3,660

NE

37

NE

108

310

NE

Semivolatile Organic Compounds (SVOCs)

1 ,2-Dichlorobenzene

1 ,3-Dichlorobenzene

1 ,4-Dichlorobenzene

Pentachlorophenol

1 ,2,4-Trichlorobenzene

NE

NE

4.6

NE

34

Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs)

Total PCBs NE

Notes: NE - Not Established

1

 EPA Region I Explanation of Significant Differences for the Norwood PCB Superfund

Site, Norwood, MA, February 23, 2005.

4.3 Evaluation of Laboratory Q A/QC Data

The laboratory QA/QC data for the groundwater analyses were independently reviewed by Tetra Tech

EC's chemistry staff. The results of this QA/QC review are presented in Appendix C and summarized

here. As part of this review, laboratory QA/QC information, including data on holding times, blank and

duplicate analyses, surrogates, and matrix spike recoveries, were examined for adherence to EPA SW-846

method requirements and related EPA guidance. However, this review did not include detailed evaluation

of all laboratory QA/QC data which would be performed in a more comprehensive EPA Region I Tier III

data validation.

The results of the QA/QC review indicated that, although several minor QC exceedances were noted,

the overall data set is generally satisfactory and acceptable for project use. Several results for VOCs,

SVOCs, and PCBs were qualified with (J) or (UJ) primarily due to matrix spike, surrogate recovery,

calibration, and laboratory control sample inconsistencies. Where appropriate, data qualifiers resulting

from this QA/QC data review have been included in the analytical data tables presented in Appendix B.

4.4 Volatile Organic Analyses

This section summarizes the results of the groundwater target volatile organic analyses. The overall

results for the full suite of groundwater volatile organic analyses are presented in Appendix B. Volatile

organic data have been compared to RBALs and also evaluated with respect to contaminant distributions

and environmental chemistry.

It should be noted that in comparing and summing groundwater VOC (and other organic) data,

non-detected values have been treated as zero concentration values. During graphical chemical

contouring of groundwater data, concentration values were converted to log values. Therefore, zero

concentration values were treated as 10° = 1 ng/L. Also note that the discussion below includes the

TD03-006

April 2006

4-2
piezometers; previous reports did not discuss the piezometers since they were recently installed. This

affects frequency of detection summaries and contour maps.

4.4.1 Comparison to Standards

This section compares the observed groundwater volatile organic concentrations to site cleanup standards

(RBALs). Groundwater data are presented in Appendix B. The frequencies of detection of chlorinated

volatiles are summarized in Table 4-2. Included in Table 4-2, are the maximum detected concentrations

of chlorinated volatiles and the associated well location.

4.4.1.1 Site Cleanup Standards

Groundwater cleanup standards (RBALs) have been established for four target volatile organics including

trichloroethylene (TCE) (108 mg/L), tetrachloroethene (PCE) (37 mg/L), vinyl chloride (310 mg/L), and

total 1,2-dichloroethenes (1,2-DCE) (3,660 mg/L). Table 4-2 presents a summary of target VOC

frequency of detection, number of samples exceeding the RBAL groundwater cleanup standard, and

maximum detected concentration. Overall, the detection frequencies for VOCs during the most recent

monitoring event varied somewhat from those observed during the previous monitoring event. No VOCs

exceeded the RBALs.

Table 4-2

Frequency of Volatile Organic Detections

Analyte

Chlorobenzene

cis-l,2-Dichloroethene

trans- 1 ,2-Dichloroethene

1 ,2-Dichloroethene (total)

Tetrachloroethene

1 , 1 ,2-Trichloroethane

Trichloroethylene

Vinyl Chloride

RBAL

Cleanup

Level

(mg/L)

NE

NE

NE

3,660

37

NE

108

310

Number

Samples

Exceeding

Cleanup Level

NA

NA

NA

0

0

NA

0

0

2005

Detection

Frequency

5/44

25/44

15/44

25/44

1/44

1/44

21/44

18/44

2002

Detection

Frequency

4/40

28/40

13/40

28/40

4/40

3/40

26/40

20/40

Maximum

Detected

Concentration

(mg/L)

0.03

2.0

0.15

2.3

0.00043

0.031

2.6

0.12

Associated

Sample

Location

B-4

EW-9

EW-9

EW-9

ME-12A

EW-11

EW-11

ME-11A

Notes: A total of 40 wells (extraction and monitoring) and 4 piezometers were sampled during the 2005 groundwater

monitoring event. The piezometers were not sampled in 2002. Field duplicates, trip blanks, and diluted samples were

not included in the frequency calculations.

NE - Not Established: NA - Not Applicable

4.4.2 Volatile Contaminant Distributions

A review of the comprehensive data set presented in Appendix B indicates that groundwater volatile

organic contaminant levels are quite variable across the Site. The data has been considered in terms of

total chlorinated volatile organic trends and also trends for individual volatile constituents.

4.4.2.1 Target Chlorinated Volatiles

The target volatile compound list for Site groundwater (Table 4-1) consists primarily of chlorinated

compounds (trichloroethylene, dichloroethene, etc.). Figures 4-1 through 4-4 illustrate the overall plume

contours for total chlorinated volatiles (TCV) defined as the sum of the concentrations of the target

chlorinated volatile organic compounds (listed in Appendix B). Figure 4-1 provides an overall

characterization of TCV contamination in overburden groundwater. Figure 4-2 illustrates the contours for

TCV in upper overburden. Figure 4-3 presents TCV plume contours for shallow bedrock. Figure 4-4

presents composite TCV contours for lower overburden and shallow bedrock.

TD03-006

April 2006

4-3
U

S Army Corps

of Engineers

New England District

KEY: n

>1.000 ug/l

>500 ug/l

>100 ug/l

>50 ug/l

>10 ug/l

NOTE:

SOU) FACE WELL LOCATIONS WERE

INCLUDED IN TCV CONTOUR INTERPOLATION

NOTE:

BASE PLAN WAS PRODUCED BY METCALF & EDDY INC.

AND MODIFIED BY FOSTER WHEELER ENVIRONMENTAL

CORP. ON 6/26/96 AND NOBIS ENGINEERING ON 1/3/02.

Originals in colot,

1

Dat»: | R*v. SEPTEUIER 2005 | z *iFd

il

^ t IIIe :

U.S. ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT

CORPS OF ENGINEERS

CONCORD. MASSACHUSEns

Drawing cod«: i•a ui • ^f^~\ TETRA TECH EC, INC. [Tt| 133 FEDERAL STREET. BOSTON. MA

!1,IIII1

i 3 i

ill

ii

lAf WATERMARK

•f V KNVIROIMMKNTAL

Q-^

O .

Q0>£ £ = o Qoo: o

60 0 60 120

SCALE IN FEET

Sheaf Ref«r«nc«

Number:

FIGURE

4-1

Sh««t 1 of 1
I

NOTE:

BASE PLAN WAS PRODUCED BY METCALF & EDDY INC.

AND MODIFIED BY FOSTER WHEELER ENVIRONMENTAL

CORP. ON 6/26/96 AND NOBIS ENGINEERING ON 1/3/02.

T

US Army Corps

of Engineers

New England District

KEY:

NOTE:

•OLD FACE WELL LOCATIONS WERE

INCLUDED IN TCV CONTOUR INTERPOLATION

_... „ •? ; Original? in TMlor ' i

l_iiz £i i af*g

ii33

%\

C 31 V)

III

|l

z c 385gviUJ

<7> z^L. Q^1m

S3

|

O/Iy) iy>i

IRWOOD P1NORWOOD,

oz

f£•*

|i-Jgl

..i^ _ i/i X^1

I

i

ii!i ;i -i!•cc5?y j;»i i

Q_ o: 1

fc 0 z

Szo

ui 0 0=

K

 ° m

| "~ 0

5 uj cc

§ £ U"

SIS:

d ^) zoo: O

ino0CM— > LdZ

[Sheet Reference

Number:

FIGURE

4-2

Sheet 1 of 1
NOTE

:

BASE PLAN WAS PRODUCED BY METCALF & EDDY INC.

AND MODIFIED BY FOSTER WHEELER ENVIRONMENTAL

CORP. ON 6/26/96 AND NOBIS ENGINEERING ON 1/3/02.

N

US Army Corps

of Engineers

New England District

MOTE:

•OLD FACE WELL LOCATIONS WERE

INCLUDED IN TCV CONTOUR INTERPOLATION

Originals in color

1

lit

DMlgntd br:

0. WESTPHALtN

ili!i! U.S. ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT CORPS OF ENGINEERS CONCORD. MASSACHUSETTS

ii,!i••l)

iiiR«y|«w*d by: J. HALEY I

i/i

i

sHB=

lil

ill 1 '8SBs

CL. <ex I §*

1

 O

iiS

UJ

ffl 5 >.

 :

o . S Qf ^

>

Q_Q Z 2 3 I

|i§l^

0£ Q (^

|i i i

i io

60 0 60 120

-I ^

SCALE IN FEET

Sheet Reference

Number:

FIGURE

4-3

Shut 1 of 1
NOTE:

BASE PLAN WAS PRODUCED BY METCALF & EDDY INC.

AND MODIFIED BY FOSTER WEELER ENVIRONMENTAL

CORP. ON 6/26/96 AND NOBIS ENGINEERING ON 1/3/02.

60 0 60

iE^SSSi

SCALE IN FEET

120

N

US Army Corps

of Engineers

New Englond District

KEY:

NOTE:

•OLD FACE WELL LOCATIONS WERE

INCLUDED IN TCV CONTOUR INTERPOLATION

Originals in color.

p

i£ « Pt

IES

fsi

li

II

is

gz oo

Sheet Reference

Number:

FIGURE

4-4

Sh..t 1 of 1
The TCV chemical concentration data presented in Figures 4-1 through 4-4 (and elsewhere) are based

upon the wells and piezometers sampled as identified in Appendix A. For simplicity, the data have been

presented as a combination of colored contours. These contour lines should be treated as graphical

estimates, which inherently contain some uncertainty. This is particularly true in areas where few

sampling locations exist.

In preparing Figures 4-1 through 4-4, all of the extraction wells have been depicted on each figure. This

has been done to be consistent with the practice in previous reports when the G WTP was in operation and

the extraction well operation may have influenced plume contours. Both upper and lower overburden

monitoring wells and piezometers are shown for the overburden contours (Figure 4-1). Only upper

overburden wells and piezometers are used for developing Figure 4-2 and only bedrock wells are shown

on the shallow bedrock plume (Figure 4-3). In addition, in each figure, wells and piezometers used for

developing the contours are presented in bold. For simplicity, in composite Figure 4-4 only those lower

overburden and shallow bedrock wells used for contouring are included. It should be noted that four

monitoring wells (ME-11A, ME-1 IB, ME-12A, and ME-12B) are screened across both lower overburden

and shallow bedrock. Therefore, to maximize consistency between the plume contours, these four

monitoring wells have been included on both the overburden contours (Figure 4-1) and the shallow

bedrock contours (Figure 4-3), as well as the composite contours (Figure 4-4).

In general, highest TCV concentrations are observed in the overburden and shallow bedrock well stratum

(Figures 4-1 and 4-3), in the northeast corner of the former Grant Gear building slab. The highest TCV

concentrations appear to be localized in this area and include extraction wells EW-9 and EW-11.

Elevated TCV concentrations are also noted at extraction well EW-8. The noted extraction wells with

high TCV concentrations are considered shallow bedrock and/or lower overburden wells, and appear to

have TCV concentrations significantly greater than nearby upper overburden wells (Figure 4-2).

To the west of the treatment plant, TCV concentrations showed some variations compared to the

27th monitoring event. At upper overburden monitoring well ME-10, the TCV concentration decreased.

Farther to the west-northwest at monitoring well B-4, the TCV concentration decreased. On the westsouth west side of the Grant Gear building slab, the TCV concentration at monitoring well MW-1BR

increased slightly.

The upper overburden contours (Figure 4-2) have contracted and split into three areas when compared to

the 27th monitoring event. This is due to the continued detections of TCV at monitoring well MW-7A.

Volatiles were not detected at extraction well EW-4 which is consistent with the last of the monitoring

events. At extraction well EW-5, TCV levels significantly decreased from the 27th monitoring event.

The upper overburden contours continue to suggest a volatile organic source term in the vicinity of

monitoring well MW-1A with a significant increase. The highest upper overburden TCV concentrations

are observed in this area, which is proximate to the former Grant Gear building loading dock. Finally, the

contours depict TCV concentrations in the vicinity of Meadow Brook due to the detections of TCVs in

the newly installed piezometers.

The shallow bedrock contours illustrated on Figure 4-3 are relatively consistent in shape and size to the

contours depicted in the previous monitoring report, however, the extent of the area greater than 1,000

ug/L has decreased due to the decrease of TCVs at extraction well EW-8. TCV concentrations in lower

overburden/shallow bedrock monitoring well ME-1 IB in the northwestern portion of the Site increased

slightly from the results of the 27th monitoring event. Note that each of the bedrock monitoring/extraction

wells depicted in Figure 4-3 is considered a shallow bedrock monitoring/extraction well, with the

exception of the deep bedrock monitoring wells ME-9 and MW-7C, located on the eastern site boundary.

Shallow bedrock TCV concentrations were observed in the northern portion of the Site (ME-8).

TD03-006 4_g

April 2006
The shallow bedrock TCV contours continue to indicate a relatively high TCV concentration area

(ME-8 and EW-9). The shallow bedrock contaminant plume shape is somewhat elliptical with the center

of the plume oriented in a north south direction between extraction/monitoring wells EW-9 and ME-8, in

the northern portion of the Site. The most recent results continue to suggest the center of the shallow

bedrock plume may be elongating toward the north. Low TCV concentrations bound a large portion of

the remaining plume to the northwest and higher to the east. It should be noted that the two deep bedrock

monitoring wells (MW-7C and ME-9) were not included in the shallow bedrock contour. This is because

results, to date, suggest that contamination in the shallow bedrock aquifer is significant^ different

(greater) than in the deep bedrock aquifer.

Due to the absence of monitoring data from beneath the foundation area of the former Grant Gear

building, it is uncertain whether a contiguous TCV plume extends from west of the building to

the northeast of the building. However, since TCV contamination was detected in shallow bedrock

wells in this area, a contiguous TCV plume seems very likely and has been portrayed as such in

Figures 4-1, 4-3, and 4-4.

Deep Bedrock

Only a small number of on-site monitoring wells are screened in deeper (lower) bedrock. These include

monitoring wells MW-7C and ME-9 in the eastern portion of the Site. Monitoring well MW-6B, which is

off-site (and generally upgradient) to the south, is no longer included in the sampling program.

Low TCV levels including vinyl chloride continue to be detected in monitoring well ME-9. This VOC

level has increased from 1.5 to 4.6 ug/L since the 27th monitoring event.

Meadow Brook Vicinity

The TCV concentration in lower overburden/shallow bedrock monitoring well ME-11A to the northwest

of the treatment plant near Meadow Brook (Figure 4-4) is slightly decreased from the 27th monitoring

event. The TCV concentration in companion monitoring well ME-1 IB located in the northwest portion

of the Site increased from the previous results. Chlorinated volatiles were not detected in well ME-12B

located on the north side of Meadow Brook. However, trace levels of tetrachloroethene were detected in

monitoring well ME-12A, and trace levels of 1,2-dichloroethene in monitoring well MW-9B, also on the

north side of Meadow Brook. Concentrations for TCV at the piezometers along the edge of Meadow

Brook ranged from 2.8 |^g/L (PZ-04) to 925 |ag/L (PZ-02). Note that piezometers were not sampled

during the 27th monitoring event.

4.4.2.2 Trichloroethylene

TCE concentrations of greater than 1,000 (.ig/L were detected in monitoring wells MW-1A, MW-1BR in

the western portion of the Site, and also extraction well EW-11 |.ig/L further to the east (ranging from

2,100 to 108,000 ug/L).

The overall contribution of TCE to the TCV plume at the Site has decreased since the baseline monitoring

program. And, as noted, the detection frequency of TCE significantly decreased compared to the last

monitoring event.

4.4.2.3 1,2-Dichloroethene

Total 1,2-DCE concentrations across the Site show somewhat similar distributions to TCE. However,

during recent monitoring events, 1,2-DCE concentrations have generally exceeded TCE concentrations at

many wells. This trend has continued in the latest monitoring event. Relatively high (770 to 2,300 ug/L)

total 1,2-DCE concentrations continue to be observed in extraction wells EW-8, EW-9, EW-10, and at

piezometer PZ-02, which are located to the north and northeast of the former Grant Gear building

TD03-006 4_9

April 2006
foundation. An elevated level (1,900 ug/L) was also observed at extraction well l:W-l 1. Distinctly lower

levels (71 ug/L) of total 1,2-DCE are located in monitoring well MW-1BR located immediately west of

the former Grant Gear building.

4.4.2.4 Vinyl Chloride

The concentration distributions of vinyl chloride across the Site are generally lower than those of TCE

and 1,2-DCE. To the west of the former Grant Gear building foundation, vinyl chloride concentrations

are generally non-detect or at low ppb concentrations. Vinyl chloride is also not detected in shallow

bedrock monitoring well ME-3, to the northwest of the former Grant Gear building foundation. Vinyl

chloride concentrations increase significantly in the wells to the north and northeast of the former Grant

Gear building foundation (up to 120 ug/L).

Immediately north of the former Grant Gear building foundation, elevated vinyl chloride levels (24 to 74

ug/L) are observed in lower overburden extraction well EW-16 and shallow bedrock extraction wells EW8 and EW-9. Vinyl chloride is also observed in monitoring wells ME-11A and ME-8 located along the

northern end of the Site near Meadow Brook.

It should be noted (Table 4-2) that the number of samples (18) in which vinyl chloride was detected

decreased slightly over what was observed in the 27th monitoring event (20). However, the maximum

concentration increased slightly from 88 to 120 ug/L.

4.4.2.5 Chlorinated Hydrocarbon Concentration Ratios

The ratio of the molar concentration of TCE to that of the sum of two breakdown products (1,2-DCE and

vinyl chloride) is highest to the west of the Grant Gear building foundation (Figure 4-5). The ratios are

calculated by dividing the molar concentration of TCE by the sum of the molar concentrations of

1,2-DCE and vinyl chloride. If the concentration of TCE is less than the reporting limit, then the ratio

is 0. If either the concentration of 1,2-DCE or vinyl chloride is below the reporting limit, the compound

is assigned a concentration of 0.25 |^g/L (half the reporting limit).

The highest molar ratio (-10) is again found at monitoring well MW-1A. Ratios drop quickly from

around the maximum. It should be noted that due to the absence of TCE, contours have not been

developed in certain northern portions of the Site, where biodegradation is likely occurring. The majority

of the remaining wells had ratios of less than one. Overall the results continue to suggest some ongoing

biodegradation, particularly in areas to the north and east of the former Grant Gear building foundation.

4.5 Semivolatile Organics

The results of groundwater analyses for the five target semivolatile organics are presented in Appendix B

and summarized in this section. The semivolatiles which were analyzed include:

• 1,2,4-trichlorobenzene

• 1,2-dichloroben2ene

• 1,3 -dichlorobenzene

• 1,4-dichlorobenzene

• pentachlorophenol

TD03-006 4-10

April 2006
KEY:

>10.0

>5.0

>1.0

>0.5

NOTE:

BOLD FACE WELL LOCATIONS WERE

INCLUDED IN CONTOUR INTERPOLATION

NOTE:

BASE PLAN WAS PRODUCED BY METCALF 4 EDDY INC.

AND MODIFIED BY FOSTER WHEELER ENVIRONMENTAL

CORP. ON 6/26/96 AND NOBIS ENGINEERING ON 1/3/02.

120

Originals in color.

US Army Corps

of Engineers

Ntw England District STRIC

RS

ETTS

8

i 5

TECERAL

i

Hi

1/1

O'

</)</) 52

o£ guj

ill°is

UJQ:^

_J Ul >.

o .

§lio§.=

KZ z Q o ^o

Q.

O

Sheet Reference

Number:

FIGURE

4-5

ShMl 1 of 1
4.5.1 Comparison to Site Cleanup Standards

The reported semivolatile concentrations have been compared to the RBAL site cleanup standards. As

indicated in Table 4-1, site groundwater cleanup standards (RBALs) have only been established for two

semivolatile compounds (1,4-dichlorobenzene and 1,2,4-trichlorobenzene). The frequency of detection of

these two semivolatiles is summarized in Table 4-3. The 1,4-dichlorobenzene RBAL cleanup standard is

4.6 mg/L. The RBAL cleanup standard for 1,2,4-trichlorobenzene is 34 mg/L. Pentachlorophenol was

not detected in any samples. No RBALs were exceeded.

Table 4-3

Frequency of Semivolatile Organic Detections

Analyte

1 ,2-Dichlorobenzene

1 ,3-Dichlorobenzene

1 ,4-Dichlorobenzene

1 ,2,4-Trichlorobenzene

Pentachlorophenol

RBAL

Cleanup

Level

(mg/L)

NE

NE

4.6

34

NA

Number

Samples

Exceeding

Cleanup Level

NA

NA

0

0

NA

Detection

Frequency

4/44

3/44

6/44

7/44

0/44

Maximum

Detected

Concentration

(mg/L)

0.03

0.17 D

0.2

1.5

ND

Associated

Sample

Location

MW-1A

PZ-02

MW-1BR

MW-1A

NA

Notes: A total of 40 wells (extraction and monitoring) and 4 piezometers were sampled during the 2005 groundwater

monitoring event. Field duplicates, trip blanks, and diluted samples were not included in the frequency calculations.

NE - Not Established

NA - Not Applicable

ND - Not Detected

D - Diluted Sample Concentration

4.5.2 Semivolatile Contaminant Distributions

Overall, semivolatile results were reported in seven wells and two piezometers. No SVOCs exceeded the

RBALs. The concentration in monitoring well MW-1A increased significantly from the last monitoring

event in 2002, while the concentration in monitoring well MW-1BR decreased. 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene

was also detected in three other monitoring wells at lower concentrations.

4.6 PCBs

Groundwater samples were collected unfiltered from wells and piezometers and were analyzed for the

PCB Aroclors (total) included in the EPA TCL list. In addition, at certain well locations and all

piezometer locations, groundwater samples were also filtered and analyzed for PCBs (dissolved). Two

Aroclors (1248 and 1254) were reported in the unfiltered groundwater samples analyzed (Table 4-4).

PCBs were detected in a total of 16 monitoring and extraction wells (not including duplicates) and

3 piezometers.

Note that in order to achieve a lower reporting limit, the PCB laboratory sample extraction method was

modified. The modification included a 10-fold concentration step, which is reflected as a factor of ten

lower reporting limit, compared to the unmodified method reporting limit. This is consistent with

previous PCB analyses at the Site.

As mentioned above, groundwater samples collected during this monitoring event were also field-filtered

at five select monitoring/extraction well locations (B-4, EW-16, EW-4, MW-1B-R and MW-2A) and at

the four piezometers for PCB analyses (dissolved). The results for unfiltered and filtered PCBs are

summarized in Table 4-5 for monitoring and extraction wells and in Table 4-6 for the piezometers.

TD03-006

April 2006

4-12
Table 4-4

Frequency of PCB Detections

Analyte

Aroclor-1016

Aroclor-1221

Aroclor-1242

Aroclor-1248

Aroclor-1254

Aroclor-1260

RBAL

Cleanup

Level

(mg/L)

NE

NE

NE

NE

NE

NE

Number

Samples

Exceeding

Cleanup Level

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

Detection

Frequency

0/44

0/44

0/44

12/44

16/44

0/44

Maximum

Detected

Concentration

(mjs/L)

NA

NA

NA

0.023

0.015

NA

Associated

Sample

Location

NA

NA

NA

MW-1A

MW-2A

NA

Notes: A total of 40 wells (extraction and monitoring) and 4 piezometers were sampled during the 2005 groundwater

monitoring event. Field duplicates, trip blanks, and diluted samples not included in the frequency calculations.

Frequency of PCB detections and maximum detected concentrations based on unfiltered (total) PCB data.

NE - Not Established

NA - Not Applicable

Table 4-5

Monitoring and Extraction Wells Filtered and Unfiltered PCB Results

Analyte

Unfiltered (total)

Aroclor-1248

Aroclor-1254

Filtered (dissolved)

Aroclor-1248

Aroclor-1254

B-4

22

8

0.29

0.36

EW-16

0.05 U

0.05 U

0.05 U

0.05 U

EW-4

0.25 U

2.7

0.05 U

0.05 U

MW-1B-R

12

7.6 J

0.05 U

0.05 U

MW-2A

2.5 U

15

0.05 U

0.05 U

Notes: J = Estimated

U = Undetected at reporting limit

Only aroclors detected are presented in table.

As is indicated in Table 4-5, most of the Aroclor PCBs detected in the five groundwater wells that were

examined appear to be associated with suspended phase or particulate matter. However, the results for

the piezometers (Table 4-6) suggest that a significant fraction of the PCBs in piezometer PZ-02 may be in

a dissolved or small colloidal phase.

Table 4-6

Piezometer Filtered and Unfiltered PCB Results (Hg/L)

Analyte PZ-01 PZ-02 PZ-03 PZ-04

Unfiltered (total)

Aroclor-1248

Aroclor-1254

0.05 U

0.05 U

17J

17

3

0.05 U

0.24 J

0.26

Filtered (dissolved)

Aroclor-1248

Aroclor-1254

0.05 U

0.05 U

10J

13

0.05 U

0.05 U

0.05 U

0.05 U

Notes: J = Estimated

U = Undetected at reporting limit

Only aroclors detected are presented in table.

TD03-006

April 2006

4-13
4.6.1 Comparison to Standards

Groundwater total PCB concentrations, where detected, ranged from 0.06 \ig/L (MW-4B) to 30 |.ig/L

(B-4). No site cleanup standards have been established for PCBs in groundwater.

4.6.2 Contaminant Distribution

Geographic examination of the PCB data (Figure 4-6) indicates that the groundwater PCB concentrations

are not closely clustered, but rather are observed in wells from several areas of the Site. However, most

of the wells containing PCBs are located in western and northern portions of the Site. The highest total

PCB concentration (30 fig/L) is observed at well B-4.

Concentrations of PCBs in most of the wells increased over levels measured in the 27th monitoring event

results, while in three extraction/monitoring wells (EW-5, MW-4A and ME-10), concentrations

decreased. For well MW-2A, in the eastern portion of the Site, the concentration increased.

4.7 Inorganic/Metal Analyses

In accordance with direction received from the USAGE, no metals analyses were performed in

conjunction with this monitoring event.

TD03-006 4-14

April 2006
US Army Corps

of Enginwrs

N*w England Dtstrlcl

KEY:

NOTE:

BOU) FACE WELL LOCATIONS WERE

INCLUDED IN PC8 CONTOUR INTERPOLATION

NOTE:

BASE PLAN WAS PRODUCED BY METCALF tc EDDY INC.

AND MODIFIED BY FOSTER WHEELER ENVIRONMENTAL

CORP. ON 6/26/96 AND NOBIS ENGINEERING ON 1/3/02.

Originals in color

hi

oo

ill

1

-fc

rig

ill

UJ

Q LJ SUPERFUK ASSACHUS IRWOOD PCB NORWOOD, M

o

z

£

£

u

f£

UJGROUNDWA

CL

2

OL

ID

0

1—

0

o

m

oNDWATER P

~^

o

EC

O

Ul

Q

ce

CD

ce

UJ

>

m

o

o

UJ

z

—a

60 o 60 120

.3- hJ

SCAL£ IN FEET

Sheet Reference

Number:

FIGURE

4-6

Shut 1 of 1
5.0 SUMMARY DISCUSSION

5.1 Hydrogeological Investigation Program

Monitoring well gauging was performed on July 13, 2005. Groundwater elevations are included on

Figures 3-1 and 3-2. The results of water level measurements across the Site indicate overburden

groundwater elevations between 39.59 and 48.28 feet, and bedrock groundwater elevations between

43.78 and 50.37 feet. These gauging data indicate overburden groundwater flow predominantly to the

east with a northeast component radiating toward Meadow Brook in the northern portion of the Site.

Groundwater flow in bedrock is generally to the east with a southeasterly component of flow.

Groundwater elevation data on average indicate a generally downward gradient from overburden to

shallow bedrock. Some vertically upwards gradients are observed in the vicinity of the cluster

MW-7B/7A and B-19R/ME-18B. This is generally consistent with past reports.

5.2 Analytical Results

The results of the groundwater laboratory analysis program indicate the continued presence of target

chlorinated volatile organics in groundwater across the Site, with sporadic detection of semivolatiles

particularly 1,2,4-trichlorobenzene. PCBs (primarily as Aroclor 1254) were detected in less than half of

the wells across the Site.

A comparison of the groundwater monitoring results to the REAL groundwater cleanup standards find

that no contaminants exceed the standards at the Site.

5.2.1 Trends in Groundwater Volatile Data

RBAL groundwater cleanup standards for volatile organics were not exceeded anywhere on-site. The

total chlorinated volatile organic concentrations observed were primarily due to the presence of a

combination of 1,2-DCE and TCE. Total DCE concentrations exceed TCE concentrations in most wells.

1,2-DCE concentrations ranged from non-detect in several wells up to 2,300 |ig/L in extraction well

EW-9. TCE concentrations ranged up to 2,600 ng/L in extraction well EW-11. High 1,2-DCE

concentrations (and TCV concentrations) were observed in monitoring and extraction wells to the

immediate northeast (downgradient) of the former Grant Gear building foundation.

The results of the 28th monitoring event are generally similar to the TCV trends observed during the

previous 27th monitoring event (October 2002). Elevated TCV concentrations are primarily observed in

the lower overburden (Figure 4-1) and shallow bedrock (Figure 4-3). In general, the highest TCV

concentrations are observed in both lower overburden and shallow bedrock wells located in northern and

eastern portions of the Site.

If the data are considered in three dimensional space, the TCV concentration trends are consistent with

ground water flow patterns; e.g., the concentration trend is vertically downward and to the east.

5.2.2 Trends in Groundwater Semivolatile Data

The number of wells in which 1,4-dichlorobenzene was detected increased by one from the 27th

monitoring event due to the detection in newly-installed piezometer PZ-02. The number of wells in

which 1,2,4-trichlorobenzene (1,2,4-TCB) was detected decreased. The 1,2,4-TCB concentration

(l,500(Jg/L) at monitoring well MW-1A increased from the previous monitoring event, while the

concentration at monitoring well MW-1BR (1,100 f^g/L) decreased. These concentrations are however

below the RBAL cleanup standard. Recent 1,2,4-TCB trends for monitoring well MW-1A are presented

in Figure 5-1. 1,2,4-TCB was also detected at low concentrations in three other wells, including

extraction wells EW-11 and EW-16 in the eastern portion of the Site and monitoring well B-18 in westTD03-006 5-1

April 2006
central portion of the Site. In addition two piezometers, PZ-02 and PZ-03, along Meadow Brook also had

detections of 1,2,4-TCB.

TD03-006 5-2

April 2006
Figure 5-1

1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene Concentrations at Well MW-1A

MW-1A (Upper Overburden)

O

£o

O

u

49.5

49

48.5

48

47.5 §

7

0)

47 8

l_

46.5 -S

5

46

45.5

45

44.5

-1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene

- Water level

Monitoring Event

Notes: l,2.4-trichlorohenzene sample results tor monitoring event ID were non-detect (detection limit = 10 ug/L).

Samples were not collected in the 6'h and 71'

1

 monitoring events. Monitoring events 1-27 occurred between April 1996 and October 2002.

Monitoring event 28 occurred in June/July 2005.

I Originals in color j

April 2006

5-3
5.2.3 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene Migration

Over the last several monitoring events up to 2002 and in this event, the frequency of detection of 1,2,4-

TCB across the Site has been somewhat higher than in previous events. The reason for this is uncertain.

1,2,4-TCB is relatively insoluble in water (solubility -19 mg/L at 22°C; Verschueren, 1996). However,

the currently measured concentration at monitoring well MW-1A is approximately ~1 mg/L. This

concentration is still less than one tenth of the solubility limit (at 22°C). This would suggest that the

observed concentrations should be dissolved, but might be on the borderline between being a dissolved

phase and a non-aqueous phase liquid (NAPL) phase. This might partially explain why concentrations

have not stabilized at monitoring well MW-1A, as some additional solubilization of unsaturated zone

1,2,4-TCB may continue to occur. Since 1,2,4-TCB is relatively dense (density = 1.57 at 10°C), any

NAPL phase would be expected to work downward through the shallow aquifer. The continued detection

of elevated 1,2,4-TCB at nearby lower overburden monitoring well MW-1BR may indicate that some

downward migration is, in fact, occurring.

As noted above, there has been a gradual increase in the frequency of detection of 1,2,4-TCB across the

Site. An evaluation of the current data continues to reveal that several of the wells in which 1,2,4-TCB

was detected are relatively near the downgradient edge of the concrete foundation of the former Grant

Gear building. This includes extraction wells EW-11 (54 ug/L) and EW-16 (5 Mg/L). Overall, the 1,2,4-

TCB plume remains relatively limited in extent, however the detection of 1,2,4-TCB in two of the

piezometers (PZ-02 and PZ-03) would indicate that migration is occurring into Meadow Brook.

5.2.4 Trends in PCB Data

Sample results from sixteen wells and three piezometers detected PCBs. Overall, the majority of elevated

PCB concentrations are observed in monitoring wells, extraction wells, and piezometers screened in the

upper overburden. Figure 5-2 includes a review of PCB concentrations from certain wells screened in

upper overburden. The first graph includes wells from the eastern (MW-2A) and western (B-4) portions

of the Site, and the second graph includes wells entirely from the western portion of the Site (B-18,

MW-1A, B-10, and B-9). The plots in Figure 5-2 show a small increase in PCB concentrations at three

locations, B-4, MW-2A and MW-1A in the most recent monitoring event compared to the last several

monitoring events. It should also be noted that EPA low flow procedures were used to collect the

groundwater samples, beginning with the eighth monitoring event.

PCB results for the current monitoring show some changes from those of the last several monitoring

events. In the current event, three wells had a PCB concentration in excess of 10 ug/L compared to just

one in the 27th monitoring event. Also one of the piezometers had PCB concentrations at greater than

10 ug/L. The overall shape of the plume is similar to that in the 27th monitoring event from October 2002

(see Figure 4-6). The concentration of PCBs observed in monitoring well MW-4A (1.1 ng/L) decreased

from the 27th monitoring event (2.8 ng/L), resulting in a contraction of the contours in this area.

Monitoring well B-9 had a positive result, compared to the previous sampling non detect, which causes

the plume to expand to the west. PCBs continue to be detected at monitoring well B-19R in the northwest

corner of the Site and had an increase in concentration from 0.66 ug/L to 4.2 ug/L PCBs also continue to

be observed at monitoring well ME-1 IB adjacent to Meadow Brook and were detected in three of the four

piezometers along the brook. The highest total PCB concentration was detected at monitoring well B-4

(30 ng/L) an increase from 12 ug/L in the 27th monitoring event. The results of the groundwater

monitoring reported in Section 4.6 would indicate that PCBs are migrating from the groundwater into

Meadow Brook.

TD03-006 5-4

April 2006
Figure 5-2

PCB Trends in Upper Overburden Wells

PCB Trends in Eastern and Western Site Areas

Monitoring Event

PCB Trends in Eastern and Western Site Areas (Detail)

-B-4

•MW-2A

Monitoring Event

Notes: Samples were not collected during the 6'1' and 7lh monitoring events. Monitoring events

1-27 occurred between April 1996 and October 2002. Monitoring event 28 <u curred in

June/July 2005.

TDOMXK. 5-5

April 2006

Origin;

is in color
Figure 5-2 (cont'd)

PCB Trends in Upper Overburden Wells

PCS Trends in Western Area

Monitoring Event

PCB Trends in Western Area (Detail)

Monitoring Event

* B-18

-•—MW-1A

-A—B-10

-*—B-9

« B-18

-•—MW-1A

-A— B-10

-x—B-9

Notes: Samples were not collected during the 6lh and 7'h monitoring events. Monit< -ring events

1-27 occurred between April 1996 and October 2002. Monitoring event 28 occurred in

June/July 2005.

TDOMXJ6

April 2006

5-6

Originals in color
— It should be noted that the detection of PCB concentrations at monitoring well MW-4A tends to expand

the PCB contours (Figure 4-6) toward the south and west. Due to the overall lack of monitoring wells in

this area, the shape of the contours and the extent of PCB-contaminated groundwater should be

considered uncertain. The dilute (blue shaded) contours shown in Figure 4-6 indicate that the PCB plume

may extend further south.

5.3 Comparison with Previous TCV Extraction Well Data

«

Current monitoring results have been evaluated in comparison to Baseline and previous extraction well

results to determine the extent of changes in groundwater volatile organic contaminant levels which have

m occurred following the initiation of GWTP operation and the cessation of operation. Again, it should be

noted that the extraction wells have not been operational since the 18th monitoring event.

Table 5-1 presents a comparison of extraction well total chlorinated volatile levels with those of the

* previous monitoring event. These data are depicted in Figure 5-3. As is indicated, overall TCV results in

some extraction wells vary significantly between the Baseline and current results depending upon the well

in question. Overall, the 2005 monitoring results are generally similar to the results of the last monitoring

* event in October 2002 with the exception of extraction well EW-8 where the concentration decreased to

levels below previous events and extraction well EW-18 where the concentration increased to levels

higher then detected in the last several monitoring events.

<•

Examination of the chlorinated volatiles data for certain extraction wells indicates some changes in

chlorinated volatiles concentrations. At extraction well EW-11, adjacent to the northeast corner of the

former Grant Gear building foundation, the TCV concentration (4,396 ng/L) increased from the level

(2,091 (ig/L) of the previous monitoring event. The trends for individual chlorinated volatiles for

extraction well EW-11 are also presented in Figure 5-4. As previously noted, the monitoring results for

extraction well EW-11 have been highly erratic. A review of the pattern since the shutdown of the

GWTP finds that the highest concentrations for TCV at extraction well EW-11 tend to be in the April to

June monitoring events. As indicated by Figure 5-4, these April/June results suggest a gradual overall

downward TCV trend.

<H

The results for some of the more northern extraction wells (to the north of the former Grant Gear building

foundation) should also be noted. Results for lower overburden extraction well EW-10 increased from

m the level of the 27th

 monitoring event. This well is located to the east of the GWTP and downgradient of

the primary extraction well line. Further to the west, TCV results for extraction well EW-8 decreased

significantly below results for the 27th monitoring event (Figure 5-5). Results tor extraction well EW-9

— also decreased from the last monitoring event in October 2002.

5.4 Comparison with Previous Monitoring Well Data - Plume Migration

m A closer examination of the overall TCV data for the 2005 monitoring event (Figures 4-1, 4-2, 4-3, 4-4,

and Table 5-2) from different areas of the Site, shows certain variations as compared to recent trends

observed during the previous monitoring events.

*

 5.4.1 Upgradient Western Site Areas

The monitoring data continue to indicate that shutting off the GWTP may have somewhat altered the

— overburden plume in the western portions of the Site. Specifically, the data suggests that TCV

contamination contours in the overburden and shallow bedrock (Figures 4-1, 4-2, and 4-3) may have

shifted somewhat to the north when compared to the results prior to the GWTP shutdown.

TD03-006 5-7

April 2006
Table 5-1

Comparison of TCV Extraction Well Results (|ig/L)

Extraction

Well ID

EW-4

EW-5

EW-8

EW-9

EW-10

EW-11

EW-16

EW-17

EW-18

Baseline

34

72

3,541

1,122

899

7,618

4,070

2,400

199

1st

Monitoring

Event

Apr 1996

111

12

1,370

1,143

788

3,560

3,700

2,360

151

18th*

Monitoring

Event

Jul 2000

0

0

2,831

3,848

1,028

7,600

800

918.1

52.2

191"*

Monitoring

Event

Oct 2000

0

2.1

1,966

3,985

1,330

1,320

610

379

48.1

20th*

Monitoring

Event

Jan 2001

0

4.4

3,078

3,358

1,240

4,242

7 12

493

55

21"*

Monitoring

Event

Apr 2001

0

5.1

1,510

3,778

2,188

6,200

664

460

56

22nd*

Monitoring

Event

Aug2001

0

0

2,390

3,730

2,342

9 L O

733

880

53

23rd*

Monitoring

Event

Oct 2001

0

1.5

1,907

1,989

1,248

65

805

48.8

35

24'"*

Monitoring

Event

Jan 2002

0

6.9

1,973

2,984

700

1,607

394

26

19

25lh*

Monitoring

Event

Apr 2002

0

103

1,472

3,544

1,545

5,200

528

330

57.6

26lh*

Monitoring

Event

Aug 2002

0

2

1,850

3,570

1,598

220

751

76

73

27lh*

Monitoring

Event

Oct 2002

0

54.7

1,485

3,523

1,193

2,091

406

67.46

67.1

28'"

Monitoring

Event

Jun/Jul 2005

0

1.69

743

2,644

1,629

4,396

599

267.1

211.2

NS - Not Sampled

* Note that the GWTP was shut down.

The results for the 2'"1 through the I71"

1

 monitoring events are not shown for convenience to simplify data presentation.

Zero (0) = non-detecl.

The sampling for the 27"' monitoring event was completed in October 2002. The sampling for the 28" monitoring event was completed in June/July 2005.

TD03-006

April 2006

5-8
Figure 5-3

Extraction Well TCV Concentrations

10,000

Monitoring Event

Notes: Monitoring events I-27 occurred between April 1996 and October 2002.

Monitoring event 28 occurred in June/July 2005.

—•— EW-4

-m—BN-5

-A— EW-8

-— EW-9

-*—EW-10

—•—EW-11

EW-16

—•—EW-17

-—- EW-18

Uriginals in color, '

TDO.'-OOd

April 2006

5-9
Figure 5-4

Extraction Well Chlorinated Volatile Distribution

EW-10 (Lower Overburden)

2500 |

2000

o

£

o

O

1500

1000

500

Monitoring Event

— TCV

* Vinyl Chloride

—A— 1,2-Dichloroethene (total)

—•—• Trichloroethene

EW-11 (Lower Overburden)

c

o

10000

9000

8000

7000

6000

5000

« 4000

J 3000

2000

1000

0

•*r CD in

CM <M o

o

Monitoring Event

TCV

Vinyl Chloride

- 1.2-Dichloroethene (total)

-Trichloroethene

Notes: Monitoring events I-27 occurred between April 1996 and October 2002. Monitoring event 28 occurred in

June/July 2005.

TOO.'-006

April 2006

5-10

On^mals in color lor,. ]
4000

3500

3000

2500

'• 2000

§ 1500

c

o

0

 1000

500

0

Figure 5-5

Extraction Well TCV Trends

EW-8 (Shallow Bedrock)

TCV

Vinyl Chloride

-1,2-Dichloroethene

(total)

-Trichloroethene

o

o

CM

Monitoring Event

EW-16 (Lower Overburden)

-TCV

Vinyl Chloride

- 1,2-Dichloroethene

(total)

-Trichloroethene

Monitoring Event

Notes: Monitoring events I-27 occurred between April 1996 and October 2002. Monitoring evnil 28 occurred in

June/July 200?.

T DO?-006

April 2(X)<S

5-1 I

Originals in color
Table 5-2

Comparison of TCV Monitoring Well Results (jig/L)

Sample

Location

B-4

B-9

B-10

B-18

B-19R

B-221

B-28

ME-2

ME-3

ME-4

ME-5

ME-6

ME-8

ME-9

ME- 10

ME-11A

ME-1IB

ME-12A

ME-12B

ME-18B

MW-1A

MW-IB/-IBR1

MW-1C1

MW-2A

MW-2B

MW-3A/-3AR1

MW-3B

MW-31/-3IR1

MW-4A

MW-4B

MW-5A2

MW <B?

MW-6A2

MW-6B2

MW-7A

MW-7B

MW-7C

MW-8I

MW-9B

Baseline

125

25

4,240

4

NA

164

0

1,080

NS

0

0

0

811

0

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

469

955

1

1

280

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

2

2

0

3

0

1"

Monitoring

Event

Apr 1996

124

0

615

36

NA

NS

19

1,420

64

0

0

2

662

0

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

730

407

0

3

189

NS

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

27

0

0

7

3

18'" V

Monitoring

Event

Jul 2000

90.8

4.4

37.8

0

0

NS

NS

2.4

97

0

0

NS

597

9.5

117.4

713

113.4

4.6

0

0

3.500

1,930

NS

0

62.4

0

0

0

NS

0

NS

NS

NS

NS

98.4

0

0

4.6

0

19"1 V

Monitoring

Event

Oct 2000

219.3

7.0

77.6

0

0

NS

NS

1.1

47

0

0

NS

650

7.8

314

546

97

0

0

0

950

1740

NS

0

62.7

0

0

0

2.0

0

NS

NS

NS

NS

55

0

0

2.0

0

20'" V

Monitoring

Event

Jan 2001

184.9

5.4

29.1

0

0.28

NS

NS

0

59

0

0

NS

714

5.0

45.9

491

102.5

0

0

0

1141

1084

NS

1.12

77.5

0

0

1.24

0

0

NS

NS

NS

NS

57

0

0

2.1

0

21"V

Monitoring

Event

Apr 2001

156.2

0

37.5

0

0

NS

NS

0

115

0

0

NS

565

5.2

0

600

43.1

0

0

0

638

1080

NS

0

64.3

0

0

0

0

0

NS

NS

NS

NS

67

0

0

1.9

0

22nd V

Monitoring

Event

Aug2001

133

9.4

27.7

0

0

NS

NS

1.2

64

0

0

NS

686

9

31

690

59.2

0

0

0

1,700

1,230

NS

0

104.7

0

0

0

0

0

NS

NS

NS

NS

90.5

0

0

3.7

0

23rd V

Monitoring

Event

Oct 2001

216.6

4.3

45.9

0

0

NS

NS

1.9

35

0

0

NS

614

18

583

750

79.4

0

0

0

982

1,710

NS

0

127.5

0

0

0

0

0

NS

NS

NS

NS

115.2

0

0

8.6

0

24"1 V

Monitoring

Event

Jan 2002

124.5

4.2

6.6

0.82

0.45

NS

NS

0.38

36.6

0

0

NS

428

6.6

57.4

64.1

35.8

0.39

0

0

1,423

1,192

NS

3.6

143.7

0

0

1

0

0

NS

NS

NS

NS

64.7

0

0.25

6.7

0

25'" V

Monitoring

Event

Apr 2002

105

0

55.9

0

0

NS

NS

7.4

23.6

0

0

NS

547

16.3

0

621

49.6

0

0

0

1,100

1,840

NS

12.4

128.8

0

0

0

0

0

NS

NS

NS

NS

51.3

0

0

3.1

0

26'" V

Monitoring

Event

Aug 2002

189.2

1.4

75.2

0

0

NS

NS

6.8

45.2

0

0

NS

596

10.2

144.4

640

90.4

0

0

0

992

1,910

NS

0

248.8

0

0

0

2.2

0

NS

NS

NS

NS

0

71

0

11.2

0

27th V

Monitoring

Event

Oct 2002

207.7

7.46

70.24

1.58

0.43

NS

NS

2.52

35.52

0

0

NS

650

4.93

10.84

674

65.2

0.3

0

0

976

1,543.9

NS

6.37

238.8

0

0

0.56

0

0

NS

NS

NS

NS

32.69

0

0.88

10.26

0.28

28l bV

Monitoring

Event

Jun/Jul 2005

103.7

4.3

20.4

0

0

NS

NS

10.4

57

0

0

NS

562

10.6

0

547

89.4

0.43

0

0

2,100

1,967

NS

0

537.6

0

0

0

0

0

NS

NS

NS

NS

48.77

0

0

5.4

0.35

Notes: Concentrations of zero indicate that no volatile compounds were detected at their respective detection limits.

NS - Not Sampled.

NA - Indicates no data available. New well installed.

1

 Wells were destroyed or abandoned. Note that monitoring wells B-22, MW-1B, MW-3A and MW-31 were replaced with monitoring wells ME-10, MW-1BR, MW-3AR, and MW-3IR, respectively.

Monitoring wells MW-1C was buried.

2

 Monitoring wells MW-5A, MW-5B, MW-6A, MW-6B not sampled after the 4'h monitoring event per USAGE instructions.

V GWTP was shut down.

The 27"1 monitoring event was completed in Oct. 2002. The 2005 monitoring event was completed in June/July 2005.

TD03-006

April 2006

5-12
5.4.2 Downgradient Site Areas

This section examines TCV migration trends in the northern and eastern areas of the Site. The most

recent data continues to suggest that overall plume migration patterns in the northern and eastern portions

of the Site have changed somewhat as a result of shutdown of the GWTP. The available data also suggest

that plume migration patterns continue to differ somewhat between the upper overburden and lower

overburden and shallow bedrock.

Northern Site Areas and Meadow Brook

TCV concentrations at monitoring well ME-8 (562 |.ig/L) screened in shallow bedrock in the northern

portion of the Site again decreased slightly over levels reported in the 27th monitoring event (Figure 5-6).

Results from monitoring wells ME-11A and ME-11B continue to indicate evidence of elevated levels of

TCV contamination approaching Meadow Brook. At monitoring well ME-11A adjacent to Meadow

Brook, a TCV concentration of 547 |dg/L was detected. This concentration also decreased slightly

compared to the 27th monitoring event result (674 |Jg/L). At monitoring well ME-11B the TCV

concentration (89.4 ng/L) is slightly higher than the last of the monitoring events (65.2 |ig/L). (As

previously noted, monitoring wells were not sampled during the 6th and 7th monitoring events, hence the

omission in Figure 5-6.)

The current sampling results from monitoring well ME-12B indicates the absence of chlorinated volatiles

on the north side of Meadow Brook. However, trace levels of tetrachloroethene (0.43 ^ig/L) were

detected in monitoring well MW-12A, to the north of the Brook.

Chlorinated volatiles were not detected in upper overburden monitoring well ME-10 (< 1.0 fig/L)

indicating a decrease in concentration since the last of the monitoring events (10.8 ng/L). However,

upper overburden data has tended to be somewhat erratic in several wells. Results for upper overburden

extraction well EW-4 (non-detect) adjacent to the Brook, were consistent with the previous event result

(non-detect). Conversely, in extraction well EW-5, the concentration (1.69 Hg/L) increased over the 27th

monitoring event (54.7

Overall, the results of this monitoring event continue to suggest that some elements of the VOC plume

have shifted somewhat toward the north and are discharging to Meadow Brook. The strongest evidence

for migration toward Meadow Brook continues to be the elevated TCV concentrations at monitoring well

ME-11A and extraction well EW-10, and to a lesser extent, monitoring well ME-11B and piezometers

PZ-2 and PZ-3.

Eastern Site Areas

The current monitoring event results indicate only limited evidence of low-level migration of chlorinated

volatiles directly to the east of the extraction well array and possibly off-site. At the eastern end of the

Site (Figure 5-7), trace 1,2-DCE contamination (0.35 fig/L) was detected in shallow bedrock monitoring

well MW-9B. Further to the south, only low levels of 1,2-DCE (2.1 |ig/L) and TCE(3.5 fig/L) were

detected in lower overburden monitoring well MW-8I. VOC contamination was detected in upper

overburden monitoring well MW-7A. However, no TCV contamination was detected in shallow bedrock

monitoring well MW-7B. Overall, the latest contour data continues to indicate that relatively small

amounts of the contaminant plume may be migrating directly east beyond the extraction well array.

TD03-006 5-13

April 2006
Figure 5-6

Trends in Northern Site Areas

ME-8 (Shallow Bedrock)

1200

1000

TCV

Vinyl Chloride

- 1,2-Dichloroethene

- Trichloroethene

Monitoring Event

EW-10 (Lower Overburden)

2500

TCV

Vinyl Chloride

- 1,2-Dichloroethene

-Trichloroethene

Monitoring Event

Notes: Monitoring events I-27 occurred between April 1996 and October 2002. Monitoring ewm 28 occurred in June/July

2005.

TDO.M106

April 2006

5-14

Originals in color
Figure 5-7

Downgradient Plume Trends

120

100

80

60

40

20

0

MW-7A (Upper Overburden)

Vinyl Chloride

- 1,2-Dichloroethene

- Trichloroethene

Monitoring Event

5

1

MW-81 (Lower Overburden)

Vinyl Chloride

-1,2-Dichloroethene

-Trichloroethene

Monitoring Event

MW-9B (Shallow Bedrock)

2.5

2.0

0.5

0.0

Vinyl Chloride

-1,2-Dichloroethene

- Trichloroethene

Monitoring Event

Notes: Samples were not collected during the 6lh and 7'h monitoring events. Monitoring events I -21 occurred between

April 1996 and October 2002. Monitoring event 28 occurred in June/July 2005.

TD03-006

April 2006 Originals in color
5.5 Comparison of Chlorinated Hydrocarbon Product-Daughter Mole Ratio Data

tm

The results for the chlorinated hydrocarbon molar concentration ratio data for product (TCE) and

daughter (1,2-DCE + vinyl chloride) compounds (Section 4.2.2.5 and Figure 4-5) are generally consistent

— with the trends observed over recent monitoring events. The results of the current monitoring event

depict a profile of decreasing product-daughter ratios, moving eastward from monitoring wells MW-1A

and MW-1BR past extraction well EW-11. It appears that the principal degradation product to date is

dichloroethene. The frequency of vinyl chloride detections decreased in the current monitoring event.

The maximum reported vinyl chloride concentration (120 (.ig/L) at monitoring well ME-11A increased

slightly over the last monitoring event. It should be noted that examination of the volatile data indicates

that a large majority of the total dichloroethene concentration is present as cis-dichloroethene rather than

trans-dichloroethene. This can also be a potential indication of biodegradation.

It should also be noted that at monitoring well MW-1A, near the former Grant Gear loading dock,

* product-daughter ratios remain high. The ratio in this area for the current monitoring event is quite high.

This is due to a high TCE concentration (2,100 fig/L) and the reported non detect for 1,2-DCE and vinyl

chloride at elevated sample reporting limits. Also, a high TCE concentration (1,900 (.ig/L) was observed

• in nearby lower overburden monitoring well MW-1BR. This result supports the hypothesis of a residual

TCE source term in this area of the Site.

^ 5.6 Chlorinated Volatile Trends at Well MW-1A

Recent data have indicated somewhat erratic TCV trends at monitoring well MW-1 A. This well is

located on the west side of the former Grant Gear building foundation, in what is believed to have been a

-• possible spill area, near the former loading docks. As a possible source term area, volatile organic

concentrations would be anticipated to slowly diminish over time as groundwater flushes TCV

contamination from the area. However, as indicated in Figure 5-8, TCV concentration trends had been

m erratic over the last several events in 2001 and 2002 and the results from this most recent monitoring

event are the highest since the 18th event completed in July 2000. The data of the current monitoring

event indicate a significant increase over the previous event completed in October 2002. As previously

|f

 noted, monitoring well MW-1 A was not sampled between the 6th and 9th monitoring events.

5.7 Implications of Cessation of GWTP Operations

ii There were ten consecutive groundwater monitoring events completed following cessation of GWTP

operations and extraction of groundwater between June 2000 and October 2002. The results tended to

support potential changes noted in the monitoring trends.

Overall, TCV concentration trends during the current monitoring event present continued evidence that a

portion of the VOC plume is migrating along a more north and northeasterly orientation toward Meadow

Brook. The principal evidence for this hypothesis is depicted in Figure 4-4. Prior to the shutdown of the

"" GWTP, the highest TCV concentrations and associated contours tended to focus toward extraction well

EW-11 to the east of the former Grant Gear building foundation. In addition, the contours

(concentrations) tended to decrease sharply beyond the first line of extraction wells (EW-11, EW-17,

"' EW-9, etc.). The most recent contour data for the shallow bedrock and lower overburden (Figure 4-4)

continues to suggest elevated contamination around extraction wells EW-8 and EW-9, implying that the

portions of the plume may be migrating more to the northeast toward Meadow Brook. However, it should

mi be noted that concentrations at monitoring well EW-11 and monitoring well MW-1BR also remain

elevated indicating possible source(s) still present around and under the former Grant Gear Foundation

building.

TD03-006 5-16

April 2006
Figure 5-8

Chlorinated Volatiles Trends at Monitoring Well MVV-1A

3500

2500

1000

• Total Chlorinated

VOCs

cis-1.2-Dichloroethene

Trichloroethylene

Chlorobenzene

* *• 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene

Monitoring Event

Noles: Samples were not collected between the 6lh and 9'h monitoring events.

Monitoring events I-27 occurred between April 1996 and October 2002.

Monitoring event 28 occurred in June/July 2005.

Originais in

TDfM-006

April 2006

5-17
TCV concentrations at extraction well EW-10 have been relatively elevated during the last several

monitoring events. It should be noted that extraction well EW-10 is located approximately halfway

between the primary extraction well array and Meadow Brook. Coupled with the continuing evidence of

TCV concentrations at monitoring well ME-11A and extraction wells EW-8 and EW-9, the overall results

continue to suggest a pronounced north and northeasterly component to the shallow bedrock and lower

overburden plume.

5.7.1 GWTP Mass Removal

As indicated, the GWTP is no longer operating. Therefore, no TCV mass removal is occurring at the Site.

However, to maintain data continuity, the cumulative GWTP mass removal trends are presented in

Figure 5-9.

TD03-006 5-18

April 2006
Figure 5-9

Trends in TCV Mass Removal and Gallons Treated by Site Extraction Wells

X *

" P S2 " t

Monitoring Event

Notes: Monitoring events 1 -27 occurred between April 1996 and October 2002.

Monitoring event 28 occurred in June/July 2005.

The OVV'TP has been shutdown since the !8l fl monitoring event.

1,800,000

- 1,600,000

i_

1,400,000 £

«

1,200,000 aL.

1,000,000 »?

- 800,000 g "g,

S. •—•

- 600,000 a)

E

400,000

3

O

- 200,000

- 0 -• TCV

-• TCE

-* DCE

-A VC

- - x- - gallons

r: - m „

Originals in

5-19
6.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Based on the data obtained during the 28th monitoring event, the following conclusions and

recommendations can be drawn with respect to the objectives presented in Section 1.0:

• Hydrological impacts observed during the 28th monitoring event are consistent with those observed

during the 27th monitoring event;

• REAL groundwater cleanup standards have been met at all monitoring/extraction well and

piezometer locations;

• Since RBALs have been met and hydrological impacts are stable, additional (future) groundwater

remediation is not likely needed;

• Therefore, as stated in the ESD, EPA may want to consider decommissioning the GWTP; and

• As specified in the ESD, groundwater, surface water, and sediment quality should continue to be

monitored to verify that the conclusions presented in the Phase II Ecological and Human Health Risk

Summary Report remain valid.

TD03-006 6-1

April 2006
7.0 REFERENCES

Foster Wheeler Environmental Corporation. 1996-2001. Baseline - Twenty-first Quarterly Groundvvater

Report - Norwood PCB Superfund Site.

Foster Wheeler Environmental Corporation. 1999. Correspondence, Norwood PCB Superfund Site -

Chlorinated Volatile Product-Daughter Ratios and Biodegradation. June 24.

Nobis Engineering Inc. 2001-2002. Twenty-second through Twenty-seventh Quarterly Groundwater

Monitoring Report - Norwood PCB Superfund Site.

Tetra Tech EC, Inc. 2004. Phase II Ecological and Human Health Risk Summary Report. July.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region I - New England. 2005. Explanation of Significant

Differences for the Norwood PCB Superfund Site, Norwood, MA. February 23.

Verschueren, K. 1996. Environmental Data on Organic Chemicals. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York.

TD03-006 7-1

April 2006
i 4

i I

TD03-006

April 2006

Appendix A

Summary of Groundwater Sampling Field Data
APPENDIX A

TABLE A-1

Summary of Groundwater Sampling Field Data

Well Number

MW-1A

MW-1BR

MW-1BR

MW-2A

MW-2A

MW-2A

MW-2B

MW-2B

MW-3AR

MW-3B

MW-3IR

MW-4A

MW-4B

MW-7A

MW-7A

MW-7A

MW-7B

MW-7B

MW-7C

MW-7C

MW-8I

MW-8I

MW-9B

MW-9B

B-4

B-4

B-9

B-10

B-18

B-19R

Date

Sampled

6/7/2005

6/7/2005

7/13/2005

6/9/2005

6/16/2005

7/1 3/2005

6/9/2005

6/16/2005

6/8/2005

6/9/2005

6/8/2005

6/8/2005

6/8/2005

6/9/2005

6/1 5/2005

7/13/2005

6/9/2005

6/1 5/2005

6/9/2005

6/16/2005

6/9/2005

6/16/2005

6/10/2005

6/17/2005

6/6/2005

7/1 3/2005

6/8/2005

6/8/2005

6/7/2005

6/2/2005

Time

Sampled

1646

1510

1520

1700

1150

0940

1620

1220

1620

1040

1720

1257

1255

1325

1400

1030

1340

1340

1340

1050

1100

1115

1250

1015

1005

1315

1310

1130

1440

1425

Water Level

(ft TOC)

11.5

11.98

12.35

8.10

8.10

853

8.85

885

6.7

7.7

7.94

9.7

10

10.6

10.2

10.62

10.6

10.6

9.3

9.3

11.25

10.6

12.6

12.6

952

9.75

12

11 35

11.45

9.55

Well Depth

(ft TOC)

18.24

30.86

30.86

14.1

14.1

14.1

38 1

38 1

15.02

80.17

3887

13.21

45.76

18.58

18.58

1858

42.13

42.13

8883

8883

62.78

62.78

3722

3722

16.68

16.68

1958

17.9

24 93

22.93

Well Dia.

(in.)

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2 '

2

2 1

2

2

2

2

Purge Time

(min.)

151

96

35

70

19

30

49

10

35

63

70

40

122

70

48

55

66

70

40

15

49

50

89

30

40

72

200

55

135

50

Temp (C)

15.8

19.1

192

19.9

14.2

22.2

18.0

17.5

16.1

16.1

149

18.0

22.4

13.2

14.5

18.0

19.1

12.9

14.6

12.9

15.4

14.0

16.9

15.2

16.8

21 2

18.8

20.2

21.1

25.8

Spec. Cond.

uS/cm

704

672

710

535

445

540

345

419

320

115

160

260

311

241

344

347

137

159

333

316

301

302

801

866

607

760

526

673

607

226

PH

5.0

4.6

5.7

5.7

5.8

6.1

6.3

6 7

3.9'

64

6.0

5 5

72

ER

5.9

5.6

5.9

6.2

7.6

8.1

7.4

70

3.6*

6.5

5.9

6.1

5.0

3.0*

2.1-

6.4

ORPmV

190

617

200

242

455

179

157

16

651

191

412

387

230

587

9

17

552

55

388

62

-38

42

551

-18

-4

-65

579

630

687

23

D.O. mg/L

0.4

0.4

0.5

6.3

6.6

4.7

1.0

0.4

89

3 3

0.3

2.0

2.1

5.5

2 5

0.5

2.1

2.0

2.6

0.9

0.6

0.4

0.4

0.4

4.7

2.4

0.4

0.7

0.7

9.1

Turbidity

NTUs

320

r

 ER

4 4

7.4

21.1

3.1

ER

ER

ER

04

2364

426.7

6 9

ER

6.7

ER

64

133.4

1.9

i 1.8

159

2 8

ER

90

ER

ER

ER

ER

ER

23.6

Comments

Notes 1. Piezometers PZ-1 to PZ-4 and Monitoring Well MW-12B were sampled with a peristaltic pump and dedicated tubing. All other Monitoring Wells

and Extraction Wells were sampled using a Grundfos submersible pump and dedicated tubing,

2 A|| wells were sampled for VOCs (3-40 ml vials). SVOCs (2-1 Mer amber bottles), and total PCBs {2-1 iilei anibei bottles; in adaition, wells B-4,

MvV- i BR, EW-4 and MW-2A were also sampled for dissolved PCBs (2 - 1 liter amber bottles)

3 NS= Not Sampled, N/A= Not Applicable, NM= Not Measured, ER= Meter Malfunction, TOC= Top of Casing, NTU^Nephelometric Turbidity Unit

4. The physical and geochemical field parameters temperature, specific conducivity, pH, Oxidation/Reduction Potential (ORP), dissolved oxygen

(DO), and turbidity presented here are the final stabilized readings prior to sample collection.

5. Some wells were resampled as discussed in the text.

6. * indicates value is below ph calibration range of instrument and is suspect.

A - 1
APPENDIX A

TABLE A-1

Summary of Groundwater Sampling Field Data

Well Number

EW-4

EW-4

EW-4

EW-5

EW-5

EW-8

EW-9

EW-9

EW-10

EW-10

EW-11

EW-16

EW-17

EW-18

EW-18

ME-2

ME-3

ME-4

ME-5

ME-8

ME-8

ME-9

ME-10

ME-11A

ME-11B

ME-12A

ME-12B

ME-18B

PZ-1

PZ-2

PZ-3

PZ-4

Date

Sampled

6/13/2005

6/17/2005

7/13/2005

6/13/2005

6/16/2005

6/13/2005

6/13/2005

6/17/2005

6/13/2005

6/16/2005

6/1 3/2005

6/13/2005

6/13/2005

6/13/2005

6/16/2005

6/10/2005

6/7/2005

6/7/2005

6/7/2005

6/6/2005

6/3/2005

6/10/2005

6/1/2005

6/6/2005

6/6/2005

6/15/2005

6/23/2005

6/2/2005

6/14/2005

6/14/2005

6/15/2005

6/16/2005

Time

Sampled

1045

0940

1315

1045

1555

1305

1200

0915

0930

1600

1730

1415

1735

1200

1605

1130

1105

1120

1037

1640

1045

1100

1620

1200

1510

1035

8.75

1037

1525

1405

1140

1105

Water Level

(ft TOC)

6.94

9.15

12.35

6.75

675

9.15

6.7

6.75

6 5

6.5

635

6.7

6.6

6.65

6.65

8 85

10.6

11.8

5.7

932

MM

8.6

8.2

9.51

9.61

798

12.89

9 6

2.1

2.35

2.1

3 5

Well Depth

(ft TOC)

11.3

11.3

11.3

10.3

10.3

42.15

5345

5345

26.5

26.5

31.5

27.3

26.45

49 2

492

21.38

48.27

47 34

10.08

12 99

12.99

7948

15.93

25.34

21.53

2238

17.89

45.21

5.0

5.0

5.0

5.0

Well Dia.

(in.)

6

6

6

6

6

6

6

6

6

6

6

6

6

6

6

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

6

2

2

2

2

1

1

1

1

Purge Time

(min)

30

15

115

136

55

30

50

55

52

40

74

21

72

81

40

43

90

40

40

50

80

59

55

45

35

30

35

75

215

58

41

62

Temp (C)

17.4

15.3

192

17.6

16.6

21.4

165

14.8

169

15.6

17.8

18.1

18.8

20.3

18.0

20.5

17.5

21.0

192

14.4

16.2

15.3

12.5

15.1

18.6

12.0

12.4

15.6

178

17.0

14.0

15.4

Spec. Cond.

uS/cm

179

204

262

866

825

501

483

485

378

328

463

489

311

370

333

527

226

264

155

507

441

585

149

548

694

261

445

126

282

400

135

309

PH

5.7

7.4

6.3

6.2

5.8

7.3

4.1

7.2

74

6.6

7 2

5 6

1.7"

7.5

7.7

6 5

6.7

6.1

6.2

6.0

5.1

7.3

6.6

5.6

4.1

5.6

6.3

6.9

6 6

6 0

6 3

6.4

ORP mV

460

137

193

317

45

-235

-68

-30

-267

-179

-229

-106

129

-244

-168

331

-26

411

308

-42

187

114

266

-86

402

244

-57

-22

-29

-96

267

-54

D.O. mg/L

8 3

78

5.7

4.9

6.1

0 2

0.6

2.2

0.2

0.4

0.2

0.5

0.8

0.8

0.6

0.8

0 6

2.9

2.9

0.2

1.0

0.4

4.2

0.4

07

0.9

1.0

4.9

1.0

02

0.5

10.6

Turbidity

NTUs

ER

7.9

ER

7.8

2.5

251.0

9.0

7.5

31.9

4.2

5.9

ER

0.1

39.4

13.0

113.9

1167.8

ER

ER

ER

ER

ER

5.2

11.2

10.3

ER

ER

302

20.3

ER

2 9

11.2

Comments

No recovery in well

PVC riser bent - sampled w/ peristaltic pump

Notes 1. Piezometers PZ-1 to PZ-4 and Monitoring Well MW-12B were sampled with a peristaltic pump and dedicated tubing. All other Monitoring Wells

and Extraction Wells were sampled using a Grundfos submersible pump and dedicated tubing,

2. All wells were sampled for VOCs (3-40 ml vials), SVOCs (2-1 liter amber bottles), and total PCBs (2-1 liter amber bottles). In addition, wells B-4,

MW-1BR, EW-4 and MW-2A were also sampled for dissolved PCBs (2 -1 liter amber bottles).

3. NS= Not Sampled, N/A= Not Applicable, NM= Not Measured, ER= Meter Malfunction, TOC= Top of Casing, NTU=Nephelometric Turbidity Unit

4. The physical and geochemical field parameters temperature, specific conducivity, pH, Oxidation/Reduction Potential (ORP), dissolved oxygen

(DO), and turbidity presented here are the final stabilized readings prior to sample collection.

5. Some wells were resampled as discussed in the text.

6. * indicates value is below pH calibration range of instrument and is suspect.

A - 2
APPENDIX A

TABLE A-2

Summary of Depth to Groundwater Data

July 13, 2005 Synchronous Water Level Round

Well

Number

MW-1A

MW-1BR

MW-2A

MW-2B

MW-3AR

MW-3B

MW-3IR

MW-4A

MW-4B

MW-5A

MW-5B

MW-6A

MW-6B

MW-7A

MW-7B

MW-7C

MW-8I

MW-9B

B-4

B-9

B-10

B-18

B-19R

B-28

EW-4

EW-5

EW-8

EW-9

EW-10

EW-11

EW-16

EW-17

EW-18

ME-2

ME-3

ME-4

ME-5

ME-8

ME-9

ME-10

ME-11A

ME-11B

ME-12A

ME-12B

ME-18B

Water Level

(ft TOC)

11.83

12.35

8.53

9.11

7.14

8.1

NM

10.52

10.71

NM

2.92

10.62

11.64

10.62

9.6

10.93

11.15

12.82

9.75

12.42

11.96

11.92

10.25

8.74

6.8

6.74

6.25

6.71

6.54

6.61

6.74

6.75

6.66

9.05

11.08

12.4

10.66

9.44

8.9

8.94

9.8

9.61

12.22

12.89

10.25

Well Depth

(ft TOC)

18.24

30.86

14.1

38.1

15.02

80.17

38.87

13.21

45.76

NA

NM

NM

NM

18.85

42.13

88.83

62.78

37.22

16.68

19.58

17.9

24.93

22.93

NM

11.3

10.3

42.15

53.45

26.5

31.5

27.3

26.45

49.2

21.38

48.27

47.34

10.08

12.99

79.48

15.93

25.34

21.53

22.38

17.89

45.21

Comments

Road Box Full of Water

Paved Over

Notes: 1. Measurements made on July 13, 2005

2. NM = Not Measured

3. Piezometer water levels were not obtained since the

piezometers have not been surveyed for elevation.

A - 3
Appendix B

Laboratory Analytical Data

TD03-006

April 2006
NORWOOD GROUNDWATER MONITORING

JUNE/JULY 2005

VOC DATA

ANALYTE F

Vinyl Chloride 31

trans-1 ,2-Dichloroethene

1 ,2-Dichloroethene (total) 3,6

cis-1 ,2-Dichloroethene >

JBAL B-4 B-9

0,000 ' 29 1 U

NA i 2.7 1 U

60,000 I 33 '• 1 U

NA ; 29 M U

Trichloroethene 108,000 '! 13 , 1 U

1,1,2-Trichloroethane • NA

 ; 1 U 1 U

.Tetrachloroethene • 37,000 ; 1 U : 1 U

Chlorobenzene •

1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane i

Total Detected Target VOCs \

NA ; 30 ; 4.3

NA 1 U ; 1 U

; 103.7 i 4.3

B-10 B-18 B-19-R EW-4

3.9 j 1 U : 1 U i 1 U

1 u ; 1

5.4 : 1

J 1 U i 1 U

J 1 U I 1 U

4.9 1 U 1 U ; 1 U

3.7 1 J 1 U | 1 U

1 U : 1 U ; 1 U : 1 U

1 U ; 1 J 1 U j 1 U

7.9 1 U ! 1 U ; 1 U

1 U \ 1 U ! 1 U 1 U

20.4 : 0 j o " o

EW-5

1 U

1 U

0.42 J

0.39 J

1.3

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1.69

EW-8

24

69

770

650

20 U

20 U

20 U

20 U

20 U

743

EW-9

74

150

2300

2000

420

63 U

63 U

63 U

63 U

2644

EW-10

23

66

1500

1300

240

40 U

40 U

40 U

40 U

1629

EW-11

65 J

76 U

1900

1700

2600

31 J

76 U

76 U

76 U

4396

EW-16

35

20

540

480

64

16 U

16 U

16 U

16 U

599

EW-17

12

3.1 J

180

160

92

5.2 U

5.2 U

5.2 U

5.2 U

267.1

EW-18

36

3.7 J

180 .

170

1.5 J

5.2 Ui

5.2 U

5.2 U

5.2 U

211.2

All sample concentrations in ug/L

U = Non-detect

J = Estimated result

D = Diluted sample concentration

RBAL = Risk Based Action Level (ug/L)

NA = Not applicable

0 = No Target Chlorinated Volatiles (TCV) detected

TCVs were calculated using 1,2-dichloroethene (total);

trans- and cis-1,2-dichloroethene concentrations

were ignored.

Page 1 of 6
NORWOOD GROUNDWATER MONITORING

JUNE/JULY 2005

VOC DATA

ANALYTE

Vinyl Chloride

trans-1 ,2-Dichloroethene

1 ,2-Dichloroethene (total)

cis-1 ,2-Dichloroethene

Trichloroethene

1,1,2-Trichloroethane

Tetrachloroethene

Chlorobenzene

1 ,1 ,2,2-Tetrachloroethane

Total Detected Target VOCs

REAL

310,000

NA

3,660,000

NA

108,000

NA

37,000

ME-2

1 U

1 U

3.1

2.8

7.6

1 U

1 U

NA i 1 U

NA ; 1 U

: 10.4

ME-3

1 U

1 U

11

11

46

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

57

ME-4

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

ME-5

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

ME-8

93

29

370

330

110

11 U

11 U

11 U

11 U

0 j 0 562

ME-9

4.6

1 U

6.7

6

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

10.6

ME-10 ME-11A

1 U 120

1 U 37

1 U ! 420

1 U I 370

1 U 20

1 U 11 U

1 U 11 U

1 U 11 U

1 U 11 U

0 547

.

ME-11B

ME-11B

DUP

20 20

2.8 2.8

67

63

1.8 U

1.8 U

1.8 U

4.6

1.8 U

89.4

68

63

1.8 U

1.8 U

1.8 U

4.5

1.8 U

90.3

ME-12A ME-1

1 U , 1

1 U ! 1

1 U i 1

1 U '; 1

1 U ' 1

1 U : 1

0.43 J 1

1 U 1

1 U 1

0.43 ; o

2B ME-18B

U 1 U

U 1 U

U ; 1 U

U • 1 U

U 1 U

U 1 U

U 1 U

U i 1 U

U ; 1 U

'• 0

MW-1A

58 U :

58 U

58 U :

58 U

2100

58 U ]

58 U j

58 U |

58 U j

2100 '

All sample concentrations in ug/L

U = Non-detect

J = Estimated result

D = Diluted sample concentration

REAL = Risk Based Action Level (ug/L)

NA = Not applicable

0 = No Target Chlorinated Volatiles (TCV) detected

TCVs were calculated using 1,2-dichloroethene (total);

trans- and cis-1,2-dichloroethene concentrations

were ignored.

Page 2 of 6
NORWOOD GROUNDWATER MONITORING

JUNE/JULY 2005

VOC DATA

ANALYTE

Vinyl Chloride

trans-1 ,2-Dichloroethene

1 ,2-Dichloroethene (total)

cis-1 ,2-Dichloroethene

Trichloroethene

1,1,2-Trichloroethane

Tetrachloroethene

Chlorobenzene

1 ,1 ,2,2-Tetrachloroethane

Total Detected Target VOCs

REAL

310,000

NA

3,660,000

NA

108,000

NA

37,000

NA

NA

MW-1BR

44 U

44 U

71

67

1900

44 U

44 U

44 U

44 U

1967

MW-2A

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

0

MW-2B

70

4.6 J

490

450

13

13 U

13 U

13 U

13 U

537.6

MW-3A-R

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

0

MW-3B

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

0

MW-3B

DUPLICAT

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

0

MW-3I-R

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

0

MW-4A

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

0

MW-4B

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

0

MW-7A MM

2 1

0.41 J : 1

50 ; 1

46 1

036 J 1

1 U : 1

1 U 1

1 U 1

1 U 1

48.77

-7B MW-7C

U •• 1 U

U : 1 U

U ; 1 U

U . 1 U

U , 1 U

u : 1 u

U : 1 U

U 1 U

U 1 U

D ; 0

MW-8I

1 U ,

1 U

2.1 :

1 .9 ;

3.5 i

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

5.4

All sample concentrations in ug/L

U = Non-detect

J = Estimated result

D = Diluted sample concentration

RBAL = Risk Based Action Level (ug/L)

NA = Not applicable

0 = No Target Chlorinated Volatiles (TCV) detected

TCVs were calculated using 1,2-dichloroethene (total);

trans- and cis-1,2-dichloroethene concentrations

were ignored.

Page 3 of 6
NORWOOD GROUNDWATER MONITORING

JUNE/JULY 2005

VOC DATA

ANALYTE

Vinyl Chloride

trans-1 ,2-Dichloroethene

.1,2-Dichloroethene (total)

cis-1 ,2-Dichloroethene

Trichloroethene

1,1,2-Trichloroethane

Tetrachloroethene

Chlorobenzene

1 , 1 ,2,2-Tetrachloroethane

Total Detected Target VOCs

REAL

310,000

NA

3,660,000

NA

108,000

NA

37,000

NA

NA

MW-9B

1 U

1 U

0.38 J

0.35 J

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

0.35

PZ-01

2.7

0.7 J

19

17

0^53 J

1 U

1 U

0.44 J

1 U

21.37

PZ-02

91

34

910

790

10 J

23 U

23 U

23 U

23 U

925

PZ-03

8

4.8

120

110

3.7 U

3.7 U

3.7 U

3.7 U

3.7 U

122.8

PZ-04

1 U

1 U

1.4

1.3

1.5

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

2.8

TB52805

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

0

Trip

5_31_05

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

0

Trip

6_14_05

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

•V

Trip

6_14_05

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

0

Trip

6_14_05

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

0

Trip

6_14_05

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

0

Trip

6_14_05

1 U

1 if

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

0

All sample concentrations in ug/L

U = Non-detect

J = Estimated result

D = Diluted sample concentration

RBAL = Risk Based Action Level (ug/L)

NA = Not applicable

0 = No Target Chlorinated Volatiles (TCV) detected

TCVs were calculated using 1,2-dichloroethene (total);

trans- and cis-1,2-dichloroethene concentrations

were ignored.

Page 4 of 6
NORWOOD GROUNDWATER MONITORING

JUNE/JULY 2005

VOC DATA

ANALYTE R

Vinyl Chloride 31

Trip Trip

BAL 6_14_05 6_15_05

3,000 ;• 1 U i 1 U

trans-1,2-Dichloroethene ; 'NA i 1 U . 1 U

;1,2-Dichloroethene (total) 3,660,000 1 U 1 U

cis-1,2-Dichloroethene ; NA ; ' 1 U , 1 U

Trichloroethene I 103,000 1 U i 1 U

;1,1,2-Trichloroethane NA 1 U . 1 U

Jetrachloroethene \ 37,000 1 U 1 U

Chlorobenzene ; NA ! 1 U ; 1 U

;l,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane ; NA : 1 U > 1 U

Total Detected Target VOCs j ; 0 : 0

Trip

6_15_05

Trip

6_15_05

1 U j 1 U

1 U i 1 U

1 U 1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

0 | 0

Trip

6 13 05 F

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

0

Trip

6 14 05 E

Trip

Blank

Trip

Blank 071

1 U 1 U ; 44 U

1 U I 1 U

1 U , 1 U

1 U

1 V

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

0

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 "U

0

44 U

44 U

44 U

44 U

44 U

44 U

44 U

44 U

0

Trip

Blank 5_2

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

0

Trip

Blank 6_1

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

0

Trip

Blank 6_2

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

0

All sample concentrations in ug/L

U = Non-detect

J = Estimated result

D = Diluted sample concentration

RBAL = Risk Based Action Level (ug/L)

NA = Not applicable

0 = No Target Chlorinated Volatiles (TCV) detected

TCVs were calculated using 1,2-dichloroethene (total);

trans- and cis-1,2-dichloroethene concentrations

were ignored.

Page 5 of 6
NORWOOD GROUNDWATER MONITORING

JUNE/JULY 2005

VOC DATA

All sample concentrations in ug/L

U = Non-detect

J = Estimated result

D = Diluted sample concentration

RBAL = Risk Based Action Level (ug/L)

NA = Not applicable

0 = No Target Chlorinated Volatiles (TCV) detected

TCVs were calculated using 1,2-dichloroethene (total);

trans- and cis-1,2-dichloroethene concentrations

were ignored.

ANALYTE

Vinyl Chloride

trans-1 ,2-Dichloroethene

1,2-Dichloroethene (total)

cis-1 ,2-Dichloroethene

Trichloroethene

1,1,2-Trichloroethane

Tetrachloroethene

Chlorobenzene

1 ,1 ,2,2-Tetrachloroethane

Total Detected Target VOCs

RBAL

310,000

NA

3,660,000

NA

108,000

NA

37,000

NA

NA

Trip

Blank 6_9

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

0

Trip

Blank 6_1

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

0

Trip

Blank 6_1

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

r u

1 U

1 U

1 U

0

Trip

Blank A 6

1 U

1 U

1 U

1 U

1" u

i u

1 U

1 U

1 U

0

Page 6 of 6

I
NORWOOD GROUNDWATER MONITORING

JUNE/JULY 2005

SVOC DATA

ANALYTE RBAL B-4 B-9

1 ,3-Dichlorobenzene j NA ' 5 U 5 U

1 ,4-Dichlorobenzene ; 4,600 ; 5 U 7.6

1 ,2-Dichlorobenzene \ NA : 5 U ; 5 U

1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene • 34,000 ! 5 U ; 5 U

Pentachlorophenol N

Total Detected Target SVOCs \

A | 13 U 13 U

, 0 ; 7.6

B-10

5 U

7.2

5 U

5 U

13 U

7.2

B-18

5 U

5 U

5 U

12

13 U

12

B-19-R

5 U

5 U

5 U

5 U

13 U

0

EW-4

5 U

5 U

5 U

5 U

13 U

0

EW-5

5 U

5 U

5 U

5 U

13 U

0

EW-8

5 U

5 U

5 U

5 U

13 U

0

EW-9 EW-10

5 U ; 5 U

5 U i 5 U

5 U ; 5 U

5 U 5 U

13 U 13 U

"d

 ! o

EW-11

5 U

28

21

140 D

13 U

189

EW-16

5 U

5 U

5 U

17

13 U

17

EW-17

5 U

5 U

5 U

5 U

13 U

0

EW-18

5 U

5 U

5 U

5 U

13 U

0

ME-2

5 U

5 U

5 U

5 U

13 U

0

All sample concentrations in ug/L

U = Non-detect

J = Estimated result

D = Diluted sample concentration

REAL = Risk Based Action Level (ug/L)

NA = Not applicable

0 = No Target SVOCs detected

Page 1 of 3
NORWOOD GROUNDWATER MONITORING

JUNE/JULY 2005

SVOC DATA

ANALYTE

1 ,3-Dichlorobenzene

1,4-Dichlorobenzene

1 ,2-Dichlorobenzene

1 ,2,4-Trichlorobenzene

Pentachlorophenol

Total Detected Target SVOCs

RBAL

NA

4,600

NA

34,000

NA

ME-3

5 U

5 U

5 U

5 U

13 U

0

ME-4

5 U

5 U

5 U

5 U

13 U

0

ME-5

5 U

5 U

5 U

5 U

13 U

0

ME-8

5 U

5 U

5 U

5 U

13 U

0

ME-9

5 U

5 U

5 U

5 U

13 U

0

ME-10

5 U

5 U

5 U

5 U

13 U

0

ME-11A

5 U

5 U

5 U

5 U

13 U

0

ME-11B

5 U

5 U

5 U

5 U

13 U

0

ME-11B

DUP

5 U

5 U

5 U

5 U

13 U

0

ME-12A

5 U

5 U

5 U

5 U

13 U

0

ME-12B

5.1 U

5.1 U

5.1 U

5.1 U

13 U

0

ME-18B

5 U

5 U

5 U

5 U

13 U

0

MW-1A

15

25 J

30 J

1500 D

13 U

1570

MW-1BR

17

200 D

27

1100

13 U

1344

MW-2A

5 U

5 U

5 U

5 U

13 U

0

MW-2B

5 U

5 U

5 U

5 U

13 U

0

All sample concentrations in ug/L

U = Non-detect

J = Estimated result

D = Diluted sample concentration

RBAL = Risk Based Action Level (ug/L)

NA = Not applicable

0 = No Target SVOCs detected

Page 2 of 3
NORWOOD GROUNDWATER MONITORING

JUNE/JULY 2005

SVOC DATA

ANALYTE

1 ,3-Dichlorobenzene

1,4-Dichlorobenzene

1 ,2-Dichlorobenzene

1 ,2,4-Trichlorobenzene

Pentachlorophenol

Total Detected Target SVOCs

REAL

NA

4,600

NA

34,000

NA

MW-3A-R

5 U

5 U

5 U

5 U

13 U

0 "

MW-3B

5 U

5 U

5 U

5 U

13 U

0

MW-3B

DUP

5 U

5 U

5 U

5 U

13 U

0

MW-3I-R

5 U

5 U

5 U

5 U

13 U

0

MW-4A

5 U

5 U

5 U

5 U

13 U

0

MW-4B

5 U

5 U

5 U

5 U

13 U

0

MW-7A

5 U

5 U

5 U

5 U

13 U

0

MW-7B

5 U

5 U

5 U

5 U

13 U

0

MW-7C

5 U

5 U

5 U

5 U

13 U

0

MW-8I

5 U

5 U

5 U

5 U

13 U

0

MW-9B

5 U

5 U

5 U

5 U

13 U

0

PZ-01

5 U

5 U

5 U

5 U

13 U

0

PZ-02

170 D

17

7.4

1200 D

13 U

1394.4

PZ-03

5 U

5 U

5 U

8.3

13 U

8.3

PZ-04

5 U

5 U

5 U

5 U

13' U

0

All sample concentrations in ug/L

U = Non-detect

J = Estimated result

D = Diluted sample concentration

REAL = Risk Based Action Level (ug/L)

NA = Not applicable

0 = No Target SVOCs detected

Page 3 of 3
NORWOOD GROUNDWATER MONITORING

JUNE/JULY 2005

PCB DATA

ANALYTE RBAL B-4 B-4F* B-9 B-10 BAroclor-1016 i NA 1.5 U 0.05 U i 0.05 U 0.05 U 0.05

Aroclor-1221

 ; NA 1.5 U 0.05 U 0.05 U ; 0.05 U ! 0.05

Aroclor-1232 ! NA 1.5 U 0.05 U 0.05 U ! 0.05 U ! 0.05

Aroclor-1242 , NA : 1.5 U 0.05 U 0.05 U \ 0.05 U | 0.05

Aroclor-1248 ; NA 22 0.29 J 0.1 J ; 1.3 : 0.18

Aroclor-1254 I NA ; 8 I 0.36 0.17 J : 3 J 0.1

Aroclor-1260 I NA j 1.5 U 6.05 U 0.05 U i 0.05 U ', 6.05

Total detected PCBs ; 30 i 0.65 ; 0.27 4.3 O.C

B-18

18 DUP B-19-R EW-4 EW-4F* EW-5 EW-8 EW-9

U 0.05 U : 0.25 U 0.25 U 0.05 U ; 0.05 U I 0.05 U 0.05 U

U 0.05 U : 0.25 U 0.25 U 0.05 U ' 0.05 U 0.05 U 0.05 U

U 0.05 U • 0.25 U 0.25 U 0.05 U 0.05 U 0.05 U 0.05 U

U 0.05 U ; 0.25 U 0.25 U 0.05 U 0.05 U '•• 0.05 U '• 0.05 U

J 0.16 J : 3.1 0.25 U 0.05 U 0.29 0.05 U 0.05 U

7 0.18 1.1 2.7 0.05 U 0.14 J 0.05 U 0.05 U

U 0.05 U : 0.25 U 0.25 U 0.05 U : 0.05 U : 0.05 U 0.05 U

!5 0.34 : 4.2 2.7 0 ; 0.43 ; 0 0

EW-10

0.05 U

0.05 U

0.05 U

0.05 U

0.05 U

0.05 U

0.05 U

0

EW-11

0.05 U !

0.05 U

0.05 U

0.05 U

0.05 U

0.05 U

0.05 U

0

All sample concentrations in ug/L

U = Non-detect

J = Estimated result

D = Diluted sample concentration

RBAL = Risk Based Action Level

NA = Not applicable

0 = No PCBs detected

* Represents filtered sample (e.g., dissolved PCBs)

Remaining samples are unfiltered (e.g, total PCBs)

Page 1 of 5
NORWOOD GROUNDWATER MONITORING

JUNE/JULY 2005

PCB DATA

ANALYTE

Aroclor-1016

Aroclor-1221

Aroclor-1232

Aroclor-1242

Aroclor-1248

Aroclor-1254

Aroclor-1260

Total detected RGBs

RBAL

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

EW-16

0.05 U

0.05 U

0.05 U

0.05 U

0.05 U

0.05 U

0.05 U

0

EW-16F*

0.05 U

0.05 U

0.05 U

0.05 U

0.05 U

0.05 U

0.05 U

0

EW-17

0.05 U

0.05 U

0.05 U

0.05 U

0.05 U

0.05 U

0.05 U

0

EW-18

0.05 U

0.05 U

0.05 U

0.05 U

0.05 U

0.05 U

0.05 U

0

ME-2

0.05 U

0.05 U

0.05 U

0.05 U

0.05 U

0.12

0.05 U

0.12

ME-3

0.05 U

0.05 U

0.05 U

0.05 U

0.05 U

0.05 U

0.05 U

0

ME-4

0.05 U

0.05 U

0.05 U

0.05 U

0.05 U

0.05 U

0.05 U

0

ME-5

0.05 U

0.05 U

0.05 U

0.05 U

0.05 U

0.05 U

0.05 U

0

ME-8

0.05 U

0.05 U

0.05 U

0.05 U

0.05 U

0.05 U"

0.05 U

0

ME-9

0.05 U

0.05 U

0.05 U

0.05 U

0.05 U

0.05 U

0.05 U

0

ME-10

0.05 U

0.05 U

0.05 U

0.05 U

0.05 U

0.45

0.05 U

0.45

ME-11A

0.05 U

0.05 U

0.05 U

0.05 U

0.05 U

0.05 U

0.05 U

0

ME-11B

0.25 U

0.25 U

0.25 U

0.25 U

1.9

0.25 ~U

0.25 U

1.9

ME-11B

DUP

0.25 U '

0.25 U

0.25 U

0.25 U

1.9 :

"6.25 IP

0.25 U i

1.9

All sample concentrations in ug/L

U = Non-detect

J = Estimated result

D = Diluted sample concentration

RBAL = Risk Based Action Level

NA = Not applicable

0 = No PCBs detected

* Represents filtered sample (e.g., dissolved PCBs)

Remaining samples are unfiltered (e.g, total PCBs)

Page 2 of 5
NORWOOD GROUNDWATER MONITORING

JUNE/JULY 2005

PCB DATA

ANALYTE RBAL

Aroclor-1016 NA

Aroclor-1221 NA

;Aroclor-1232 ' NA

Aroclor-1242 i NA

Aroclor-1248 : NA

Aroclor-1254 • NA

Aroclor-1260 ; NA

Total detected PCBs

ME-12A

0.05 U

0.05 U

0.05 U

0.05 U

0.05 U

0.05 U

0.05 U

0

ME-12B

0.05 U

0.05 U

0.05 U

0.05 U

0.05 U

0.05 U

0.05 U

0

ME-18B

0.05 U

0.05 U

0.05 U

0.05 U

0.05 U

0.32

0.05 U

0.32

MW-1A

2.5 U

2.5 U

2.5 U

2.5 U

23

2.5 U

2.5 U

23

MW-1BR

2.5 U

2.5 U

2.5 U

2.5 U

12

7.6 J

2.5 U

19.6

MW-1BRF*

0.05 U

0.05 U

0.05 U

0.05 U

0.05 U

0.05 U

0.05 U

0

MW-2A

2.5 U

2.5 U

2.5 U

2.5 U

2.5 U

15 J

2.5 U

15

MW-2AF*

0.05 U

0.05 U

0.05 U

6.05 U

0.05 U

0.05 U

0.05 U

0

MW-2B

0.05 U

0.05 U

0.05 U

"6.05" U"

0.05 U

0.05 U

0.05 U

0

MW-3A-R

0.05 U

0.05 U

0.05 U

0.05 U

0.05 U

0.05 U

0.05 U

0

MW-3B

0.05 U

0.05 U

0.05 U

0.05 U

0.05 U

0.05 U

0.05 U

0

MW-3B

DUP

0.05 U

0.05 U

0.05 U

0.05 U

0.05 U

0.05 U

0.05 U

0

MW-3I-R

0.05 U

0.05 U

0.05 U

0.05 U

0.05 U

0.05 U

0.05 U

0

MV\MA

0.25 U

0.25 U

0.25 U

0~25 IT

0.25 U

1.1

0.25 U

_ ^ H

All sample concentrations in ug/L

U = Non-detect

J = Estimated result

D = Diluted sample concentration

RBAL = Risk Based Action Level

NA = Not applicable

0 = No PCBs detected

* Represents filtered sample (e.g., dissolved PCBs)

Remaining samples are unfiltered (e.g. total PCBs)

Page 3 of 5
NORWOOD GROUNDWATER MONITORING

JUNE/JULY 2005

PCB DATA

ANALYTE RBAL

Aroclor-1016 ; NA

Aroclor-1221 j NA

Aroclor-1232 j NA

Aroclor-1242 ] NA

Aroclor-1248 i NA

Aroclor-1254 f NA

Aroclor-1260 ] NA

Total detected PCBs !

MW-4B

0.05 U

0.05 U

0.05 U

0.05 U

0.05 U

0.06 J

0.05 U

0.06

MW-7A

0.05 U

0.05 U

0.05 U

rb.bs u

0.05 U

0.05 U

0.05 U

0

MW-7B

0.06 U

0.06 U

0.06 U

0.06 U

0.06 U

0.06 U

0.06 U

0

MW-7C

0.05 U

0.05 U

0.05 U

0.05 U

HD.OS u

0.05 U

0.05 U

0

MW-8I

0.05 U

0.05 U

0.05 U

0.05 U

0.05 U

0.05 U

0.05 U

0

MW-9B

0.05 U

0.05 U

0.05 U

0.05 U

0.05 U

0.05 U

0.05 U

0

PZ-01

0.05 U

0.05 U

0.05 U

0.05 U

0.05 U

0.05 U

0.05 U

0

PZ-01 F*

0.05 U

0.05 U

0.05 U

0.05 U

0.05 U

0.05 U

0.05 U

0

PZ-01 F*

DUP

0.05 U

0.05 U

0.05 U

0.05 U

0.05 U

0.05 U

0.05 U

0

PZ-02

2.5 U

2.5 U

2.5 U

2.5 U

17 J

17

2.5 U

34

PZ-02F*

2.5 U

2.5 U

2.5 U

2.5 U

10 J

13

2.5 U

23

PZ-03

0.05 U

0.05 U

0.05 U

0.05 U

3

0.05 U

0.05 U

3

PZ-03F'

0.05 U

0.05 U

0.05 U

0.05 U

0.05 U

0.05 U

0.05 U

0

PZ-04

0.05 U

0.05 U

0.05 U

0.05 U

0.24 J

0.26

0.05 U

0.5

All sample concentrations in ug/L

U = Non-detect

J = Estimated result

D = Diluted sample concentration

RBAL = Risk Based Action Level

NA = Not applicable

0 = No PCBs detected

• Represents filtered sample (e.g., dissolved PCBs)

Remaining samples are unfiltered (e.g, total PCBs)

Page 4 of 5
NORWOOD GROUNDWATER MONITORING

JUNE/JULY 2005

PCB DATA

ANALYTE

Aroclor-1016

Aroclor-1221

Aroclor-1232

Aroclor-1242

Aroclor-1248

Aroclor-1254

Aroclor-1260

RBAL

NA

NA

""NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

PZ-04F*

0.05 U |

0.05 U

0X15 U

0.05 U

0.05 U

0.05 U

0.05 U

i Total detected PCBs _| >

All sample concentrations in ug/L

U = Non-detect

J = Estimated result

D = Diluted sample concentration

RBAL = Risk Based Action Level

NA = Not applicable

0 = No PCBs detected

* Represents filtered sample (e.g.. dissolved PCBs)

Remaining samples are unfiltered (e.g. total PCBs)

Page 5 of 5
«H

TD03-006

April 2006

Appendix C

QA/QC Data Review
QA/QC DATA REVIEW

NORWOOD

June/July 2005 Data

INTRODUCTION

The following is a summary of the quality control data review performed by a Tetra Tech EC chemist on

the results of groundwater samples collected by Watermark during the June/July 2005 sampling round at

the Norwood PCB Superfund Site (Site). Samples were analyzed by Severn Trent Laboratories in

Colchester, VT for selected volatile organics (VOCs - EPA Method 8260B), selected semi volatile

organics (SVOCs - EPA Method 8270C), and low level PCBs (EPA Method 8082). Table C-l provides a

list of samples collected and analyses performed.

Table C-l. Samples Collected and Analyses Performed

SAMPLE NUMBER

TB52805

MWME10

MW18B

MWB-19R

MW-1A

MW-1BR

MW-1BRF

Trip 5-3 1-05

ME-3

ME-5

B-18

B-18DUP

ME-4

Trip Blank 1

B-4

B-4F

ME-11A

Trip Blank 6- 1-05

ME-11B

ME-11BDUP

ME-8

Trip Blank 2

Trip Blank 3

B-9

B-10

MW-4B

MW-4A

TRIP BLANK 5.28.05

MW-3AR

MW-3IR

TRIP BLANK 6.2.05

MW-3B

SDG

NW01

NW01

NW01

NW01

NW02

NW02

NW02

NW02

NW02

NW02

NW02

NW02

NW02

NW02

NW02

NW02

NW02

NW02

NW02

NW02

NW02

NW02

NW02

NW03

NW03

NW03

NW03

NW03

NW03

NW03

NW03

NW03

DATE

COLLECTED

5/28/05

6/1/05

6/2/05

6/2/05

6/7/05

6/7/05

6/7/05

6/7/05

6/7/05

6/7/05

6/7/05

6/7/05

6/7/05

5/31/05

6/6/05

6/6/05

6/6/05

6/6/05

6/6/05

_ 6/6/05

6/6/05

5/31/05

6/1/05

6/8/05

6/8/05

6/8/05

6/8/05

6/8/05

6/8/05

6/8/05

6/8/05

6/9/05

LAB ID

623416

623417

623418

623419

624149

624150

624151

624152

624153

624154

624155

624156

624157

624158

624159

624160

624161

624162

624163

624164

624165

624166

624167

624736

624737

624738

624739

624740

624741

624742

624743

624744

QC

TB

MS

TB

FD

TB

TB

FD

TB

TB

TB

TB

voc

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

SVOC

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

PCB

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

C-l
Table C-l. Samples Collected and Analyses Performed

SAMPLE NUMBER

MW-3B DUPLICATE

MW-8I

MW-7A

MW-7C

TRIP BLANK 6.9.05

ME-9

ME-2

TRIP BLANK 6.9.05

PZ-01

PZ-01F

PZ-01 FDUP

Trip Blank A 6-1 4-05

EW-8

Trip Blank 6-1 3-05 B

EW-17

Trip Blank 6- 13 -05 D

PZ-2

PZ-2F

Trip 6-1 4-05 E

EW-11

Trip Blank 6- 13 -05 C

PZ-03

PZ-03F

Trip Blank 6-15-05 G

ME 12A

Trip Blank 6- 15 -05 -H

EW-16

EW-16F

Trip 6-1 3-05 F

MW2B

TRIP 6. 14.05(1)

MW8I

TRIP6.14.05(K)

EW-10

TRIP6.15.05(Q)

MW-7A

TRTP BLANK 6.15.05(0)

PZ-04

TRIP6.14.05(M)

PZ-04F

EW-18

TRTP6.15.05(P)

EW-5

TRIP6.15.05(R)

MW-7C

SDG

NW03

NW03

NW03

NW03

NW03

NW03

NW03

NW03

NW04

NW04

NW04

NW04

NW04

NW04

NW04

NW04

NW04

NW04

NW04

NW04

NW04

NW04

NW04

NW04

NW04

NW04

NW04

NW04

NW04

NW05

NW05

NW05

NW05

NW05

NW05

NW05

NW05

NW05

NW05

NW05

NW05

NW05

NW05

NW05

NW05

DATE

COLLECTED

6/9/05

6/9/05

6/9/05

6/9/05

6/9/05

6/10/05

6/10/05

6/9/05

6/14/05

6/14/05

6/14/05

6/14/05

6/13/05

6/13/05

6/13/05

6/13/05

6/14/05

6/14/05

6/14/05

6/13/05

6/13/05

6/15/05

6/15/05

6/15/05

6/15/05

6/15/05

6/13/05

6/13/05

6/13/05

6/16/05

6/16/05

6/16/05

6/16/05

6/16/05

6/16/05

6/16/05

6/16/05

6/16/05

6/16/05

6/16/05

6/16/05

6/16/05

6/16/05

6/16/05

6/16/05

LAB ID

624745

624746

624747

624748

624749

624750

624751

624752

624980

624981

624982

624983

624984

624985

624986

624987

624988

624989

624990

624991

624992

624993

624994

624995

624996

624997

624998

624999

625021

625231

625232

625233

625234

625235

625236

625237

625238

625239

625240

625241

625242

625243

625244

625245

625246

QC

FD

TB

TB

FD

TB

TB

TB

TB

TB

TB

TB

MS

MS

TB

TB

TB

TB

TB

TB

TB

TB

voc

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

svoc

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

PCB

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

' X

X

X

X

X

X

X

C-2
Table C-l. Samples Collected and Analyses Performed

SAMPLE NUMBER

TRIP6.14.05(C)

MW-2A(MS/MSD)

MW-2AF

TRIP6.14.05(J)

MW-7B

TRIP BLANK 6. 15.05(N)

EW-9

Trip 6.14.05(8)

MW-9B

Trip Blank 6/1 7/05

EW-4

EW-4F

ME-12B

TRIP BLANK

MW-2A

MW-7A

EW-4

B-4

MW-1BR

Trip Blank 07 1305

SDG

NW05

NW05

NW05

NW05

NW05

NW05

NW06

NW06

NW06

NW06

NW06

NW06

NM07

NM07

NW08

NW08

NW08

NW08

NW08

NW08

DATE

COLLECTED

6/16/05

6/16/05

6/16/05

6/16/05

6/16/05

6/16/05

6/17/05

6/17/05

6/17/05

6/17/05

6/17/05

6/17/05

6/23/05

6/23/05

7/13/05

7/13/05

7/13/05

7/13/05

7/13/05

7/13/05

LAB ID

625247

625248

625249

625250

625258

625259

625743

625744

625745

625746

625747

625748

626253

626254

628805

628806

628807

628808

628809

628810

QC

TB

MS

TB

TB

TB

TR

TB

TB

voc

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

SVOC

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

PCB

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

TB - Trip Blank

FD - Field Duplicate Sample

MS - Matrix Spike/Matrix Spike Duplicate

DATA REVIEW

The samples were evaluated based on the following parameters:

Technical Holding Times/Sample Preservation

* Method Blanks/Trip Blanks

Field/Laboratory Duplicates

* Initial and Continuing Calibrations

Matrix Spike/Matrix Spike Duplicates

Surrogate Recovery

Internal Standard Areas

Target Compound Identification

Laboratory Control Samples

* All criteria were met for this parameter.

Technical Holding Times/Sample Preservation

Sample bottles for MW-7A, MW-7C and MW-8I were received out of the acceptable temperature range

on 6/13/05 (NW03). These samples were recollected on 6/16/05 (NW05) and 7/13/05 (NW08) and

reanalyzed. The results from the resampling and reanalysis are used in the project database for this

monitoring event.

C-3
Laboratory Method Blanks/Trip Blanks

The results for the laboratory method blank samples and the VOA trip blank samples are found to meet

the data quality objectives (target analytes < reporting limit). There is no limitation in using the data due

to blank contamination.

Matrix Spike/Matrix Spike Duplicates

SVOCs

The recovery of 1,4-dichlorobenzene (33%, 40%), 1,2-Dichlorobenzene (33%, 33%), 1,2,4-

trichlorobenzene (400%, 400%) and pentachlorophenol (127%) in the matrix spike and matrix spike

duplicate samples for SVOC analysis of MW-1A do not meet the acceptable criteria. The concentration

for 1,2,4-trichlorobenzene in sample MW-1A is 1500 ug/L, 100 x the concentration added in the spike.

The recoveries of PCB spikes in sample MW-1A are 0 % due to the high initial concentration in the

sample. The PCB matrix spike recoveries for sample MW-1A are not usable for evaluating sample

accuracy for this data set. The results for 1,4-dichlorobenzene and 1,2-dichlorobenzene are estimated due

to the low bias in the reported results. The non detect result for pentachlorophenol in sample MW-1A is

not impacted by the high recovery in the matrix spike sample

The recovery for 1,4-dichlorobenzene (113%, 113%) and pentachlorophenol (127%) in the matrix spike

and matrix spike duplicate sample EW-16 are above the acceptable criteria. The non detect results for

1,4-dichlorobenzene and pentachlorophenol in sample EW-16 are not impacted by the high recovery in

the matrix spike and matrix spike duplicate samples.

PCBs

The spike results for PCBs in samples MW-2A are diluted out due to the high concentration in the initial

sample requiring a 50 fold dilution for analysis. There is no impact on the usability of the data.

Surrogate Recovery

SVOCs

The surrogate nitrobenzene (183%) was recovered above the acceptable limits for the SVOC analysis of

sample MW-1A and the associated matrix spike and matrix spike duplicate samples. The SVOC

surrogate, fluorobiphenyl is recovered below the acceptable criteria in sample MW-7C (54%). Since all

of the other surrogates are recovered within the acceptable limits there is not impact on the usability of the

data. The surrogate 2-fluorobiphenyl is recovered below the acceptable limit in samples PZ-01 (52%),

EW-08 (54%) and EW-16 (55%). Since all of the remaining SVOC surrogates have recoveries within the

acceptable range there is no impact on the usability of the data.

PCBs

The surrogate recovery for tetrachloro-m-xylene in sample MW-1BRF (135%) is recovered above the

acceptable criteria. The non detect results for PCBs in sample MW-1BF are not impacted by the high

surrogate recovery.

Field Duplicate

Four field duplicate samples (B-l8, MW-1 IB, MW-3B and PZ-01F) were collected for PCB analysis and

two field duplicate samples (ME-1 IB and MW-3B) were collected for VOC and SVOC analysis. All of

C-4
the field duplicate results are found to meet the data quality objectives and there are no limitations due to

sampling and analytical precision on using the data.

Laboratory Control Sample

VOCs

The recovery of tetrachloroethene in the solid laboratory control sample was above the acceptable criteria

range. Since the sample result for the solid sample is non detect there is no impact on the usability of the

data due to the high bias in the reported concentrations.

SVOCs

The recovery for pentachlorophenol in the SVOC laboratory control sample for SDG NW-06 was above

the acceptable range (115%). The non detect results for pentachlorophenol in the samples is not impacted

by the high bias in the LCS sample.

Target Compound Identification

PCBs

The laboratory noted in its narrative that the Aroclor pattern in some of the samples did not match with

the pattern for Aroclor 1248 in the standards used. This difference is likely due to the weathering and

make up of the contaminant source at the site.

The column comparison data for Aroclor 1248 in samples B-18 (66.7%), B-18 Dup (68.8%) and B-4F

(37.9%) do not meet the acceptable criteria (< 25%) for dual column confirmation. The results for

Aroclor 1254 in samples B-10 (26.7%), B-9 (29.4%) and MW-4B (32.7%) and for Aroclor 1248 in

sample B-9 (192.9%) do not meet the acceptable criteria for dual column confirmation. The data for

Aroclor 1248 in samples PZ-02 (29.4%) and PZ-02F (40.0%) did not meet the criteria for dual column

confirmation. The data for Aroclor 1248 in sample PZ-04 (95.8%) and for Aroclor 1254 in samples EW5 (28.6%) and MW-2A (26.7%) do not meet the criteria for dual column confirmation.

The results for Aroclor 1248 in samples B-18, B-18 DUP, B-4F, B-9, PZ-02. PZ-02F and PZ-04 are

considered as estimated due to poor dual column confirmation. The results for Aroclor 1254 in samples

B-10, B-9, MW-4B, EW-5, MW-2A and MW-1BR are considered as estimated due to the poor column

confirmation.

Summary

A quality control data review was performed on groundwater sample results analyzed for VOCs, SVOCs

and low level PCBs. The reported results for PCBs in some samples were estimated due to failure of the

column confirmation, likely due to the observed weathered pattern of the PCBs detected. Overall, the

data collected for this project were found to be acceptable. Based on this review, the qualified data are

considered usable for project objectives.

C-5
Appendix D

Summary of Well Repair and Maintenance Activities

TD03-006

April 2006
APPENDIX D

Summary of Well Repairs and Maintenance

Well ID

B-4

B-9

B-10

B-18

B-19R

B-28

MW-1A

MW-1BR

MW-2A

MW-2B

MW-3AR

MW-3B

MW-3IR

MW-4A

MW-4B

MW-5A

MW-5B

MW-6A

MW-6B

MW-7A

MW-7B

MW-7C

MW-8I

MW-9B

ME-2

Well Repairs

Cut and Re-Measure

Casing

Amount of

PVC riser

removed

[inches)

1-13/16

1- 7/8

IMC

NC

NC

NC

3/4

NC

NC

NC

2- 1/8

NC

2- 7/8

7/8

NC

NC

NC

NC

NC

NC

NC

NC

NC

NC

NC

Amount of

PVC riser

removed

(feet)

0.15

0.16

NC

NC

NC

NC

006

NC

NC

NC

0.18

NC

0.24

0.07

NC

NC

NC

NC

NC

NC

NC

NC

NC

NC

NC

Replaced

J-Plug

yes

yes

OK

yes

yes

yes

yes

yes

yes

OK

yes

yes

yes

yes

yes

OK

yes

OK

OK

OK

OK

OK

OK

OK

OK

Replaced

Cover Bolt

EC

EC

EC

EC

EC

EC

EC

OK

B

OK

OK

OK

OK

OK

OK

OK

OK

OK

OK

OK

B

B

OK

OK

OK

Comments

1 of 2 missing bolts were replaced; the other missing bolt could not be

replaced because one set of female threads was stripped

neither of the 2 missing bolts could be replaced because both sets of

female threads were broken off

different style cover - no bolts are required to lock cover

well is completely paved over - cannot locale

neither of the 2 missing bolts could be replaced because both sets of

female threads were stripped

1 of 2 missing bolts were replaced; the other missing bolt could not be

replaced because one set of female threads was stripped

successfully replaced 2 of 2 bolts, but both sels of female threads are

nearly stripped

piece of PVC (under road box cover) that is above the grout is severty

cracked

1 of 2 missing bolts could not be replaced because the female threads

do not line up with the holes in the cover; the other missing bolt could

not be replaced because the set of female threads was broken off; PVC

casing has an ID that is less than 2" NPT so pipe could not be cut down

and J-Dluq could not be installed

Notes: 1. GND= Ground Surface, TOC= Top of Casing, EC= Entire Cover, B= Bolts Only, NC= Not Cut

2. Repairs performed on June 23. 2005

D-1
APPENDIX O

Summary of Well Repairs and Maintenance

Well ID

ME-3

ME-4

ME-5

ME-8

ME-9

ME-10

ME-11A

ME-11B

ME-12A

ME-12B

ME-18B

EW-4

EW-5

EW-8

EW-9

EW-10

EW-11

EW-16

EW-17

EW-18

PZ-01

PZ-02

PZ-03

PZ-04

Well Repairs

Cul and Re-Measure

Casing

Amount of

PVC riser

removed

finches)

NC

NC

NC

1- 3M

NC

1- 1/16

NC

NC

NC

NC

NC

NC

NC

NC

NC

NC

NC

NC

NC

NC

NC

NC

NC

NC

Amount of

PVC riser

removed

(feet)

NC

NC

NC

0.15

NC

0.09

NC

NC

NC

NC

NC

NC

NC

NC

NC

NC

NC

NC

NC

NC

NC

NC

NC

NC

Replaced

J-Plug

OK

OK

OK

yes

OK

yes

OK

OK

OK

OK

OK

OK

OK

OK

OK

OK

OK

OK

OK

OK

OK

OK

OK

OK

Replaced

Cover Bolt

B

EC

B

EC

EC

OK

OK

OK

OK

OK

EC

OK

OK

OK

OK

OK

OK

OK

OK

OK

OK

OK

OK

OK

Comments

no bolts required - missing pad lock

no bolts required - missing pad lock

Notes: 1. GND= Ground Surface,

2. Repairs performed on J'

TOC= Top of Casing, EC= Entire Cover, B= Bolts Only, NC= Not Cut

lune 23. 2005

D-2
ill

KUl

TD03-006

April 2006

Appendix E

Sediment and Surface Water Sampling Results
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM

TO: Project Team

FROM: TtEC/ Watermark

DATE: March 15, 2006

SUBJECT: Revised Summary of Meadow Brook Sediment and Surface Water Sampling Results at

the Norwood PCB Site

On request of the USAGE, following the finding of a sheen in an area of Meadow Brook adjacent to the

site, a surface water sample (NW-SW-SH-062305) and sediment sample (NW-SED-SH-062305) were

collected on June 23, 2005. The samples were analyzed for nine target VOCs, five target SVOCs and

PCB Aroclors. The sampling location was approximately 75 feet east of ME-11A along Meadow Brook

as shown in the attached figure. The surface water and sediment samples were collected during low

stream-flow conditions from an isolated section of standing water on the western side of the brook which

is flooded during storm events. The location had orange/brown "floe" material suspended in the water

and overlying the sediment. Also present was a slight sheen on the surface of the water.

The surface water sample was collected by directly dipping an inverted bottle into the water and tilting up

to fill. The surface water sample did not have any unusual odors. Sediment for SVOC and PCB analysis

was collected from the top six inches using a clean disposable HDPE trowel and homogenized in a

stainless steel mixing bowl. The sediment sample for VOCs was collected directly using a clean HDPE

syringe; approximately 5 ml of sediment was then transferred into a pre-preserved vial. The sediment

collected consisted of grey to dark grey sand and small sub-angular gravel. The sediment sample did not

have any visible staining or unusual odor.

Results of analyses of the surface water and sediment samples are summarized in the attached table.

VOCs and SVOCs were detected in the surface water sample and VOCs were also detected in the

sediment sample. PCB Aroclors were not detected in either sediment or surface water sample at the

method reporting limits.

The detection of VOCs in the surface water and sediment is consistent with findings of previous quarterly

sampling rounds at the site where low levels of VOCs were detected at the downstream surface water

location, STS-3 (see 27th quarterly groundwater monitoring report prepared by Nobis); STS-3 is located

adjacent to PZ-04. The higher concentrations and the greater variety of VOCs and SVOCs detected in the

samples collected during the current sampling event are likely due to localized deposition in the area

where the sheen was noted. The VOC detections in the sediments may be associated with the pore water

in the sample and not necessarily from contaminants adsorbed to sediment particles.

The detection of the target VOCs (chlorobenzene, cis-dichloroethene, and vinyl chloride), closely match

the VOCs detected in the groundwater across the Norwood site. The presence of the two target SVOCs

(1,3-dichlorobenzene and 1,4-dichlorobenzene), in the surface water sample is also similar to the

detections in the groundwater at the site. Dichlorobenzenes are frequently associated with PCB oils and

the presence dichlorobenzenes is likely to enhance mobilization of PCBs from soil into the groundwater.

However, no PCBs were detected in the surface water or sediment samples collected during the current

sampling event.

TD03-006

April 2006
The presence of the sheen, the results of the sediment and surface water chemical analysis, and the

groundwater results for piezometers PZ-02 and PZ-03 indicate the strong likelihood that contaminated

groundwater is discharging from the site into the brook. The localized isolated section of standing water

noted above likely acts to accumulate contaminants as they discharge with groundwater. These

contaminants are then likely flushed out during storm events and high water periods.

TD03-006

April 2006
N

WELL SCHEDULE

Well

B4

B9

B-10

B-18

B-19R

B-28

MW-1A

MW-1BR

MW-1C

MW-2A

MW-2B

MW-3AR

MW-3B

MW-3IR

MW-4A

MW-4B

MW-5A

MW-5B

MW-6A

LMW-6B J

MW-7A

MW-7B

MW-7C

MW-8I

MW-9B

ME2

ME3

ME4

ME5

ME8

ME9

ME-10

ME-11A

ME-11B

ME-12A

ME-12B

ME-18B

EW4

EW5

EW8

EW9

EW-10

EW-11

EW-16

EW-17

EW-18

Screened

Interval

(deptrfL

5-15

7-22

5-15

9-24

5-20

5-15

5-15

20-30

66-76

4.5-14.5

33-38

4-15

69-79

33-38

7-12

37-42

4.7-9.7

92-102

7.7-17.7

88.5-93.5

8.7- 18 7

33.4-43.4

80-90

56.4-61.4

28.5-38.5

17-22

25-45

24-44

5.5-10.5

12-22

69-79

5-15

15-25

11.8-21.8

10.5-20.5

6.1-16.1

23-43

8.5-13.5

13-18

30.5-45.5

31-51

21.5-31.5

21-31

19-29

19-29

31-51

Stratum

Upper Overburden

Upper Overburden

Upper Overburden

Upper Overburden

Upper Overburden

Upper Overburden

Upper Overburden

Lower Overburden

Lower Bedrock

Upper Overburden

Shallow Bedrock

Upper Overburden

Shallow Bedrock

Lower Overburden

Upper Overburden

Shallow Bedrock

Upper Overburden

Shallow Bedrock

Upper Overburden

Deep Bedrock

Upper Overburden

Shallow Bedrock

Deep Bedrock

Lower Overburden

Shallow Bedrock

Lower Overburden

Shallow Bedrock

Shallow Bedrock

Upper Overburden

Shallow Bedrock

Deep Bedrock

Upper Overburden

Shallow Bedrock/Lower Overburden

Shallow Bedrock /Lower Overburden

Shallow Bedrock/Lower Overburden

Shallow Bedrock/Lower Overburden

Shallow Bedrock

Upper Overburden

Upper Overburden

Shallow Bedrock

Shallow Bedrock

Lower Overburden

Lower Overburden

Lower Overburden

Lower Overburden

Shallow Bedrock

US Army Corps

of Engineers

N«w England District

LEGBO:

-0- MONITORING WELL

+ EXTRACTION WELL

• PIEZOMETER

A SEDIMENT/SURFACE

WATER SAMPLE LOCATION

i

Da1«:JANUARY i-

£ ac

-a " £ ~> H,s

si iPs"3Z £a c »•• 1

y to

ARMY ENGINEER DIS

CORPS OF ENGINEER

NCORD, MASSACHUSE o

•;SJ^<* (ri 1

l1i1!ii3J|

H!

ill

0^5

i ETETRA TECH EC, 33 FEDERAL STREET OSTON. MASSACHUS ®

O in

in (n 3 .. .

LU3 ?li

^

Z

 ^g^

5§ eii

"i ^li

Q§ Si

§i i| 1 i'

NOTE:

BASE PLAN WAS PRODUCED BY METCALF Si EDDY INC.

AND MODIFIED BY FOSTER WHEELER ENVIRONMENTAL

CORPORATION ON 6/26/96.

60 0 60

= I—

SCAL£ IN FEET

120

Sheel Reference

Number:

FIGURE

1

Sheet 1 of 1
Surface Water Results (ug/L)

VOCs

Summary of Surface Water and Sediment Results

Norwood PCS Superfund Site

SVOCs PCBs

ANALYTE

Vinyl Chloride

trans- 1 ,2-Dichloroethene

1 ,2-Dichloroethene (total)

cis-1 ,2-Dichloroethene

Trichloroethene

1 , 1 ,2-Trichloroethane

Tetrachloroethene

Chlorobenzene

1 ,1 ,2,2-Tetrachloroethane

Total VOCs

NW-SW-SH062305

4.9

1.1

18

16

1 U

1 U

1 U

7.7

1 U

29.7

ANALYTE

1 ,3-Dichlorobenzene

1 ,4-Dichlorobenzene

1 ,2-Dichlorobenzene

1 ,2,4-Trichlorobenzene

Pentachlorophenol

Total SVOCs

NW-SW-SH062305

10

17

5.6 U

5.6 U

14 U

27

ANALYTE

Aroclor-1016

Aroclor-1221

Aroclor-1232

Aroclor-1242

Aroclor-1248

Aroclor-1254

, Aroclor-1260

Total PCBs

NW-SW-SH062305

0.05 U

0.05 U

0.05 U

0.05 U

0.05 U

0.05 U

0.05 U

0.05

Sediment Results (ug/Kg)

VOCs SVOCs PCBs

ANALYTE

Vinyl Chloride

trans- 1 ,2-Dichloroethene

1 ,2-Dichloroethene (total)

cis- 1 ,2-Dichloroethene

Trichloroethene

1 , 1 ,2-Trichloroethane

Tetrachloroethene

Chlorobenzene

1 ,1 ,2.2-Tetrachloroethane

Total VOCs

NW-SED-SH062305

3.8 U

3.8 U

9.4

9

3.8 U

3.8 U

3.8 U

11

3.8 U

20

ANALYTE

1 ,3-Dichlorobenzene

1 ,4-Dichlorobenzene

1 ,2-Dichlorobenzene

1 ,2,4-Trichlorobenzene

Pentach 1 orophenol

Total SVOCs

NW-SED-SH062305

430 U

430 U

430 U

430 U

2200 U

<430

ANALYTE

Aroclor-1016

Aroclor-1221

Aroclor-1232

Aroclor-1242

Aroclor-1248

Aroclor-1254

Aroclor-1260

Total PCBs

NW-SED-SH062305

22 U

22 U

22 U

22 U

22 U

22 U

22 U

<22

Notes:

U = not detected at the specified reporting limit

Samples collected on June 23, 2005

TD03-006

April 2006