Assessment Modeling of Potential 1,4-Dioxane Transport

Transcription

1 Building lifetime relationships with our clients and employees. Assessment Modeling of Potential 1,4-Dioxane Transport Ringwood Mines/Landfill Superfund Site September 2017 Prepared for: Ford Motor Company 100 Crystal Run Road, Suite 101 Middletown, NY (845)

2 Rev. 0, 9/11/17 Project REPORT CERTIFICATION Assessment Modeling of Potential 1,4-Dioxane Transport Ringwood Mines/Landfill Superfund Site Ringwood, New Jersey The material and data in this report were prepared under the supervision and direction of the undersigned. Cornerstone Environmental Group, LLC Gary J. DiPippo Professional Engineer NJ License #24GE Timothy R. Roeper, P.G. Client Manager, Hydrogeology X:\PROJECTS\FORD MOTOR COMPANY\ REDESIGN SAMPLING CTM\Groundwater FS\Wanaque Res Analyses\Wanaque_Modeling_Report\Wanaque_Rpt_ docx ii

3 Rev. 0, 9/11/17 Project TABLE OF CONTENTS REPORT CERTIFICATION... II LIST OF FIGURES... IV 1 INTRODUCTION GROUNDWATER AND SURFACE WATER TRANSPORT GENERAL GROUNDWATER TRANSPORT SURFACE WATER TRANSPORT HYPOTHETICAL WHAT IF SCENARIO ASSESSMENT GROUNDWATER SURFACE WATER SUMMARY LIMITATIONS REFERENCES FIGURES APPENDICES APPENDIX A SURFACE WATER FEATURES APPENDIX B STREAMFLOW FIELD MEASUREMENTS APPENDIX C BEDROCK AQUIFER GROUNDWATER FLOW MAP X:\PROJECTS\FORD MOTOR COMPANY\ REDESIGN SAMPLING CTM\Groundwater FS\Wanaque Res Analyses\Wanaque_Modeling_Report\Wanaque_Rpt_ docx iii

4 Rev. 0, 9/11/17 Project List of Figures Figures 1 Sampling Location Plan 2 BioChlor Model Input Run 1: February 2017 Data 3 BioChlor Model Input Run 2: February 2017 Data 4 Biochlor Model Output Run 1: February 2017 Data 5 Biochlor Model Output Run 2: February 2017 Data 6 BioChlor Model Input Run 3: August 2016 Data 7 BioChlor Model Output Run 3: August 2016 Data 8 BioChlor Model Input Run 4: August 2016 Data 100 Years 9 BioChlor Model Output Run 4: August 2016 Data 100 Years 10 BioChlor Model Input Run 5: August 2016 Data 100 Years 11 BioChlor Model Output Run 5: August 2016 Data 100 Years 12 BioChlor Model Input - Run 6: August 2016 Data - n = BioChlor Model Ouput - Run 6: August 2016 Data - n = BioChlor Model Input - Run 7: August 2016 Data - n = BioChlor Model Output - Run 7: August 2016 Data - n = BioChlor Model Input - Run 8: August 2016 Data - K = 10-4 cm/sec 17 BioChlor Model Ouput - Run 8: August 2016 Data - K = 10-4 cm/sec 18 BioChlor Model Input - Run 9: August 2016 Data - K = 10-9 cm/sec 19 BioChlor Model Ouput - Run 9: August 2016 Data - K = 10-9 cm/sec 20 BioChlor Model Input - Run 10: August 2016 CMP - K = 10-8 cm/sec 21 BioChlor Model Ouput - Run 10: August 2016 CMP - K = 10-8 cm/sec 22 BioChlor Model Input - Run 11: August 2016 CMP - K = 10-6 cm/sec 23 BioChlor Model Ouput - Run 11: August 2016 CMP - K = 10-6 cm/sec X:\PROJECTS\FORD MOTOR COMPANY\ REDESIGN SAMPLING CTM\Groundwater FS\Wanaque Res Analyses\Wanaque_Modeling_Report\Wanaque_Rpt_ docx iv

5 Rev. 0, 9/11/17 Project INTRODUCTION A report entitled Final Report of the Potential Fate and Transport of Benzene, 1,4-Dioxane, Lead and Arsenic at the Ringwood Mines Superfund Site Relative to the Wanaque Reservoir (Jacobs, 2017) was prepared on behalf of the North Jersey District Water Supply Commission (NJDWSC) to assess the potential risk of Site-related Constituents of Concern (COCs) at the Ringwood Mines/Landfill Superfund Site (Site) reaching the Wanaque Reservoir at concentrations above drinking water standards or health-based levels. While the Jacobs Report concluded the risk is low, it recommended groundwater to surface water modeling, as well as additional monitoring, largely because it deemed that if 1,4-dioxane were to ever reach the NJDWSC treatment plant intake, then the finished water supply quality could be impacted. The purpose of this report is to respond to the findings presented in the Jacobs Report and present the results of the modeling recommended in the Jacobs Report. Following release of the above report, in response to both informal requests and an Open Public Records Act (OPRA) request, the NJDWSC provided information regarding the Wanaque Reservoir, including inputs to the Reservoir for the years 2014 (partial), 2015 (partial), 2016 (full year), and 2017 (partial). Note that the NJDWSC indicated it does not report inflow data for each month of any given year, and the partial information provided is apparently the full data set that the NJDWSC has on file. The above referenced information from the NJDWSC permits site-specific analytical modeling to be performed. The modeling was conducted by Cornerstone on behalf of Ford using the site-specific data and multiple conservative assumptions. As detailed in this report, the outcome of the analytical modeling is that the Site would not have an impact on the Wanaque Reservoir water quality. This report presents both site-specific analytical and hydrogeologic data and the results of the more conservative analytical modeling of potential pathways for both groundwater and surface water. X:\PROJECTS\FORD MOTOR COMPANY\ REDESIGN SAMPLING CTM\Groundwater FS\Wanaque Res Analyses\Wanaque_Modeling_Report\Wanaque_Rpt_ docx 1

6 Rev. 0, 9/11/17 Project GROUNDWATER AND SURFACE WATER TRANSPORT 2.1 General Groundwater and surface water quality data available since 2015 provide a consistent analytical characterization for 1,4-dioxane and other Site constituents of concern (COCs). These data are useful for assessing the potential transport of Site COCs, either via groundwater or surface water, to the Wanaque Reservoir. 1,4-dioxane is used as a conservative surrogate for other Site COCs (i.e., benzene, arsenic, lead, chloroethane) because of its higher mobility in the environment in comparison to other Site COCs which are much more readily sorbed to the aquifer matrix (e.g., arsenic, lead) and/or are readily biodegradable (e.g., benzene). For example, the retardation coefficients for 1,4-dioxane range from 1.0 to 1.6 whereas the range for benzene is 1.4 to 14 [Mohr, 2010]) Presented in the sections that follow is an analysis of the extent of 1,4-dioxane in groundwater and surface water at concentrations above the laboratory limits of detection. 2.2 Groundwater Transport Mohr (2010) describes the use of BIOCHLOR (USEPA, 2000) as a model useful in describing the transport of 1,4-dioxane and the potential applicability of monitored natural attenuation for screening level evaluation by setting the model s first order biological decay coefficient to effectively zero indicating no appreciable biodegradation which is consistent with Site data generated to date. In this manner, the model is used to evaluate attenuation associated solely with advection and dispersion along a representative groundwater flow path. Note that with input of the matrix-appropriate effective porosity and retardation factors (defined further below), the model can represent a flow path within either unconsolidated (overburden) deposits or bedrock. As described further below, the use of an effective porosity representative of granite, and the assumption of the lowest retardation factor allowed by the model, provides for simulation of groundwater flow along a bedrock path representative of the deeper water bearing zones at the Site. The Site analytical data for 1,4-dioxane at the RW-15 groundwater monitoring well cluster indicate concentrations slightly above the New Jersey Interim Specific Groundwater Quality Standard (ISGWQS) of 0.4 micrograms per liter (ug/l). For example, at RW-15D in February 2017, the 1,4-dioxane concentration was ug/l. Using existing groundwater analytical data, the BIOCHLOR model is used to estimate the down-gradient point at which the 1,4-dioxane concentration would be below the 0.4 ug/l ISGWQS. As discussed in detail below, the BIOCHLOR spreadsheet model was used to run a series of different simulations (a total of 9 model runs) that first included using two different sets of field measured 1,4-dioxane concentrations (February 2017 and August 2016) and different X:\PROJECTS\FORD MOTOR COMPANY\ REDESIGN SAMPLING CTM\Groundwater FS\Wanaque Res Analyses\Wanaque_Modeling_Report\Wanaque_Rpt_ docx 2

7 Rev. 0, 9/11/17 Project durations of time ( years) with the objective of assessing the range of hydraulic conductivity and effective porosity values (defined below) that result in a reasonable match to laboratory data of actual groundwater concentrations. For these modeling runs, the values of hydraulic conductivity and effective porosity were varied within a reasonable range of values defined by Site conditions and literature values. This modeling effort serves to define a reasonable range of hydraulic conductivity representative of the Site and indicates that the modeling effort can produce a reasonable match to actual 1,4-dioxane concentrations documented by sampling and laboratory analysis. Following the above five modeling runs, the model was then used for four additional simulations to demonstrate the range over which the bulk hydraulic conductivity value can vary, within the range of effective porosity characteristic of the type of bedrock, as presented in the literature, while still producing a reasonable match with the documented groundwater conditions. Finally, unrealistic assumptions for hydraulic conductivity were used to demonstrate that a reasonable match with laboratory data and field conditions could not be made. Collectively the multiple model runs serve to demonstrate and support the collected Site data, which indicate that the bedrock is of low hydraulic conductivity and that 1,4-dioxane concentrations in groundwater will be below the IGWQS of 0.04 ug/l within the limits of the Site boundaries. Modeling was first employed by entering the 1,4-dioxane concentrations generated by the February 2017 sampling event at the deepest PMP Air Shaft mine structure sample (most recent data) at location (PM-AS-230) as well as bedrock well locations RW-11D, RW-3DD, RW-15D and RW-16 (well locations are shown in Figure 1). These bedrock wells are located along an approximate groundwater flow path down gradient from the PMP Air Shaft. Values for hydraulic conductivity and effective porosity were then varied within a representative range of values based on measured Site conditions, until the modelpredicted concentrations reasonably matched the 1,4-dioxane concentrations reported for the February 2017 sampling event at the above referenced locations. Data input to the spreadsheet model is shown on Figures 2 and 3, and is discussed further below. Model output is shown on Figures 4 and 5, respectively. Data input for each of the fields required in the model, and shown on Figures 2 and 3 for model runs 1 and 2, are discussed below. The model was run for ethanes as a surrogate for 1,4-dioxane although this has no influence on the model results because the first order biological decay coefficient was set to represent zero degradation. The specific approach to the use of the model is as follows: 1) Advection: Seepage velocity represents the rate of groundwater flow and is calculated by the model using the formula Vs = Ki/n. a. The hydraulic gradient (i) was estimated from groundwater mapping completed during the RI and subsequent annual groundwater level X:\PROJECTS\FORD MOTOR COMPANY\ REDESIGN SAMPLING CTM\Groundwater FS\Wanaque Res Analyses\Wanaque_Modeling_Report\Wanaque_Rpt_ docx 3

8 Rev. 0, 9/11/17 Project measurements. This value remained constant at ft/ft for all simulations. The values of hydraulic conductivity (K) and effective porosity (n) were varied over two orders of magnitude within a range consistent with Site conditions. b. Model output is sensitive to the calculated seepage velocity (Vs) and a good match between the model predictions and 1,4-dioxane concentrations documented at the Site was observed with a seepage velocity of 7.6 ft/year, as shown in Figures 2 through 5 (model input and output). Seepage velocities higher or lower than this value resulted in a less accurate match to the field data. The range of hydraulic conductivity (K) and effective porosity (n) values needed to represent a seepage velocity of approximately 7.6 ft/year was 1 x 10-6 to 1 x 10-7 cm/sec and to (dimensionless), respectively. While other combinations are possible, bulk hydraulic conductivity values much greater than 1 x 10-6 cm/sec are not supported by the Site data, which indicate the underlying bedrock is generally of low hydraulic conductivity. c. Note that the value of hydraulic conductivity used for the seepage velocity calculation represents the bulk hydraulic conductivity of the bedrock. The measurement of hydraulic conductivity within discrete fractures would result in values both higher and lower than the bulk hydraulic conductivity value used in the modeling, depending on whether fractures are open or closed. Flow through the bedrock underlying the Site is controlled by a series of interconnected fractures that serve collectively to transmit groundwater flow through the open fractures, and it is the average, or bulk hydraulic conductivity, that controls flow, as opposed to a single fracture. d. With respect to effective porosity (n), USEPA, in the BIOCHLOR-2000 documentation, indicates typical values of effective porosity in fractured granite ranging from , with the value of 0.01 representing the highest degree of fracturing. Site data (e.g., acoustic televiewer logs) indicate the underlying bedrock is not highly fractured and the effective porosity values used for modeling fall within the anticipated range stated above. Note that given the inverse relationship between effective porosity and seepage velocity, the smaller the effective porosity value (i.e., very limited fracturing) the higher the seepage velocity. 2) Dispersion: Dispersion is calculated in the model based upon the observed length of the plume. Well RW-16 is located approximately 1,050 feet downgradient of the PMP Air Shaft and 1,4-dioxane concentrations have been below detection limits (i.e., non-detect) at this well location for three consecutive X:\PROJECTS\FORD MOTOR COMPANY\ REDESIGN SAMPLING CTM\Groundwater FS\Wanaque Res Analyses\Wanaque_Modeling_Report\Wanaque_Rpt_ docx 4

9 Rev. 0, 9/11/17 Project sampling events. A plume length of 900 feet was, therefore, estimated for purposes of the model. 3) Adsorption: Adsorption was set to the lowest possible value allowed by the model (1). This is generally consistent with the behavior of 1,4-dioxane in the saturated zone based on its physical and chemical properties and is conservative given that some adsorption may be occurring in the downgradient direction. 4) Biotransformation: Modeling was conducted assuming zero biotransformation which is again conservative given that some may be occurring albeit not as of yet measured. 5) General: A simulation time of 50 years was selected based upon the estimated start of waste disposal in 1967 (Arcadis, 2015a Groundwater RI Report). While a definitive source of 1,4-dioxane has not been identified, and it is possible that contributions could be from the mine workings and date back to a time significantly earlier than the start of waste disposal, this was considered a reasonable starting point as further discussed in the sensitivity analysis provided below. A modeled area width and length of 60 and 1,500 feet, respectively, was simulated. The width is not critical to the modeling outcome as the modeling is used to simulate the maximum concentrations along the centerline of the plume (i.e., along the axis of the wells for which the data are modeled). A length of 1,500 feet was conservatively selected to model a plume length greater than that documented at the Site given that the plume length is 1,050 feet from the PMP Air Shaft to well RW-16 where 1,4-dioxane has been non-detect. 6) Source Data: For the purpose of modeling, the source area was conservatively assumed to be a constant concentration of 129 ug/l which is the 1,4-dioxane concentration reported for the February 2017 sample collected from the PM-AS-230 sample depth expressed as mg/l as required by the model. The source dimensions are taken as an area 50 feet thick and 60 feet wide which represents the column of water stored within the lower 50 feet of the PMP Air Shaft from 230 ft to 180 ft bgs. Specifically, the February 2017 analytical result for 1,4-dioxane in sample PM-AS-180 (i.e., 50 feet above the PM-AS-230 interval) is 15.2 ug/l (0.015 mg/l) therefore, the 50 foot thickness at an assumed concentration of 129 ug/l is conservative. As noted above, the selected width is not critical as the modeling is to simulate maximum concentrations along the centerline of the plume but, given that the width of the Air Shaft is 18 feet, use of a 60 ft width is also conservative. 7) Field Data for Comparison: These data represent the distance from a source, and while there is no definitive source at the Site, for purposes of the modeling, it is assumed to be the PMP Air Shaft at a depth of 230 feet. The additional field X:\PROJECTS\FORD MOTOR COMPANY\ REDESIGN SAMPLING CTM\Groundwater FS\Wanaque Res Analyses\Wanaque_Modeling_Report\Wanaque_Rpt_ docx 5

10 Rev. 0, 9/11/17 Project data are the documented 1,4-dioxane concentrations at down-gradient monitoring wells as reported in February 2017, including wells RW-11D, RW-3DD, RW-15D, and RW-16. Note that the 1,4-dioxane concentrations are expressed in mg/l as required by the model and 1,4-dioxane is non-detect at well RW-16. Therefore, the value used in the model for the well RW-16 data point is one half the method detection limit, or mg/l. 8) Choose Type of Output to See: The Run Centerline option was used for this modeling effort and the results are shown on Figures 4 and 5. Figures 4 and 5 show the model predicted and field observed 1,4-dioxane concentrations in both tabular and graphical format for model Runs 1 and 2. Again, the concentrations are expressed in mg/l as required by the model. The two figures are identical because a seepage velocity of 7.6 ft/year was calculated for both simulations. Likewise, the predicted values for No Degradation (red type and line) and Biotransformation (blue type and line) are also identical as no degradation was assumed for this modeling effort. The 1,4-dioxane concentrations from the February 2017 sampling event are shown in black type and as squares on the graph. As shown, the model predictions provide a reasonably good match to the measured concentrations, and the outcome is that the 1,4-dioxane concentration would be below its ISGWQS of 0.4 ug/l at a distance of greater than 900 feet but less than 1,050 feet downgradient of the PMP Air Shaft. In less than 1,200 feet of the PMP Air Shaft, 1,4-dioxane would be non-detect. In addition to modeling the February ,4-dioxane data as described above, the 1,4-dioxane concentrations reported for the August 2016 sampling event were also modeled (Run 3), as results for this sampling event represent the highest 1,4-dioxane concentrations reported to date. Consistent with the approach described above, the 1,4-dioxane concentration reported for the PM-AS-230 sample (146 ug/l expressed as mg/l) was assumed to represent the source area, with 1,4-dioxane concentrations at down-gradient monitoring wells RW-11D ( mg/l), RW-3DD ( mg/l), RW-15D ( mg/l), and RW-16 (not detected entered as one half the method detection limit) used for comparison. Note that an anomalous result of mg/l was reported for RW-3DD in August 2016 with two subsequent analyses for the same sample date reporting and mg/l, respectively. As the downgradient well results are used strictly for comparison to the model output, the RW-3DD value has no influence on the model predictions. However, the model predictions further support the conclusion that the mg/l value is anomalous and not representative. The value of mg/l was used for comparative purposes. All other model input parameters remained consistent with that described above. Model input and output for Run 3 are shown in Figures 6 and 7. As stated above, the August 2016 data represent the highest 1,4-dioxane concentrations to date. However, as shown on Figure 7, because the August 2016 data is of similar magnitude as the results from February 2017, the model predicted results also provide a X:\PROJECTS\FORD MOTOR COMPANY\ REDESIGN SAMPLING CTM\Groundwater FS\Wanaque Res Analyses\Wanaque_Modeling_Report\Wanaque_Rpt_ docx 6

11 Rev. 0, 9/11/17 Project reasonably good match to the observed field data. Consistent with the model outcome based on the February 2017 data, the model predicts that the 1,4 dioxane concentrations will be below the ISGWQS of 0.4 ug/l at a distance of greater than 800 feet but less than 1,000 feet downgradient of the PMP Air Shaft. In less than 1,200 feet of the PMP Air Shaft, 1,4- dioxane would be non-detect. The next modeling exercise (Run 4) was to increase the model simulation time from 50 years to 100 years to assess the model predicted concentrations over a longer time frame. Model input and output for this simulation are shown in Figures 8 and 9. The same August 2016 data (representing the highest 1,4-dioxane concentrations to date) and model input parameters described above were used and only the simulation time (increased to 100 years) and the modeled length of the plume (increased to 2,000 feet for data output) were changed. Again, model input and output for Run 4 are shown in Figures 8 and 9. As shown, the model predicted concentrations are higher than those observed in the field, however, even at these higher predicted 1,4-dioxane concentrations, which do not correlate well with the measured field concentrations, the model predicts that the concentrations are below the ISGWQS of 0.4 ug/l at a distance of less than 1,600 feet from the PMP Air Shaft. In less than 1,800 feet of the PMP Air Shaft, 1,4-dioxane would be non-detect. As previously stated, the model output is sensitive to the value of seepage velocity, which is a function of both hydraulic conductivity and effective porosity. By simply decreasing the hydraulic conductivity by one half an order of magnitude (i.e., reducing it from 1 x 10-6 to 5 x 10-7 cm/sec), which is still well within the range of hydraulic conductivity values observed in the field, a good match with the observed field data can be obtained for the simulation time of 100 years. This indicates that the 1,4-dioxane concentrations are not sensitive to time in a way that would affect its use as an aid in delineation. Model input and output for this simulation (Run 5) are shown in Figures 10 and 11. The next set of modeling runs were completed to demonstrate the range of hydraulic conductivity values that result in a reasonable match to observed field concentrations over the range of effective porosity values provided in the literature. Effective porosity values characteristic of the Site bedrock published in the literature range from 0.01 to Using these extremes, the hydraulic conductivity values needed to provide a reasonable match to the field measured concentrations is 3.4 x 10-6 cm/sec to 1.7 x 10-8 cm/sec, a range of approximately two orders of magnitude, and a range that consistently shows that the bulk hydraulic conductivity of the bedrock aquifer is low. Model input and output for these simulations (Runs 6 and 7) are shown in Figures 12 and 13, and 14 and 15, respectively. Consistent with the initial model runs, these model runs were completed using the August 2016 data (highest reported concentrations) and a simulation time of 50 years. As stated in the above paragraph, hydraulic conductivity values span approximately two orders of magnitude with application of the low and high extremes for effective porosity X:\PROJECTS\FORD MOTOR COMPANY\ REDESIGN SAMPLING CTM\Groundwater FS\Wanaque Res Analyses\Wanaque_Modeling_Report\Wanaque_Rpt_ docx 7

12 Rev. 0, 9/11/17 Project published within the literature. The next set of modeling runs (Runs 8 and 9), therefore, were completed by varying the hydraulic conductivity by two orders of magnitude from the 1 x 10-6 and 1 x 10-7 cm/sec values obtained using the best fit runs presented in Figures 2 through 5, while holding the effective porosity to within the published literature values (0.01 to ). The objective of these runs was to show that application of unreasonably high or low values of hydraulic conductivity will not result in a reasonable match to observed field concentrations. Model input and output using a hydraulic conductivity of 1 x 10-4 cm/sec (Run 8) is shown on Figures 16 and 17, while that for a hydraulic conductivity value of 1 x 10-9 cm/sec (Run 9) is shown on Figures 18 and 19. As shown in these figures, hydraulic conductivity assumptions at these extremes do not provide a reasonable match to the observed field concentrations. As a final assessment, the range of field parameters (hydraulic conductivity and effective porosity) that provided a reasonable match to the observed 1,4-dioxane concentrations downgradient of the PMP Area was used to simulate 1,4-dioxane concentrations in the vicinity of the Cannon Mine Pit (CMP). Note that, because 1,4-dioxane was only detected at isolated locations, data from a series of monitoring wells along an actual groundwater flow path in the CMP Area do not exist. Therefore, the BIOCHLOR Model cannot be used to match observed field concentrations in the CMP Area as it was in the modeling conducted for the PMP Area presented above. However, given that the geologic and hydrogeologic characteristics of the bedrock aquifer in the CMP Area are similar to those in the PMP Area, use of the PMP Area field parameters as surrogate values for the CMP Area provides for a representative assessment of the transport of 1,4-dioxane in the CMP. Model Runs 10 and 11 use a starting 1,4-dioxane concentration of 11.9 ug/l (expressed in mg/l as required by the model) from the August 2016 sampling event at well RW-2( ) which represents the highest reported concentration in the CMP Area. The results of the BIOCHLOR Model indicate that this concentration of 1,4-dioxane would be reduced to below the ISGWQS of 0.4 ug/l within approximately 750 feet of well RW-2. In less than 1,000 feet of well RW-2, 1,4-dioxane would be non-detect. The model input and output for the range of field parameters stated above are shown on Figures 20 and 21 as well as Figures 22 and 23, respectively. As noted previously, the model output from the two runs are identical because the range of hydraulic conductivity and effective porosity values result in similar seepage velocities (7.7 ft/year). The model simulations thus serve to support the laboratory analytical and field data which indicates that, assuming no biodegradation anywhere within the aquifer and flow system, 1,4-dioxane concentrations in groundwater will naturally decline to below the ISGWQS of 0.4 ug/l at a distance of between approximately 1,000 and 1,600 feet from the PMP Air Shaft (the latter using all of the most conservative assumptions and the highest reported concentrations) and would be non-detect within 1,200 to 1,800 feet. In the CMP Area, 1,4- dioxane concentrations in groundwater will naturally decline to below the ISGWQS of 0.4 ug/l at a distance of approximately 750 feet from CMP well RW-2( ) and would be X:\PROJECTS\FORD MOTOR COMPANY\ REDESIGN SAMPLING CTM\Groundwater FS\Wanaque Res Analyses\Wanaque_Modeling_Report\Wanaque_Rpt_ docx 8

13 Rev. 0, 9/11/17 Project non-detect within 1,000 feet. The Model is consistent with actual field data that indicate that 1,4-dioxane in groundwater is contained on Site. This illustrates that the natural mechanisms of advection and dispersion alone are capable of attenuating 1,4-dioxane in the groundwater in the down-gradient direction, even without considering any potential contribution associated with biotransformation or adsorption along the downgradient flow pathway. Importantly, the model indicates that 1,4-dioxane will not reach the Wanaque Reservoir. The model further indicates and supports the Site data, which indicates the bedrock is of low bulk hydraulic conductivity, with an upper limit of approximately 3.4 x 10-6 cm/sec. 2.3 Surface Water Transport Park Brook is adjacent to the Site and is an upstream tributary to Ringwood Creek that discharges into the Wanaque Reservoir. See Appendix A for a map of surface water features and groundwater and surface water flow in the vicinity of the Site. Each of three separate surface water sampling events downstream of Sally s Pond in Ringwood Creek have been non-detect for 1,4-dioxane. However, for the purpose of this conservative analysis, the calculations assume that the highest detected concentration of 1,4-dioxane reported during any sampling event from the SW-PAB-04 sample location, located immediately upstream of Sally s Pond [0.678 micrograms per liter (ug/l) in February 2017], would be transported (unchanged or undiluted) downstream past Sally s Pond and mixed with accumulating surface water flow farther downstream along Ringwood Creek. To assess mixing of this 1,4-dioxane concentration in Ringwood Creek, proportional flow contribution can be used. One method of assessing proportional flow contribution is to use the drainage areas of Park Brook and Ringwood Creek. The total drainage area of Ringwood Creek to the US Geological Survey (USGS) gauging station located on Ringwood Creek just upstream of its entrance to the Reservoir is 17.9 square miles (11,456 acres). By comparison, the drainage area of Park Brook to the downstream limit of the Site at the southern boundary of the OCDA is 0.78 square mile (499 acres). Assuming proportional contribution (ratio of 23:1) of base and stormwater flows from these tributary areas, the ug/l would be non-detectable in Ringwood Creek near the entrance to the Reservoir. This proportionality was field verified on July 5, 2017, with contemporaneous field measurements of flow in the streams adjacent to the Site as follows: X:\PROJECTS\FORD MOTOR COMPANY\ REDESIGN SAMPLING CTM\Groundwater FS\Wanaque Res Analyses\Wanaque_Modeling_Report\Wanaque_Rpt_ docx 9

14 Rev. 0, 9/11/17 Project Location Park Brook, Just Upstream of Sally s Pond Ringwood Creek, Just Downstream of Sally s Pond Ringwood Creek, Just Upstream of USGS Gauge CFS- cubic feet per second Measured Stream Flow, CFS 0.15 Ratio, Downstream to Upstream Note, as a check on the field measurements, the real-time flow in Ringwood Creek at the USGS gauge at the time of the above field measurements was 5.07 CFS, showing a reasonable correlation. The stream flow field measurements are provided in Appendix B and on the Surface Water Features and Flow Map provided in Appendix A. Also note that a separate flow estimate was made for North Brook, but since concentrations of 1,4-dioxane have been non-detect in North Brook it is, therefore, not considered in the calculation. The above calculations indicate that the 23:1 ratio based on drainage area is conservative. If, for example, the above 36:1 proportional contribution ratio were used for the maximum detected surface water concentration of ug/l, detected immediately upstream of Sally s Pond at location SW-PAB-04, the resulting concentration in Ringwood Creek near the entrance to the Reservoir would be even lower (i.e. it was non-detectable in the above calculation and would again be non-detectable in this calculation). The non-detectable result based on the calculations above is consistent with the non-detect surface water analytical results for 1,4-dioxane in samples collected downstream of Sally s Pond during all sampling events conducted. This analysis is also consistent with the fact that the majority of the surface water flow into Sally s Pond is not from Park Brook or North Brook but from upstream portions of Ringwood Creek (i.e., to the east of the Site). Compared to the upstream portion of Ringwood Creek, there is a small contribution from Park Brook and North Brook into Sally s Pond. As noted above, the NJDWSC provided flow data for inputs to the Reservoir for the years 2014 (partial data), 2015 (partial data), 2016 (full year), and 2017 (partial). These records were used to estimate the proportion of flow input to the Reservoir from Ringwood Creek. The flow data provided by the NJDWSC and the proportion (or percentage) of inflow from Ringwood Creek in millions of gallons (mg) are shown in the tabulation below. X:\PROJECTS\FORD MOTOR COMPANY\ REDESIGN SAMPLING CTM\Groundwater FS\Wanaque Res Analyses\Wanaque_Modeling_Report\Wanaque_Rpt_ docx 10

15 Rev. 0, 9/11/17 Project Date Ringwood Ck., Inflow, mg Total Res. Inflow, mg % Ringwood Ck. Reservoir Inflow w/o Wanaque South Negative Inflow, mg % Ringwood Ck. w/o Negative Inflow March % - - April % - - May % - - June % - - July % - - August % - - September % - - October % - - November % - - December % - - January % - - February % - - March % - - April % - - May % - - June % - - July % - - August % - - September % 572 6% October % % November % - - December % - - May % - - June % - - The 27% Ringwood Creek flow contribution for September 2016 corresponds to a circumstance where 435 million gallons of inflow is shown as a negative value associated with the Wanaque South Intake. In a July 21, 2017 electronic mail message responding to an inquiry from Cornerstone regarding how to interpret a negative inflow, the NJDWSC indicated The September 2016 flow from the Wanaque South Pump Station was completely diverted to the Haworth (United) Reservoir with an additional diversion from the Wanaque Reservoir of million gallons to make up the difference, thus showing the negative reading. In other words, flow was taken out of storage from the Wanaque Reservoir and, to account for this diversion of storage, a negative inflow was recorded. However, the total inflow to the Reservoir during the month actually includes the 435 million gallons shown as a negative (i.e., the water came out of storage but not out of X:\PROJECTS\FORD MOTOR COMPANY\ REDESIGN SAMPLING CTM\Groundwater FS\Wanaque Res Analyses\Wanaque_Modeling_Report\Wanaque_Rpt_ docx 11

16 Rev. 0, 9/11/17 Project inflow) and thus Ringwood Creek did not actually represent 27% of the inflow to the Reservoir. Accounting for the volume of water that was obtained from storage (435 million gallons), the Ringwood Creek contribution to the Reservoir for September 2016 is 6%, as shown in the table above. For the months of March 2014, July and December 2015, and June 2016, the data provided by the NJDWSC indicate negative Watershed Area inflow. Multiple inquiries were made to the NJDWSC, including in the OPRA request, for an explanation of a negative watershed area inflow; however, no explanation has been provided. Because of this lack of explanation, an adjustment has not been made for these negative inflows; however, it is likely that the Ringwood Creek flow contribution is actually somewhat less than shown in the table above during these months. Using the above data provided by the NJDWSC, on the basis of total inflow to the Reservoir, as shown in the above tabulation, the minimum flow contribution to the Wanaque Reservoir from Ringwood Creek is 2% in October 2016, and the maximum flow contribution from Ringwood Creek is 23% in June As previously shown, using even the most conservative assumptions, including the highest 1,4-dioxane concentration measured upstream of Sally s Pond in Park Brook (i.e., ug/l), 1,4-dioxane would not be detected in Ringwood Creek upstream of the Reservoir. However, even if an additionally conservative assumption is made that 1,4-dioxane concentrations are marginally detectable at the downstream inlet of Ringwood Creek prior to discharge to the Reservoir (even though this is not supported by the data), the trace concentration would be further reduced in the Reservoir to again be non-detectable. In other words, 1,4-dioxane would not be detectable in the Reservoir even at the highest range of flow contribution from Ringwood Creek(which is 23% based on June 2014 data). As noted above, the numerical analysis conducted utilizes conservative assumptions and the results are consistent with the actual monitoring data, which indicates that 1,4-dioxane has not been detected in Ringwood Creek downstream of Sally s Pond. Also note that there is no reasonable scenario where any concentration of 1,4-dioxane observed in a sample collected in Park Brook immediately upstream of Sally s Pond would persist and remain unchanged in Sally s Pond no less at progressively downstream locations in Ringwood Creek. In addition, the calculations above do not account for the effect of the standing volume of water (in storage) in the Reservoir which, as reported by the NJDWSC at capacity, is 29 billion gallons. Even when dry, the standing volume in the Reservoir is 10 billion gallons. To illustrate the effect accounting for storage has on the outcome of this numerical analysis, consider that in 2016, the only year for which the NJDWSC provided a full year of inflow data, the total volume of inflow from Ringwood Creek to the Reservoir was 4.32 billion gallons. By comparison, total inflow to the Reservoir from all sources combined was X:\PROJECTS\FORD MOTOR COMPANY\ REDESIGN SAMPLING CTM\Groundwater FS\Wanaque Res Analyses\Wanaque_Modeling_Report\Wanaque_Rpt_ docx 12

17 Rev. 0, 9/11/17 Project billion gallons and, adding 10 billion gallons as the dry storage, the Ringwood Creek inflow of 4.32 billion gallons would represent only 7.7% of the total exchange of water. This analysis further supports a calculation of 1,4-dioxane as non-detectable in the Reservoir and the absence of any risk to the Reservoir water quality. X:\PROJECTS\FORD MOTOR COMPANY\ REDESIGN SAMPLING CTM\Groundwater FS\Wanaque Res Analyses\Wanaque_Modeling_Report\Wanaque_Rpt_ docx 13

18 Rev. 0, 9/11/17 Project HYPOTHETICAL WHAT IF SCENARIO ASSESSMENT The following sections again evaluate both the groundwater and surface water flow pathways by applying even more conservative assumptions in order to evaluate hypothetical what if scenarios. 3.1 Groundwater An additional means of evaluating the groundwater pathway is to assume that the highest 1,4-dioxane concentration recorded anywhere on Site which equates to the 230 foot depth interval within the PMP Airshaft, somehow makes its way to the Wanaque Reservoir unchanged with no degradation, dilution, advection or dispersion. This is clearly an unrealistic assumption that is not supported by scientific principals or Site-specific groundwater quality data. In fact, the actual concentration of 1,4-dioxane measured immediately down gradient of the PMP Air Shaft in groundwater at monitoring wells MW- 11S and MW-11D are an order of magnitude lower than the mine water in the Air Shaft, farther down gradient at monitoring well cluster RW-3 the concentrations are even lower, and at the most down-gradient well locations (i.e., monitoring wells RW-15 cluster and RW- 16), 1,4-dioxane is either non-detect or reported at levels less than 1 ug/l. Nonetheless, for the purpose of a what if scenario, a numerical analysis can be performed of the bedrock groundwater flow contribution that assumes the highest measured concentrations of 1,4-dioxane within the PMP Air Shaft (see below) reach Ringwood Creek and the Wanaque Reservoir. Note that bedrock groundwater flow is used for the potential groundwater flow pathway because it represents the highest measured concentrations and the overburden aquifer is thin in comparison and largely discharges locally to surface waters, the analysis of which has shown that 1,4-dioxane would be non-detect prior to discharge to the Wanaque Reservoir if it ever occurred downstream of Sally s Pond in the first instance (which it has not). The bedrock flow estimate, Q, is calculated using Darcy s Law, as follows: Q = kiwd, where: K = hydraulic conductivity, taken as 1.0 x 10-6 cm/sec, which represents the upper range of hydraulic conductivity values derived from the BIOCHLOR modeling presented above in Section 2.0. BIOCHLOR modeling of measured 1,4-dioxane concentrations (See Section 2.0) was performed, in part to demonstrate the range of hydraulic conductivity values that result in a reasonable match to observed field concentrations of 1,4-dioxane, over the range of effective porosity values provided in the literature. Effective porosity values characteristic of the Site bedrock published in the literature range from 0.01 to Using these extremes, the hydraulic X:\PROJECTS\FORD MOTOR COMPANY\ REDESIGN SAMPLING CTM\Groundwater FS\Wanaque Res Analyses\Wanaque_Modeling_Report\Wanaque_Rpt_ docx 14

19 Rev. 0, 9/11/17 Project conductivity values needed to provide a reasonable match to the field measured concentrations is 3.4 x 10-6 cm/sec to 1.7 x 10-8 cm/sec, a range of approximately two orders of magnitude, and a range that consistently shows that the bulk hydraulic conductivity of the bedrock aquifer is low. The value selected for this parameter represents the upper range of the estimates. i = hydraulic gradient, which is taken as (see Appendix C for groundwater contour map). w = width of the flow path, which is conservatively estimated as 500 along the valley in which Park Brook is located (see Appendix C for map illustrating this flow path) spanning the locations where 1,4-dioxane has been detected. d = depth, or thickness of the flow path, is assumed to be 180 feet. This represents the lower 50 of the PM Air Shaft with the highest measured concentration of 1,4-dioxane of 146 ug/l plus the next 130 within which the highest measured concentration was 20 ug/l. Note that groundwater data consistently show much lower concentrations at the 50 depth interval, which was not included in the calculation. Using the above method of calculation, the estimated total flow (Q) along this potential groundwater flow path is 1.09 x 10-4, or , cubic feet per second (CFS). The lowest non-zero daily flow in Ringwood Creek at the USGS gauging station for the period from 1934 to 2016 is 0.1 CFS, therefore, the estimated total bedrock flow volume into the Ringwood Creek is miniscule in comparison. Then, in the highly unrealistic scenario that the 1,4-dioxane concentration in mine water from the lower 180 of the PMP Air Shaft were to appear (unchanged or undiluted) in Ringwood Creek, based on this miniscule bedrock flow volume, the resulting concentration in the Ringwood Creek at its downstream inlet to the Reservoir would again be non-detectable. As noted above, this also assumes absolutely no attenuation along the downgradient flow pathway due to advection or dispersion despite the highly tortuous crystalline bedrock flow pathway (which the previous discussion and BIOCHLOR modeling shows not to be the case) and zero biotransformation making the estimate even more conservative. Ringwood Creek, based on records provided by the NJDWSC as described previously, represents in the range of 2% to 23% of the total inflow to the Wanaque Reservoir. Therefore, even if detectable concentrations of 1,4-dioxane were to exist at the downstream inlet of Ringwood Creek to the Reservoir, which is again an extremely conservative and unlikely scenario as illustrated by the results of the BIOCHLOR Model, it would be reduced to non-detectable in the Reservoir itself even when standing water volumes represent dry conditions. X:\PROJECTS\FORD MOTOR COMPANY\ REDESIGN SAMPLING CTM\Groundwater FS\Wanaque Res Analyses\Wanaque_Modeling_Report\Wanaque_Rpt_ docx 15

20 Rev. 0, 9/11/17 Project Surface Water The surface water pathway can be further evaluated under a what if scenario in which the concentration of 1,4-dioxane at the point immediately above Sally s Pond is assumed to be 2.0 times the highest measured concentration ever reported in the sample collected in Park Brook just upstream of Sally s Pond (i.e., ug/l). In engineering terms, this approach applies a factor of safety of 2.0. By applying this factor of safety, the assumed concentration immediately upgradient of Sally s Pond would be 1.36 ug/l (2.0 x ug/l, the highest concentration reported in sample SW-PAB-04). Following the same numerical analysis presented in Section 3.0 above, which assumes a proportional contribution (ratio of 23:1) of base and stormwater flows from the Park Brook and Ringwood Creek tributary areas, the assumed concentration of 1,4-dioxane of 1.36 ug/l would again be non-detectable in Ringwood Creek at the inlet to the Reservoir. X:\PROJECTS\FORD MOTOR COMPANY\ REDESIGN SAMPLING CTM\Groundwater FS\Wanaque Res Analyses\Wanaque_Modeling_Report\Wanaque_Rpt_ docx 16

21 Rev. 0, 9/11/17 Project SUMMARY Using multiple conservative assumptions for analytical modeling, the results indicate an absence of risk to the Wanaque Reservoir from the Site. The results of analytical modeling presented herein are extremely conservative in that: BIOCHLOR modeling of groundwater that matches the observed 1,4-dioxane concentrations over a range of hydraulic conductivity and effective porosity values applicable to the geologic and hydrogeologic conditions at the Site, consistently shows that 1,4-dioxane concentrations in groundwater will be non-detect within the limits of the Site; Under a what if groundwater flow scenario in which the highest 1,4-dioxane concentrations in mine water in the PM Air Shaft somehow traveled in groundwater unchanged and undiluted and discharged to the surface waters of Ringwood Creek at its downstream inlet to the Reservoir (even though monitoring data actually indicate that groundwater concentrations downgradient of the Air Shaft are lower by one to two orders of magnitude), 1,4-dioxane would still be non-detect in the surface water. Actual surface water monitoring data in Ringwood Creek below Sally s Pond has consistently indicated 1,4-dioxane is absent (i.e., it has not been detected). Note also that the assumptions used in the groundwater modeling completely ignore the natural attenuation mechanisms of advection and dispersion, which serve to reduce 1,4-dioxane concentrations in groundwater as also reflected by real monitoring data; With a worst case assumption that the highest 1,4-dioxane concentration measured in surface water immediately upstream of Sally s Pond can somehow be transported (unchanged or undiluted) downstream past Sally s Pond and is then mixed with accumulating surface water flow farther downstream along Ringwood Creek, 1,4- dioxane would still be non-detect in Ringwood Creek near the entrance to the Reservoir. Again, actual surface water monitoring data in Ringwood Creek below Sally s Pond has consistently indicated 1,4-dioxane is non-detect; Under a what if scenario where the 1,4-dioxane concentration immediately up stream of Sally s Pond is 2.0 times higher than the highest observed concentration (i.e. application of a factor of safety of 2 added to the conservative worst case assumption above), 1,4-dioxane would still be non-detect in Ringwood Creek near the entrance to the Reservoir; Given that the flow contribution from Ringwood Creek to the Wanaque Reservoir ranges from 2% to 23% (based on data provided by the NJDWSC), if an even more conservative assumption is made that 1,4-dioxane is detectable in Ringwood Creek X:\PROJECTS\FORD MOTOR COMPANY\ REDESIGN SAMPLING CTM\Groundwater FS\Wanaque Res Analyses\Wanaque_Modeling_Report\Wanaque_Rpt_ docx 17

22 Rev. 0, 9/11/17 Project at the Reservoir inlet (even though actual data and the conservative calculations summarized above indicate it is not), it would again be non-detect in the Wanaque Reservoir, even at the highest range of flow contribution from the Ringwood Creek. As documented by existing and on-going groundwater and surface water monitoring, and as discussed above, 1,4-dioxane concentrations decline in concentration in groundwater downgradient and in surface water downstream of the PMP Air Shaft, the PMP Area, and the CMP Area and are not present in surface water downstream of Sally s Pond. This will continue to be confirmed by continued monitoring of both groundwater and surface water as part of a long-term monitoring plan the results of which will be evaluated after each sampling event to ensure that there is no indication of any change in condition that is of actual or potential future concern. Additionally, the results of modeling using very conservative assumptions, as well as what if scenarios that are even more conservative, consistently demonstrate that 1,4- dioxane would not reach the Wanaque Reservoir which is consistent with the absence of 1,4-dioxane at the Reservoir as verified by sampling conducted by the NJDWSC. Therefore, both measured concentrations generated by sampling and laboratory testing, as well as conservative analytical modeling, as recommended by the Jacobs Report, indicate there is no risk from the Site to the Wanaque Reservoir. X:\PROJECTS\FORD MOTOR COMPANY\ REDESIGN SAMPLING CTM\Groundwater FS\Wanaque Res Analyses\Wanaque_Modeling_Report\Wanaque_Rpt_ docx 18

23 Rev. 0, 9/11/17 Project LIMITATIONS The work product included in the attached was undertaken in full conformity with generally accepted professional consulting principles and practices and to the fullest extent as allowed by law we expressly disclaim all warranties, express or implied, including warranties of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose. The work product was completed in full conformity with the contract with our client and this document is solely for the use and reliance of our client (unless previously agreed upon that a third party could rely on the work product) and any reliance on this work product by an unapproved outside party is at such party's risk. The work product herein (including opinions, conclusions, suggestions, etc.) was prepared based on the situations and circumstances as found at the time, location, scope and goal of our performance and thus should be relied upon and used by our client recognizing these considerations and limitations. Cornerstone shall not be liable for the consequences of any change in environmental standards, practices, or regulations following the completion of our work and there is no warrant to the veracity of information provided by third parties, or the partial utilization of this work product. X:\PROJECTS\FORD MOTOR COMPANY\ REDESIGN SAMPLING CTM\Groundwater FS\Wanaque Res Analyses\Wanaque_Modeling_Report\Wanaque_Rpt_ docx 19

24 Rev. 0, 9/11/17 Project REFERENCES ARCADIS. 2012a. Remedial Investigation Report for Cannon Mine Pit Area. Ringwood Mines/Landfill Superfund Site, Ringwood, New Jersey. April, Revised January 2013 and June 2013 ARCADIS. 2012b. Remedial Investigation Report for the Peters Mine Pit Area. Ringwood Mines/Landfill Superfund Site, Ringwood, New Jersey. July. ARCADIS Remedial Investigation Report for O Connor Disposal Area. Ringwood Mines/Landfill Superfund Site, Ringwood, New Jersey. June. ARCADIS. 2015a. Revised Site-Related Groundwater Investigation Report. Ringwood Mines/Landfill Superfund Site, Ringwood, New Jersey. January. ARCADIS. 2015b. Site-Related Groundwater Baseline Human Health Risk Assessment. Ringwood Mines/Landfill Superfund Site, Ringwood, New Jersey. May. ARCADIS Site-Related Groundwater Ecological Assessment. Ringwood Mines/Landfill Superfund Site, Ringwood, New Jersey. March. Jacobs Final Report of the Potential Fate and Transport of Benzene, 1,4-dioxane, Lead and Arsenic at the Ringwood Mines Superfund Site Relative to the Wanaque Reservoir. May. Mohr, Thomas, K.G. Environmental Investigation and Remediation, 1,4-Dioxane and Other Solvent Stabilizers. CRC Press X:\PROJECTS\FORD MOTOR COMPANY\ REDESIGN SAMPLING CTM\Groundwater FS\Wanaque Res Analyses\Wanaque_Modeling_Report\Wanaque_Rpt_ docx 20

25 Rev. 0, 9/11/17 Project FIGURES X:\PROJECTS\FORD MOTOR COMPANY\ REDESIGN SAMPLING CTM\Groundwater FS\Wanaque Res Analyses\Wanaque_Modeling_Report\Wanaque_Rpt_ docx 21

26 SR-5 SR-11 SR-1 SR-9 SR-4 SR-10 in ta un Hope ad Ro Mo SR-14 N A LIG MIL. DR SR-16 NOTES: LEGEND 1 MONITORING WELL AND SAMPLING LOCATION PLAN

27 BIOCHLOR Natural Attenuation Decision Support System Ringwood Mines Data Input Instructions: Version 2.2 1,4-DCA Enter value directly...or Excel 2000 Run Name or 2. Calculate by filling in gray TYPE OF CHLORINATED SOLVENT: Ethenes 5. GENERAL 0.02 cells. Press Enter, then C Ethanes Simulation Time* 50 (yr) L (To restore formulas, hit "Restore Formulas" button ) 1. ADVECTION Modeled Area Width* 60 (ft) W Variable* Data used directly in model. Seepage Velocity* Vs 7.6 (ft/yr) Modeled Area Length* 1500 (ft) Test if or Zone 1 Length* 1500 (ft) Biotransformation Natural Attenuation Hydraulic Conductivity K 1.0E-06 (cm/sec) Zone 2 Length* 0 (ft) Zone 2= Screening Protocol is Occurring Hydraulic Gradient i (ft/ft) L - Zone 1 Effective Porosity n (-) 6. SOURCE DATA TYPE: Continuous Vertical Plane Source: Determine Source Well Location and Input Solvent Concentrations 2. DISPERSION Single Planar Calc. Source Options Alpha x* 90 (ft) Alpha x (Alpha y) / (Alpha x)* 0.1 (-) Source Thickness in Sat. Zone* 50 (ft) (Alpha z) / (Alpha x)* 1.E-99 (-) Y1 3. ADSORPTION Width* (ft) 60 Retardation Factor* R k s * or Conc. (mg/l)* C1 (1/yr) Soil Bulk Density, rho 1.6 (kg/l) TCA 0 FractionOrganicCarbon, foc 1.8E-3 (-) DCA 0 View of Plume Looking Down Partition Coefficient Koc CA TCA 426 (L/kg) 1.00 (-) Observed Centerline Conc. at Monitoring Wells DCA 130 (L/kg) 1.00 (-) CA 125 (L/kg) 1.00 (-) FIELD DATA FOR COMPARISON 1.00 TCA Conc. (mg/l) Common R (used in model)* = 1.00 DCA Conc. (mg/l) 4. BIOTRANSFORMATION -1st Order Decay Coefficient* CA Conc. (mg/l) Zone 1 (1/yr) half-life (yrs) Yield TCA DCA DCA CA Distance from Source (ft) CA Ethane Date Data Collected Feb CHOOSE TYPE OF OUTPUT TO SEE: Zone 2 (1/yr) half-life (yrs) TCA DCA DCA CA CA Ethane HELP RUN CENTERLINE RUN ARRAY Help SEE OUTPUT Restore Paste RESET

28 BIOCHLOR Natural Attenuation Decision Support System Ringwood Mines Data Input Instructions: Version 2.2 1,4-DCA Enter value directly...or Excel 2000 Run Name or 2. Calculate by filling in gray TYPE OF CHLORINATED SOLVENT: Ethenes 5. GENERAL 0.02 cells. Press Enter, then C Ethanes Simulation Time* 50 (yr) L (To restore formulas, hit "Restore Formulas" button ) 1. ADVECTION Modeled Area Width* 60 (ft) W Variable* Data used directly in model. Seepage Velocity* Vs 7.6 (ft/yr) Modeled Area Length* 1500 (ft) Test if or Zone 1 Length* 1500 (ft) Biotransformation Natural Attenuation Hydraulic Conductivity K 1.0E-07 (cm/sec) Zone 2 Length* 0 (ft) Zone 2= Screening Protocol is Occurring Hydraulic Gradient i (ft/ft) L - Zone 1 Effective Porosity n (-) 6. SOURCE DATA TYPE: Continuous Vertical Plane Source: Determine Source Well Location and Input Solvent Concentrations 2. DISPERSION Single Planar Calc. Source Options Alpha x* 90 (ft) Alpha x (Alpha y) / (Alpha x)* 0.1 (-) Source Thickness in Sat. Zone* 50 (ft) (Alpha z) / (Alpha x)* 1.E-99 (-) Y1 3. ADSORPTION Width* (ft) 60 Retardation Factor* R k s * or Conc. (mg/l)* C1 (1/yr) Soil Bulk Density, rho 1.6 (kg/l) TCA 0 FractionOrganicCarbon, foc 1.8E-3 (-) DCA 0 View of Plume Looking Down Partition Coefficient Koc CA TCA 426 (L/kg) 1.00 (-) Observed Centerline Conc. at Monitoring Wells DCA 130 (L/kg) 1.00 (-) CA 125 (L/kg) 1.00 (-) FIELD DATA FOR COMPARISON 1.00 TCA Conc. (mg/l) Common R (used in model)* = 1.00 DCA Conc. (mg/l) 4. BIOTRANSFORMATION -1st Order Decay Coefficient* CA Conc. (mg/l) Zone 1 (1/yr) half-life (yrs) Yield TCA DCA DCA CA Distance from Source (ft) CA Ethane Date Data Collected Feb CHOOSE TYPE OF OUTPUT TO SEE: Zone 2 (1/yr) half-life (yrs) TCA DCA DCA CA CA Ethane HELP RUN CENTERLINE RUN ARRAY Help SEE OUTPUT Restore Paste RESET

29 DISSOLVED CHLORINATED SOLVENT CONCENTRATIONS ALONG PLUME CENTERLINE (mg/l) at Z=0 Distance from Source (ft) CA No Degradation Biotransformation Field Data from Site Monitoring Well Locations (ft) No Degradation/Production Sequential 1st Order Decay Field Data from Site Concentration (mg/l) See TCA See DCA See CA Distance From Source (ft.) Prepare Animation Time: 50.0 Years Log Linear Return to Input To All To Array

30 DISSOLVED CHLORINATED SOLVENT CONCENTRATIONS ALONG PLUME CENTERLINE (mg/l) at Z=0 Distance from Source (ft) CA No Degradation Biotransformation Field Data from Site Monitoring Well Locations (ft) No Degradation/Production Sequential 1st Order Decay Field Data from Site Concentration (mg/l) See TCA See DCA See CA Distance From Source (ft.) Prepare Animation Time: 50.0 Years Log Linear Return to Input To All To Array

31 BIOCHLOR Natural Attenuation Decision Support System Ringwood Data Input Instructions: Version 2.2 1,4-DCA Enter value directly...or Excel 2000 Run Name or 2. Calculate by filling in gray TYPE OF CHLORINATED SOLVENT: Ethenes 5. GENERAL 0.02 cells. Press Enter, then C Ethanes Simulation Time* 50 (yr) L (To restore formulas, hit "Restore Formulas" button ) 1. ADVECTION Modeled Area Width* 60 (ft) W Variable* Data used directly in model. Seepage Velocity* Vs 7.6 (ft/yr) Modeled Area Length* 2000 (ft) Test if or Zone 1 Length* 2000 (ft) Biotransformation Natural Attenuation Hydraulic Conductivity K 1.0E-06 (cm/sec) Zone 2 Length* 0 (ft) Zone 2= Screening Protocol is Occurring Hydraulic Gradient i (ft/ft) L - Zone 1 Effective Porosity n (-) 6. SOURCE DATA TYPE: Continuous Vertical Plane Source: Determine Source Well Location and Input Solvent Concentrations 2. DISPERSION Single Planar Calc. Source Options Alpha x* 90 (ft) Alpha x (Alpha y) / (Alpha x)* 0.1 (-) Source Thickness in Sat. Zone* 50 (ft) (Alpha z) / (Alpha x)* 1.E-99 (-) Y1 3. ADSORPTION Width* (ft) 60 Retardation Factor* R k s * or Conc. (mg/l)* C1 (1/yr) Soil Bulk Density, rho 1.6 (kg/l) TCA 0 FractionOrganicCarbon, foc 1.8E-3 (-) DCA 0 View of Plume Looking Down Partition Coefficient Koc CA TCA 426 (L/kg) 1.00 (-) Observed Centerline Conc. at Monitoring Wells DCA 130 (L/kg) 1.00 (-) CA 125 (L/kg) 1.00 (-) FIELD DATA FOR COMPARISON 1.00 TCA Conc. (mg/l) Common R (used in model)* = 1.00 DCA Conc. (mg/l) 4. BIOTRANSFORMATION -1st Order Decay Coefficient* CA Conc. (mg/l) Zone 1 (1/yr) half-life (yrs) Yield TCA DCA DCA CA Distance from Source (ft) CA Ethane Date Data Collected Aug CHOOSE TYPE OF OUTPUT TO SEE: Zone 2 (1/yr) half-life (yrs) TCA DCA DCA CA CA Ethane HELP RUN CENTERLINE RUN ARRAY Help SEE OUTPUT Restore Paste RESET

32 DISSOLVED CHLORINATED SOLVENT CONCENTRATIONS ALONG PLUME CENTERLINE (mg/l) at Z=0 Distance from Source (ft) CA No Degradation Biotransformation Field Data from Site Monitoring Well Locations (ft) No Degradation/Production Sequential 1st Order Decay Field Data from Site Concentration (mg/l) See TCA See DCA See CA Distance From Source (ft.) Prepare Animation Time: 50.0 Years Log Linear Return to Input To All To Array

33 BIOCHLOR Natural Attenuation Decision Support System Ringwood Data Input Instructions: Version 2.2 1,4-DCA Enter value directly...or Excel 2000 Run Name or 2. Calculate by filling in gray TYPE OF CHLORINATED SOLVENT: Ethenes 5. GENERAL 0.02 cells. Press Enter, then C Ethanes Simulation Time* 100 (yr) L (To restore formulas, hit "Restore Formulas" button ) 1. ADVECTION Modeled Area Width* 60 (ft) W Variable* Data used directly in model. Seepage Velocity* Vs 7.6 (ft/yr) Modeled Area Length* 2000 (ft) Test if or Zone 1 Length* 2000 (ft) Biotransformation Natural Attenuation Hydraulic Conductivity K 1.0E-06 (cm/sec) Zone 2 Length* 0 (ft) Zone 2= Screening Protocol is Occurring Hydraulic Gradient i (ft/ft) L - Zone 1 Effective Porosity n (-) 6. SOURCE DATA TYPE: Continuous Vertical Plane Source: Determine Source Well Location and Input Solvent Concentrations 2. DISPERSION Single Planar Calc. Source Options Alpha x* 90 (ft) Alpha x (Alpha y) / (Alpha x)* 0.1 (-) Source Thickness in Sat. Zone* 50 (ft) (Alpha z) / (Alpha x)* 1.E-99 (-) Y1 3. ADSORPTION Width* (ft) 60 Retardation Factor* R k s * or Conc. (mg/l)* C1 (1/yr) Soil Bulk Density, rho 1.6 (kg/l) TCA 0 FractionOrganicCarbon, foc 1.8E-3 (-) DCA 0 View of Plume Looking Down Partition Coefficient Koc CA TCA 426 (L/kg) 1.00 (-) Observed Centerline Conc. at Monitoring Wells DCA 130 (L/kg) 1.00 (-) CA 125 (L/kg) 1.00 (-) FIELD DATA FOR COMPARISON 1.00 TCA Conc. (mg/l) Common R (used in model)* = 1.00 DCA Conc. (mg/l) 4. BIOTRANSFORMATION -1st Order Decay Coefficient* CA Conc. (mg/l) Zone 1 (1/yr) half-life (yrs) Yield TCA DCA DCA CA Distance from Source (ft) CA Ethane Date Data Collected Aug CHOOSE TYPE OF OUTPUT TO SEE: Zone 2 (1/yr) half-life (yrs) TCA DCA DCA CA CA Ethane HELP RUN CENTERLINE RUN ARRAY Help SEE OUTPUT Restore Paste RESET

34 DISSOLVED CHLORINATED SOLVENT CONCENTRATIONS ALONG PLUME CENTERLINE (mg/l) at Z=0 Distance from Source (ft) CA No Degradation Biotransformation Field Data from Site Monitoring Well Locations (ft) No Degradation/Production Sequential 1st Order Decay Field Data from Site Concentration (mg/l) See TCA See DCA See CA Distance From Source (ft.) Prepare Animation Time: Years Log Linear Return to Input To All To Array

35 BIOCHLOR Natural Attenuation Decision Support System Ringwood Data Input Instructions: Version 2.2 1,4-DCA Enter value directly...or Excel 2000 Run Name or 2. Calculate by filling in gray TYPE OF CHLORINATED SOLVENT: Ethenes 5. GENERAL 0.02 cells. Press Enter, then C Ethanes Simulation Time* 100 (yr) L (To restore formulas, hit "Restore Formulas" button ) 1. ADVECTION Modeled Area Width* 60 (ft) W Variable* Data used directly in model. Seepage Velocity* Vs 3.8 (ft/yr) Modeled Area Length* 2000 (ft) Test if or Zone 1 Length* 2000 (ft) Biotransformation Natural Attenuation Hydraulic Conductivity K 5.0E-07 (cm/sec) Zone 2 Length* 0 (ft) Zone 2= Screening Protocol is Occurring Hydraulic Gradient i (ft/ft) L - Zone 1 Effective Porosity n (-) 6. SOURCE DATA TYPE: Continuous Vertical Plane Source: Determine Source Well Location and Input Solvent Concentrations 2. DISPERSION Single Planar Calc. Source Options Alpha x* 90 (ft) Alpha x (Alpha y) / (Alpha x)* 0.1 (-) Source Thickness in Sat. Zone* 50 (ft) (Alpha z) / (Alpha x)* 1.E-99 (-) Y1 3. ADSORPTION Width* (ft) 60 Retardation Factor* R k s * or Conc. (mg/l)* C1 (1/yr) Soil Bulk Density, rho 1.6 (kg/l) TCA 0 FractionOrganicCarbon, foc 1.8E-3 (-) DCA 0 View of Plume Looking Down Partition Coefficient Koc CA TCA 426 (L/kg) 1.00 (-) Observed Centerline Conc. at Monitoring Wells DCA 130 (L/kg) 1.00 (-) CA 125 (L/kg) 1.00 (-) FIELD DATA FOR COMPARISON 1.00 TCA Conc. (mg/l) Common R (used in model)* = 1.00 DCA Conc. (mg/l) 4. BIOTRANSFORMATION -1st Order Decay Coefficient* CA Conc. (mg/l) Zone 1 (1/yr) half-life (yrs) Yield TCA DCA DCA CA Distance from Source (ft) CA Ethane Date Data Collected Aug CHOOSE TYPE OF OUTPUT TO SEE: Zone 2 (1/yr) half-life (yrs) TCA DCA DCA CA CA Ethane HELP RUN CENTERLINE RUN ARRAY Help SEE OUTPUT Restore Paste RESET

36 DISSOLVED CHLORINATED SOLVENT CONCENTRATIONS ALONG PLUME CENTERLINE (mg/l) at Z=0 Distance from Source (ft) CA No Degradation Biotransformation Field Data from Site Monitoring Well Locations (ft) No Degradation/Production Sequential 1st Order Decay Field Data from Site Concentration (mg/l) See TCA See DCA See CA Distance From Source (ft.) Prepare Animation Time: Years Log Linear Return to Input To All To Array

37 BIOCHLOR Natural Attenuation Decision Support System Ringwood Data Input Instructions: Version 2.2 1,4-DCA Enter value directly...or Excel 2000 Run Name or 2. Calculate by filling in gray TYPE OF CHLORINATED SOLVENT: Ethenes 5. GENERAL 0.02 cells. Press Enter, then C Ethanes Simulation Time* 50 (yr) L (To restore formulas, hit "Restore Formulas" button ) 1. ADVECTION Modeled Area Width* 60 (ft) W Variable* Data used directly in model. Seepage Velocity* Vs 7.7 (ft/yr) Modeled Area Length* 2000 (ft) Test if or Zone 1 Length* 2000 (ft) Biotransformation Natural Attenuation Hydraulic Conductivity K 3.4E-06 (cm/sec) Zone 2 Length* 0 (ft) Zone 2= Screening Protocol is Occurring Hydraulic Gradient i (ft/ft) L - Zone 1 Effective Porosity n 0.01 (-) 6. SOURCE DATA TYPE: Continuous Vertical Plane Source: Determine Source Well Location and Input Solvent Concentrations 2. DISPERSION Single Planar Calc. Source Options Alpha x* 90 (ft) Alpha x (Alpha y) / (Alpha x)* 0.1 (-) Source Thickness in Sat. Zone* 50 (ft) (Alpha z) / (Alpha x)* 1.E-99 (-) Y1 3. ADSORPTION Width* (ft) 60 Retardation Factor* R k s * or Conc. (mg/l)* C1 (1/yr) Soil Bulk Density, rho 1.6 (kg/l) TCA 0 FractionOrganicCarbon, foc 1.8E-3 (-) DCA 0 View of Plume Looking Down Partition Coefficient Koc CA TCA 426 (L/kg) 1.00 (-) Observed Centerline Conc. at Monitoring Wells DCA 130 (L/kg) 1.00 (-) CA 125 (L/kg) 1.00 (-) FIELD DATA FOR COMPARISON 1.00 TCA Conc. (mg/l) Common R (used in model)* = 1.00 DCA Conc. (mg/l) 4. BIOTRANSFORMATION -1st Order Decay Coefficient* CA Conc. (mg/l) Zone 1 (1/yr) half-life (yrs) Yield TCA DCA DCA CA Distance from Source (ft) CA Ethane Date Data Collected Aug CHOOSE TYPE OF OUTPUT TO SEE: Zone 2 (1/yr) half-life (yrs) TCA DCA DCA CA CA Ethane HELP RUN CENTERLINE RUN ARRAY Help SEE OUTPUT Restore Paste RESET

38 DISSOLVED CHLORINATED SOLVENT CONCENTRATIONS ALONG PLUME CENTERLINE (mg/l) at Z=0 Distance from Source (ft) CA No Degradation Biotransformation Field Data from Site Monitoring Well Locations (ft) No Degradation/Production Sequential 1st Order Decay Field Data from Site Concentration (mg/l) See TCA See DCA See CA Distance From Source (ft.) Prepare Animation Time: 50.0 Years Log Linear Return to Input To All To Array

39 BIOCHLOR Natural Attenuation Decision Support System Ringwood Data Input Instructions: Version 2.2 1,4-DCA Enter value directly...or Excel 2000 Run Name or 2. Calculate by filling in gray TYPE OF CHLORINATED SOLVENT: Ethenes 5. GENERAL 0.02 cells. Press Enter, then C Ethanes Simulation Time* 50 (yr) L (To restore formulas, hit "Restore Formulas" button ) 1. ADVECTION Modeled Area Width* 60 (ft) W Variable* Data used directly in model. Seepage Velocity* Vs 7.7 (ft/yr) Modeled Area Length* 2000 (ft) Test if or Zone 1 Length* 2000 (ft) Biotransformation Natural Attenuation Hydraulic Conductivity K 1.7E-08 (cm/sec) Zone 2 Length* 0 (ft) Zone 2= Screening Protocol is Occurring Hydraulic Gradient i (ft/ft) L - Zone 1 Effective Porosity n (-) 6. SOURCE DATA TYPE: Continuous Vertical Plane Source: Determine Source Well Location and Input Solvent Concentrations 2. DISPERSION Single Planar Calc. Source Options Alpha x* 90 (ft) Alpha x (Alpha y) / (Alpha x)* 0.1 (-) Source Thickness in Sat. Zone* 50 (ft) (Alpha z) / (Alpha x)* 1.E-99 (-) Y1 3. ADSORPTION Width* (ft) 60 Retardation Factor* R k s * or Conc. (mg/l)* C1 (1/yr) Soil Bulk Density, rho 1.6 (kg/l) TCA 0 FractionOrganicCarbon, foc 1.8E-3 (-) DCA 0 View of Plume Looking Down Partition Coefficient Koc CA TCA 426 (L/kg) 1.00 (-) Observed Centerline Conc. at Monitoring Wells DCA 130 (L/kg) 1.00 (-) CA 125 (L/kg) 1.00 (-) FIELD DATA FOR COMPARISON 1.00 TCA Conc. (mg/l) Common R (used in model)* = 1.00 DCA Conc. (mg/l) 4. BIOTRANSFORMATION -1st Order Decay Coefficient* CA Conc. (mg/l) Zone 1 (1/yr) half-life (yrs) Yield TCA DCA DCA CA Distance from Source (ft) CA Ethane Date Data Collected Aug CHOOSE TYPE OF OUTPUT TO SEE: Zone 2 (1/yr) half-life (yrs) TCA DCA DCA CA CA Ethane HELP RUN CENTERLINE RUN ARRAY Help SEE OUTPUT Restore Paste RESET

40 DISSOLVED CHLORINATED SOLVENT CONCENTRATIONS ALONG PLUME CENTERLINE (mg/l) at Z=0 Distance from Source (ft) CA No Degradation Biotransformation Field Data from Site Monitoring Well Locations (ft) No Degradation/Production Sequential 1st Order Decay Field Data from Site Concentration (mg/l) See TCA See DCA See CA Distance From Source (ft.) Prepare Animation Time: 50.0 Years Log Linear Return to Input To All To Array

41 BIOCHLOR Natural Attenuation Decision Support System Ringwood Data Input Instructions: Version 2.2 1,4-DCA Enter value directly...or Excel 2000 Run Name or 2. Calculate by filling in gray TYPE OF CHLORINATED SOLVENT: Ethenes 5. GENERAL 0.02 cells. Press Enter, then C Ethanes Simulation Time* 50 (yr) L (To restore formulas, hit "Restore Formulas" button ) 1. ADVECTION Modeled Area Width* 60 (ft) W Variable* Data used directly in model. Seepage Velocity* Vs (ft/yr) Modeled Area Length* 2000 (ft) Test if or Zone 1 Length* 2000 (ft) Biotransformation Natural Attenuation Hydraulic Conductivity K 1.0E-04 (cm/sec) Zone 2 Length* 0 (ft) Zone 2= Screening Protocol is Occurring Hydraulic Gradient i (ft/ft) L - Zone 1 Effective Porosity n 0.01 (-) 6. SOURCE DATA TYPE: Continuous Vertical Plane Source: Determine Source Well Location and Input Solvent Concentrations 2. DISPERSION Single Planar Calc. Source Options Alpha x* 90 (ft) Alpha x (Alpha y) / (Alpha x)* 0.1 (-) Source Thickness in Sat. Zone* 50 (ft) (Alpha z) / (Alpha x)* 1.E-99 (-) Y1 3. ADSORPTION Width* (ft) 60 Retardation Factor* R k s * or Conc. (mg/l)* C1 (1/yr) Soil Bulk Density, rho 1.6 (kg/l) TCA 0 FractionOrganicCarbon, foc 1.8E-3 (-) DCA 0 View of Plume Looking Down Partition Coefficient Koc CA TCA 426 (L/kg) 1.00 (-) Observed Centerline Conc. at Monitoring Wells DCA 130 (L/kg) 1.00 (-) CA 125 (L/kg) 1.00 (-) FIELD DATA FOR COMPARISON 1.00 TCA Conc. (mg/l) Common R (used in model)* = 1.00 DCA Conc. (mg/l) 4. BIOTRANSFORMATION -1st Order Decay Coefficient* CA Conc. (mg/l) Zone 1 (1/yr) half-life (yrs) Yield TCA DCA DCA CA Distance from Source (ft) CA Ethane Date Data Collected Aug CHOOSE TYPE OF OUTPUT TO SEE: Zone 2 (1/yr) half-life (yrs) TCA DCA DCA CA CA Ethane HELP RUN CENTERLINE RUN ARRAY Help SEE OUTPUT Restore Paste RESET

42 DISSOLVED CHLORINATED SOLVENT CONCENTRATIONS ALONG PLUME CENTERLINE (mg/l) at Z=0 Distance from Source (ft) CA No Degradation Biotransformation Field Data from Site Monitoring Well Locations (ft) No Degradation/Production Sequential 1st Order Decay Field Data from Site Concentration (mg/l) See TCA See DCA See CA Distance From Source (ft.) Prepare Animation Time: 50.0 Years Log Linear Return to Input To All To Array

43 BIOCHLOR Natural Attenuation Decision Support System Ringwood Data Input Instructions: Version 2.2 1,4-DCA Enter value directly...or Excel 2000 Run Name or 2. Calculate by filling in gray TYPE OF CHLORINATED SOLVENT: Ethenes 5. GENERAL 0.02 cells. Press Enter, then C Ethanes Simulation Time* 50 (yr) L (To restore formulas, hit "Restore Formulas" button ) 1. ADVECTION Modeled Area Width* 60 (ft) W Variable* Data used directly in model. Seepage Velocity* Vs 0.5 (ft/yr) Modeled Area Length* 2000 (ft) Test if or Zone 1 Length* 2000 (ft) Biotransformation Natural Attenuation Hydraulic Conductivity K 1.0E-09 (cm/sec) Zone 2 Length* 0 (ft) Zone 2= Screening Protocol is Occurring Hydraulic Gradient i (ft/ft) L - Zone 1 Effective Porosity n (-) 6. SOURCE DATA TYPE: Continuous Vertical Plane Source: Determine Source Well Location and Input Solvent Concentrations 2. DISPERSION Single Planar Calc. Source Options Alpha x* 90 (ft) Alpha x (Alpha y) / (Alpha x)* 0.1 (-) Source Thickness in Sat. Zone* 50 (ft) (Alpha z) / (Alpha x)* 1.E-99 (-) Y1 3. ADSORPTION Width* (ft) 60 Retardation Factor* R k s * or Conc. (mg/l)* C1 (1/yr) Soil Bulk Density, rho 1.6 (kg/l) TCA 0 FractionOrganicCarbon, foc 1.8E-3 (-) DCA 0 View of Plume Looking Down Partition Coefficient Koc CA TCA 426 (L/kg) 1.00 (-) Observed Centerline Conc. at Monitoring Wells DCA 130 (L/kg) 1.00 (-) CA 125 (L/kg) 1.00 (-) FIELD DATA FOR COMPARISON 1.00 TCA Conc. (mg/l) Common R (used in model)* = 1.00 DCA Conc. (mg/l) 4. BIOTRANSFORMATION -1st Order Decay Coefficient* CA Conc. (mg/l) Zone 1 (1/yr) half-life (yrs) Yield TCA DCA DCA CA Distance from Source (ft) CA Ethane Date Data Collected Aug CHOOSE TYPE OF OUTPUT TO SEE: Zone 2 (1/yr) half-life (yrs) TCA DCA DCA CA CA Ethane HELP RUN CENTERLINE RUN ARRAY Help SEE OUTPUT Restore Paste RESET

44 DISSOLVED CHLORINATED SOLVENT CONCENTRATIONS ALONG PLUME CENTERLINE (mg/l) at Z=0 Distance from Source (ft) CA No Degradation Biotransformation Field Data from Site Monitoring Well Locations (ft) No Degradation/Production Sequential 1st Order Decay Field Data from Site Concentration (mg/l) See TCA See DCA See CA Distance From Source (ft.) Prepare Animation Time: 50.0 Years Log Linear Return to Input To All To Array

45 BIOCHLOR Natural Attenuation Decision Support System Ringwood Data Input Instructions: Version 2.2 1,4-DCA Enter value directly...or Excel 2000 Run Name or 2. Calculate by filling in gray TYPE OF CHLORINATED SOLVENT: Ethenes 5. GENERAL 0.02 cells. Press Enter, then C Ethanes Simulation Time* 50 (yr) L (To restore formulas, hit "Restore Formulas" button ) 1. ADVECTION Modeled Area Width* 60 (ft) W Variable* Data used directly in model. Seepage Velocity* Vs 7.7 (ft/yr) Modeled Area Length* 1000 (ft) Test if or Zone 1 Length* 1000 (ft) Biotransformation Natural Attenuation Hydraulic Conductivity K 1.7E-08 (cm/sec) Zone 2 Length* 0 (ft) Zone 2= Screening Protocol is Occurring Hydraulic Gradient i (ft/ft) L - Zone 1 Effective Porosity n (-) 6. SOURCE DATA TYPE: Continuous Vertical Plane Source: Determine Source Well Location and Input Solvent Concentrations 2. DISPERSION Single Planar Calc. Source Options Alpha x* 90 (ft) Alpha x (Alpha y) / (Alpha x)* 0.1 (-) Source Thickness in Sat. Zone* 50 (ft) (Alpha z) / (Alpha x)* 1.E-99 (-) Y1 3. ADSORPTION Width* (ft) 60 Retardation Factor* R k s * or Conc. (mg/l)* C1 (1/yr) Soil Bulk Density, rho 1.6 (kg/l) TCA 0 FractionOrganicCarbon, foc 1.8E-3 (-) DCA 0 View of Plume Looking Down Partition Coefficient Koc CA TCA 426 (L/kg) 1.00 (-) Observed Centerline Conc. at Monitoring Wells DCA 130 (L/kg) 1.00 (-) CA 125 (L/kg) 1.00 (-) FIELD DATA FOR COMPARISON 1.00 TCA Conc. (mg/l) Common R (used in model)* = 1.00 DCA Conc. (mg/l) 4. BIOTRANSFORMATION -1st Order Decay Coefficient* CA Conc. (mg/l) Zone 1 (1/yr) half-life (yrs) Yield TCA DCA DCA CA Distance from Source (ft) CA Ethane Date Data Collected Aug CHOOSE TYPE OF OUTPUT TO SEE: Zone 2 (1/yr) half-life (yrs) TCA DCA DCA CA CA Ethane HELP RUN CENTERLINE RUN ARRAY Help SEE OUTPUT Restore Paste RESET

46 DISSOLVED CHLORINATED SOLVENT CONCENTRATIONS ALONG PLUME CENTERLINE (mg/l) at Z=0 Distance from Source (ft) CA No Degradation Biotransformation Monitoring Well Locations (ft) Field Data from Site No Degradation/Production Sequential 1st Order Decay Field Data from Site Concentration (mg/l) See TCA See DCA See CA Distance From Source (ft.) Prepare Animation Time: 50.0 Years Log Linear Return to Input To All To Array

47 BIOCHLOR Natural Attenuation Decision Support System Ringwood Data Input Instructions: Version 2.2 1,4-DCA Enter value directly...or Excel 2000 Run Name or 2. Calculate by filling in gray TYPE OF CHLORINATED SOLVENT: Ethenes 5. GENERAL 0.02 cells. Press Enter, then C Ethanes Simulation Time* 50 (yr) L (To restore formulas, hit "Restore Formulas" button ) 1. ADVECTION Modeled Area Width* 60 (ft) W Variable* Data used directly in model. Seepage Velocity* Vs 7.7 (ft/yr) Modeled Area Length* 1000 (ft) Test if or Zone 1 Length* 1000 (ft) Biotransformation Natural Attenuation Hydraulic Conductivity K 3.4E-06 (cm/sec) Zone 2 Length* 0 (ft) Zone 2= Screening Protocol is Occurring Hydraulic Gradient i (ft/ft) L - Zone 1 Effective Porosity n 0.01 (-) 6. SOURCE DATA TYPE: Continuous Vertical Plane Source: Determine Source Well Location and Input Solvent Concentrations 2. DISPERSION Single Planar Calc. Source Options Alpha x* 90 (ft) Alpha x (Alpha y) / (Alpha x)* 0.1 (-) Source Thickness in Sat. Zone* 50 (ft) (Alpha z) / (Alpha x)* 1.E-99 (-) Y1 3. ADSORPTION Width* (ft) 60 Retardation Factor* R k s * or Conc. (mg/l)* C1 (1/yr) Soil Bulk Density, rho 1.6 (kg/l) TCA 0 FractionOrganicCarbon, foc 1.8E-3 (-) DCA 0 View of Plume Looking Down Partition Coefficient Koc CA TCA 426 (L/kg) 1.00 (-) Observed Centerline Conc. at Monitoring Wells DCA 130 (L/kg) 1.00 (-) CA 125 (L/kg) 1.00 (-) FIELD DATA FOR COMPARISON 1.00 TCA Conc. (mg/l) Common R (used in model)* = 1.00 DCA Conc. (mg/l) 4. BIOTRANSFORMATION -1st Order Decay Coefficient* CA Conc. (mg/l) Zone 1 (1/yr) half-life (yrs) Yield TCA DCA DCA CA Distance from Source (ft) CA Ethane Date Data Collected Aug CHOOSE TYPE OF OUTPUT TO SEE: Zone 2 (1/yr) half-life (yrs) TCA DCA DCA CA CA Ethane HELP RUN CENTERLINE RUN ARRAY Help SEE OUTPUT Restore Paste RESET

48 DISSOLVED CHLORINATED SOLVENT CONCENTRATIONS ALONG PLUME CENTERLINE (mg/l) at Z=0 Distance from Source (ft) CA No Degradation Biotransformation Monitoring Well Locations (ft) Field Data from Site No Degradation/Production Sequential 1st Order Decay Field Data from Site Concentration (mg/l) See TCA See DCA See CA Distance From Source (ft.) Prepare Animation Time: 50.0 Years Log Linear Return to Input To All To Array

49 APPENDIX A SURFACE WATER FEATURES

50 LEGEND: PETERS MINE PIT AREA CANNON MINE PIT AREA CANNON PIT PETERS MINE PIT AIR SHAFT O'CONNOR DISPOSAL AREA NOTES: SURFACE WATER FEATURES AND FLOW MAP A-1

51 APPENDIX B STREAMFLOW FIELD MEASUREMENTS

52 Ringwood Stream Measurements STREAM Width (Ft) Avg. Depth (Ft) Area (FT^2) Vel, (Ft/s)* Total Volume (Ft^3/s) North Brook Park Brook-1 (PB-1) Mine Brook-1 (MB-1) STREAM Width (Ft) Avg. Depth (Ft) Area (FT^2) Vel, (Ft/s) Total Volume (Ft^3/s) Sub-Section Ringwood Creek Ringwood Creek Ringwood Creek Ringwood Creek Total Width (Ft) Avg. Depth (Ft) Area (FT^2) Vel, (Ft/s) Total Volume (Ft^3/s) Sub-Section Ringwood Creek Ringwood Creek Ringwood Creek Ringwood Creek Total** *Measured at representative location with velocity meter ** Ringwood Creek at Gauge, Flow at time of measurement 5.07 CFS

53 APPENDIX C BEDROCK AQUIFER GROUNDWATER FLOW MAP

54 ND Appendix C Sketch Map Estimate of Bedrock Aquifer Flow From PMP Area