Rennie Farm Supplemental Hydrogeologic Investigation Report

DES Waste Management Division
29 Hazen Drive; PO Box 95

Concord, NH 03302-0095
REPORT
SUPPLEMENTAL HYDROGEOLOGIC INVESTIGATION PHASE I
GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT ZONE DELINEATION
AND WATER SUPPLY INVESTIGATION
Dartmouth College, Rennie Farm Site
Hanover, New Hampshire
NHDES Site No. 201111109
DES Project No. 277737
Prepared For:
Dartmouth College Office of Environmental Health and Safety
37 Dewey Field Road, Suite 6216
Hanover, NH 03755
Phone Number: (603) 646-0235
RP Contact Name: Mr. Michael D. Cimis
Assistant Director of Environmental Health & Safety
RP Contact Email: Michael.D.Cimis@Dartmouth.EDU
Digitally signed by Steven R.
Steven
R. Lamb
Prepared By:
GZA GeoEnvironmental, Inc.
5 Commerce Park North, Suite 201

Bedford, New Hampshire 03110
Phone Number: (603) 232-8732
Contact Name: Mr. James M. Wieck, P.G.
Contact Email: James.wieck@gza.com
GZA Project No. 04.0190030.02
Date of Report: May 6, 2016
Lamb
DN: cn=Steven R. Lamb, o=GZA
GeoEnvironmental, Inc., ou,
email=steven.lamb@gza.com,
c=US
Date: 2016.05.06 17:35:22
-04'00'
PHASE I - SUPPLEMENTAL HYDROGEOLOGIC

INVESTIGATION REPORT
DARTMOUTH COLLEGE
Rennie Farm Site
NHDES SITE NO. 201111109, DES PROJECT NO. 277737

May 6, 2016
File No. 04.0190030.02
PREPARED FOR:
Dartmouth College
5 Commerce Park North, Suite 201 Bedford, NH 03110-6984

603-623-3600
27 Offices Nationwide
www.gza.com
Copyright 2016 GZA GeoEnvironmental, Inc.
Via Email
May 6, 2016
File No. 04.0190030.02
Mr. Paul Rydel, P.G.

New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services
29 Hazen Drive, P.O. Box 95
Concord, New Hampshire 03301
Re:
Report
Phase I - Supplemental Hydrogeologic Investigation
Groundwater Management Zone Delineation and Water Supply Investigation
NHDES Site No. 201111109, DES Project No. 277737
Dear Mr. Rydel:

The attached report was prepared by GZA on behalf of Dartmouth College
(Dartmouth) to provide the New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services
(NHDES) a summary of completed Phase I - Supplemental Hydrogeologic
Investigation activities associated with the Rennie Farm site, in Hanover, New
Hampshire (Site). Excluding certain activities limited by access to offsite properties,
the work summarized herein was completed as generally described in GZAs work
plan 1 dated December 2, 2015, which was approved by the NHDES in a letter 2 dated
December 11, 2015.
Data associated with additional off-site water supply wells sampled at the request of
the property owners are included in the report. As we discussed during our April 8,
2016 meeting at the Site, additional source area borings, not described in our
December 2, 2015 work plan were completed based on the conditions encountered
and the desire for additional data, and are summarized in the report. This report
also includes a work plan summarizing recommended additional source area
characterization activities, and follow-on Groundwater Management Zone
delineation activities that were conceptually described in GZAs December 2, 2015
work plan (Phase II - Supplemental Hydrogeologic Investigation).
1 Work plan by GZA titled Work Plan, Supplemental Hydrogeologic Investigation Phase I,
Groundwater Management Zone Delineation and Water Supply Investigation, Dartmouth College,
Rennie Farm Site, Hanover, New Hampshire, NHDES Site No. 201111109, DES Project No. 277737.
2 NHDES letter titled Hanover Dartmouth College Rennie Farm Site, Hanover Center Road, DES
Site #201111109, Project #27737, Work Plan, Supplemental Hydrogeologic Investigation Phase I,
prepared by GZA GeoEnvironmental (GZA), dated December 2, 2015.
An Equal Opportunity Employer M/F/V/H
May 6, 2016
Dartmouth College
04.0190030.02
Page | 2
We appreciate your review of the report and look forward to receiving your comments. Should you have any
questions, please do not hesitate to contact Mr. James M. Wieck at 603-232-8732.
Very truly yours,
GZA GEOENVIRONMENTAL, INC.
James M. Wieck, P.G.

Senior Project Manager
Ronald A. Breton, P.E.

Senior Principal, Consultant/Reviewer
Steven R. Lamb, P.G., C.G.W.P.

Principal
JMW/SRL/RAB:kr
p:\04jobs\0190000s\04.0190030.00\04.0190030.02\report\supplemental hydrogeologic investigation phase i\text\final 04 0190030 02 shi phase i report 050516.docx
Attachment:
cc:
Report
Ms. Maureen O'Leary, PhD, MBA, CBSP, Dartmouth College

Mr. Michael D. Cimis, CIH, CHMM, Dartmouth College
Ellen Arnold, Esq., Dartmouth College
May 6, 2016
04.0190030.02
TOC | i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0
INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................1
2.0
PHASE I - SUPPLEMENTAL HYDROGEOLOGIC INVESTIGATION ..............................................................3

2.1
STRUCTURAL GEOLOGIC MAPPING ..................................................................................................3

Bedrock Outcrop Mapping ..................................................................................................3
Lineaments ..........................................................................................................................4
Water Resources .................................................................................................................5
2.2
SURFICIAL GEOPHYSICAL SURVEYS...................................................................................................6
2.3
SUBSURFACE EXPLORATIONS ...........................................................................................................6

Groundwater Monitoring Well Installation .........................................................................7
Water Supply and Sentinel Well Installation.................................................................... 10
Well Development and Survey ......................................................................................... 11
2.4
3.0
WATER QUALITY MONITORING..................................................................................................... 11
CONCEPTUAL SITE MODEL ................................................................................................................15

3.1
SITE LOCATION USE AND PHYSIOGRAPHY..................................................................................... 15
3.2
SURFACE WATER ........................................................................................................................... 16
3.3
PREVIOUS SITE INVESTIGATION AND REMEDIATION .................................................................... 16
3.4
HYDROGEOLOGY ........................................................................................................................... 18
Geology............................................................................................................................. 18
Groundwater .................................................................................................................... 19
3.5
CONTAMINANT SOURCE ............................................................................................................... 19
3.6
CONTAMINANT DISTRIBUTION, TRANSPORT, AND FATE.............................................................. 21

Source Area ...................................................................................................................... 22
Downgradient ................................................................................................................... 22
3.7
IDENTIFIED AND POTENTIAL RECEPTORS ...................................................................................... 24
4.0
CONCLUSIONS .................................................................................................................................24
5.0
RECOMMENDATIONS.......................................................................................................................26
May 6, 2016
04.0190030.02
TOC | ii
TABLES
TABLE 1
WATER WELL BOARD INFORMATION SUMMARY
TABLE 2
MONITORING WELL CONSTRUCTION SUMMARY
TABLE 3
1,4-DIOXANE CONCENTRATION DATA SUMMARY
TABLE 4
FIELD SCREENING DATA SUMMARY
TABLE 5
WATER SUPPLY WELL DATA SUMMARY
TABLE 6
GROUNDWATER ELEVATION AND REFERENCE POINT DATA SUMMARY
FIGURES
FIGURE 1
LOCUS PLAN/WATER RESOURCES PLAN
FIGURE 2
SITE PLAN/MONITORING LOCATION PLAN
FIGURE 3
WATER SUPPLY WELL SAMPLING PLAN
FIGURE 4
BEDROCK GEOLOGIC MAPPING SUMMARY
FIGURE 5
VLF SURVEY SUMMARY
FIGURE 6
HYDRAULIC HEAD DATA SUMMARY
FIGURE 7
WATER QUALITY DATA SUMMARY
FIGURE 8
SECTION A-A AND B-B
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A
LIMITATIONS
APPENDIX B
FEBRUARY 2016 REPORT BY HAGER RICHTER
APPENDIX C
BORING LOGS
APPENDIX D
LABORATORY REPORTS
APPENDIX E
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS
APPENDIX F
PHASE II - SUPPLEMENTAL HYDROGEOLOGIC INVESTIGATION WORK PLAN
May 6, 2016
04.0190030.02
Page | 1
1.0
INTRODUCTION
This report was prepared by GZA GeoEnvironmental, Inc. (GZA) on behalf of Dartmouth College (Dartmouth) to
provide the New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services (NHDES) a summary of completed Phase I Supplemental Hydrogeologic Investigation activities associated with the Rennie Farm site, in Hanover, New
Hampshire (Site; 572 Hanover Center Road; Town of Hanover Tax Map 13, Block 14, Lot 1). Excluding certain
activities limited by access to offsite properties, the Phase I - Supplemental Hydrogeologic Investigation activities
summarized herein were completed as generally described in GZAs work plan, 3 dated December 2, 2015, which
was approved by the NHDES in a letter 4 dated December 11, 2015.
Based on the results of investigation activities associated with the removal of laboratory animal carcasses from
the Site during late 2011 and the ongoing phased delineation of 1,4-dioxane in groundwater, 1,4-dioxane
detected in groundwater within and downgradient of the former animal carcass burial area was present in
laboratory waste buried within a portion of the animal carcass burial area. Excavation and removal of animal
carcasses and impacted soil during 2011 likely removed source materials of the 1,4-dioxane, but may also have
influenced the migration of 1,4-dioxane to groundwater.
1,4-dioxane was first detected in groundwater samples collected beyond the northeastern Site boundary at
concentrations exceeding the New Hampshire Ambient Groundwater Quality Standard (NH AGQS) for
1,4-dioxane (3 micrograms per liter [g/L]) in samples collected on September 15, 2015. Specifically,
1,4-dioxane was detected in groundwater samples collected from the water supply well at 9 Rennie Road in
Hanover, New Hampshire (Town of Hanover Tax Map 13, Block 81, Lot 1). Collection of water quality samples
from off-site water supply wells was proposed in GZAs work plan 5 dated September 1, 2015 and was initiated
by Dartmouth in response the detection of 1,4-dioxane at concentrations of 270 g/L to 520 g/L in
groundwater samples collected from on-site fractured bedrock groundwater monitoring well GZ-9L during July
2015. Results of initial and more recent off-site water supply well sampling are described in GZAs letter report 6
dated November 11, 2015 and letter 7 dated February 10, 2016.
Due to the exceedance of NH AGQS for 1,4-dioxane beyond the Site boundary, supplemental hydrogeologic
investigations are necessary to further evaluate the potential for the presence of human and environmental
receptors, and complete the delineation of the extent of 1,4-dioxane beyond the Site boundary necessary for
the establishment of a Groundwater Management Permit (GMP) and required Groundwater Management Zone
(GMZ). In our December 2, 2015 work plan, GZA proposed that hydrogeologic investigation activities be
organized into two phases of work due to the complexity groundwater flow within fractured bedrock
groundwater systems and the properties of 1,4-dioxane.
3 Work plan by GZA titled Work Plan, Supplemental Hydrogeologic Investigation Phase I, Groundwater Management Zone
Delineation and Water Supply Investigation, Dartmouth College, Rennie Farm Site, Hanover, New Hampshire, NHDES Site No. 201111109,
DES Project No. 277737.
4 NHDES letter titled Hanover Dartmouth College Rennie Farm Site, Hanover Center Road, DES Site #201111109, Project #27737,
Work Plan, Supplemental Hydrogeologic Investigation Phase I, prepared by GZA GeoEnvironmental (GZA), dated December 2, 2015.
5 Work plan by GZA titled Work Plan, Off-Site Water Supply Well Sampling, Dartmouth College, Rennie Farm Site, Hanover Center
Road, Hanover, New Hampshire, NHDES Site No. 201111109, DES Project No. 277737.
6
Letter report by GZA titled Letter Report, Off-Site Water Supply Well Sampling, Dartmouth College, Rennie Farm Site, Hanover
Center Road, Hanover, New Hampshire, NHDES Site No. 201111109, DES Project No. 277737.
7 Letter by GZA titled Water Quality Monitoring Summary, Dartmouth College, Rennie Farm Site, Hanover Center Road, Hanover,
New Hampshire, NHDES Site No. 201111109, DES Project No. 277737.
May 6, 2016
04.0190030.02
Page | 2
This report describes the results of the first phase of supplemental hydrogeologic investigation, focused on the
further characterization of the fractured bedrock groundwater system beneath and immediately east of the Site
within the anticipated area of 1,4-dioxane transport. The primary objective of the first phase of the
investigation is to provide hydrogeologic data needed to select locations for the installation of monitoring wells
downgradient of the Site, as needed to complete the delineation of 1,4-dioxane in groundwater.
Additional objectives of Phase I of the supplemental hydrogeologic investigation included: source area
characterization; monthly evaluation of 1,4-dioxane concentrations at selected monitoring locations; and
evaluation of the potential for groundwater flow and 1,4-dioxane transport to a water supply well to be drilled
south of the source area near the entrance to the Site.
Work performed and described in this report includes:
Expanded bedrock outcrop mapping and supplemental review of lineaments;
Surficial geophysical surveys utilizing very low frequency electromagnetics (VLF) and electric resistivity
imaging (ERI) methods;
Installation of bedrock and overburden groundwater monitoring wells utilizing conventional overburden test
boring and core boring methods, respectively;
Soil sampling and analysis for 1,4-dioxane by United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Method
8260B, including low level analysis Selective Ion Methods (SIM), and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) by
EPA 8260B NHDES (Waste Management List);
Drilling of 6-inch bedrock borings utilizing air rotary drilling methods; and
Groundwater, surface water, water supply well, and point-of-entry groundwater treatment system sampling
and analysis for 1,4-dioxane by EPA Method 8260B, including low level SIM analysis.
Off-site property owner access necessary to complete borehole geophysical logging and vertical zone sampling
proposed in GZAs December 2, 2015 work plan could not be obtained.
Additionally, while the on-site water supply proposed as alternate water supply for wells impacted by
1,4-dioxane in GZAs December 2 Work Plan (WSW-1) and a related sentinel well (GZ-16D) were installed. There
are no plans for the immediate use of WSW-1, and proposed sentinel well GZ-15D was not installed.
Phase II of the supplemental investigation, described in Appendix F, is focused on the installation and sampling
of bedrock groundwater monitoring wells downgradient of the Site, with the overall objective of delineating the
extent of 1,4-dioxane in groundwater and establishing compliance monitoring locations and a GMZ in support of
the preparation of an application for GMP. The work plan included in Appendix F also includes subsurface
exploration and sampling tasks focused on further source area characterization to support a remedial feasibility
evaluation.
May 6, 2016
04.0190030.02
Page | 3
As noted in GZAs letter report dated November 11, 2015, a point-of-entry (POE) treatment system has been
installed at 9 Rennie Road to remove 1,4-dioxane from the water supply. The POE treatment system is intended
as a means of providing the residents of 9 Rennie Road with an alternate source of water meeting NH AGQS.
Dartmouth also provides bottled water to the residents of 9 Rennie Road at the request of the
residents/owners.
Aerial photograph based site locus plan and site plan are included as Figure 1 and Figure 2, respectively. The
features shown on Figure 1 are also illustrated on Figure 1A overlying portions of the United States Geological
Survey (USGS) quadrangle maps illustrating the area. The locations of private water supply wells included in the
water supply well sampling program are illustrated on Figure 3. The remainder of this report provides a
summary of the work completed during Phase I of the supplemental hydrogeologic investigation; GZAs
conceptual site model (CSM); and our conclusions and recommendations. GZAs work and this report are
subject to the Limitations included in Appendix A.
2.0
PHASE I - SUPPLEMENTAL HYDROGEOLOGIC INVESTIGATION
The following subsections describe the work performed during and results of the Phase I - Supplemental
Hydrogeologic Investigation.
2.1
STRUCTURAL GEOLOGIC MAPPING
Structural geologic mapping was performed including identifying and observing the structure of bedrock
outcrops within the portion of the Site previously mapped by GZA during 2014, and additional areas of the Site
and selected surrounding properties. The structural geologic mapping of bedrock outcrops included measuring
the orientations of fractures found on the bedrock outcrops and identifying lithology. Reviews of aerial
photographs were also performed to identify photo-lineaments potentially indicative of the intersection of
potential bedrock fracture zones (PFZs) with the ground surface.
GZA subcontracted with Hager-Richter Geoscience, Inc. (Hager-Richter) of Salem, New Hampshire to perform
the structural geologic mapping. The area included within the bedrock outcrop mapping includes the Site and
selected off-site downgradient properties identified as Hanover Tax Map 16, Block 7, Lot 1 and Hanover Tax
Map 13 Block 19, Lot 1. The expanded bedrock mapping area and locations of bedrock outcrops mapped by GZA
and Hager-Richter are illustrated on Figure 4. The objective of the expanded geologic mapping was to provide
bedrock structural information within and surrounding the potential area of 1,4-dioxane transport, as currently
understood. Previous bedrock outcrop mapping performed on the Site and photo-lineament analyses by GZA
are summarized in GZAs June 24, 2014 report. 8
Bedrock Outcrop Mapping
Hager-Richter completed a traverse of the Site and the off-site properties listed in Section 2.1 on November 23
and 24, 2015. The traverse was performed in a regular pattern on foot to identify and examine bedrock
outcrops. Hager-Richters bedrock geologic mapping activities are described in Section 2.2 and 3.2 of their
8 Report by GZA titled Supplemental Hydrogeologic Investigation Work Plan, Dartmouth College, Rennie Farm Site, Hanover Center
Road, Hanover, New Hampshire, NHDES Site No. 201111109, DES Project No. 277737.
May 6, 2016
04.0190030.02
Page | 4
February 2016 report 9 included in Appendix B. Figure 4 includes a stereogram of the poles of the fractures, a
rose diagram of the azimuths of the dip vector, and a histogram of the dip angles provided by Hager-Richter.
These graphic summaries of the fracture data collected from the bedrock outcrops are also included on Plate 2
of Hager-Richters report. Figure 4 also includes a rose diagram summarizing the strike of the fractures provided
by Hager-Richter.
The following summarize the bedrock outcrop mapping results:
Hager-Richter identified a total of 28 outcrops within the survey area including 22 located on the Site and 3
located on abutting properties;
The lithology of the bedrock outcrops was identified as the Partridge Formation, which is described as a
black, rusty-weathering sulfidic-graphitic slate or schist and abundant metagraywacke. 10 The formation was
previously identified as the Orfordville Formation 11 (middle metamorphic grade black to dark-gray micaquartz schist, mica schist, garnet schist and quartzite).
The fractures predominantly strike northeast (N45E) and dip steeply with 32% dipping northwest.
Approximately 63% of the dip angles are equal to or greater than 75 degrees.
There are also a small percentage of fractures that have shallow dip angles and apparently random strikes.
The results of the expanded bedrock outcrop mapping by Hager-Richter are consistent with the results of
bedrock outcrop mapping by GZA as described in GZAs June 24, 2014 report. Fractures with a strike of 50 to
55 degrees northeast and dip of 85 degrees toward the southeast to roughly 80 degrees toward the northwest
were the most frequently observed on the outcrops located by GZA on the Site.
Lineaments
Hager-Richter used georeferenced high resolution aerial photographs to identify and locate photo-lineaments.
Photo-lineaments identified by Hager-Richter are described in Section 3.3 and illustrated on Plate 2 of their
report in Appendix B. Plate 2 of Hager-Richters report also includes photo-lineaments identified by the USGS. 12
The locations of photo-lineaments identified by the USGS are also illustrated on Figure 4. While numerous
photo-lineaments have been identified within the vicinity and crossing portions of the Site, none of the
identified photo-lineaments transect the former animal carcass burial area. Several photo-lineaments transect
the area downgradient of the Site within the identified area of 1,4-dioxane transport in groundwater.
Report by Hager-Richter titled Surface Geophysical Surveys, Dartmouth College Rennie Farm Site, Hanover, New Hampshire.
Lyons et al. (1991), A New Bedrock Geologic Map of New Hampshire, revised and automated at the Complex Systems Research
Center of the University of New Hampshire, Durham, New Hampshire.
11 Based on review of bedrock geologic maps depicting the Site vicinity including the Geologic Map and Structure Sections of the
Mascoma Quadrangle, New Hampshire published 1938 and the Geologic Map and Structure Sections of the Mt. Cube Quadrangle, New
Hampshire published 1938.
12 Lineaments identified by USGS on Lineament Map of Area 10 of the New Hampshire Bedrock Aquifer Assessment, NorthwestCentral New Hampshire, by Ferguson, Clark, Short, Marcoux, and Moore, 1999.
9
10
May 6, 2016
04.0190030.02
Page | 5
Water Resources
GZA reviewed the NHDES OneStop Webgeographic information system to identify water resources within the
vicinity of Site. Based on the information reviewed:
The nearest public water supply 13 is located approximately 1.9 miles north-northwest of the former animal
carcass burial area at the Site;
The nearest wellhead protection area is associated with this public water supply, and at its nearest point is
located approximately 1.6 miles from the former animal carcass burial area;
The nearest registered water user 14 is located more than 4 miles southwest of the Site; and
The Site and surrounding area is located within the source water protection area for Cheshire County
Complex.
Occupied structures within the vicinity of the Site are assumed to be serviced by private water supply wells. GZA
reviewed records of the New Hampshire Well Board (Well Board) available on the NHDES OneStop
Webgeographic system to collect information regarding private water supply wells within the vicinity of the Site.
The area reviewed includes the area within a minimum radius of approximately one mile around the former
animal carcass burial area and the area downgradient to approximately the location of New Hampshire Route 10
(approximately 1.5 miles northwest).
The approximate locations of water supply wells identified based on the Well Board records are illustrated with
their Well Board identification numbers on Figure 1. Private water supply wells that have been included in the
water supply well sampling program described in Section 2.4 are also shown on Figure 1. Well identification
number, type, depth, and yield as reported to the Well Board are summarized in Table 1. Wells that have been
included within the water supply well sampling program for which Well Board records were available are
identified in Table 1.
Based on our work at the Site, a small tributary to the southern branch of an unnamed tributary of Hewes Brook
originates on the Site, at the on-site Dug Well 15 and springs located downslope of Dug Well-1s source. The
small tributary may be an intermittent stream within portions of its reach and flows east to the southern branch
of the unnamed tributary. Based on review of aerial photographs and USGS topographic quadrangle maps
illustrating the area in the vicinity of the Site, the southern branch of an unnamed tributary of Hewes Brook is
located approximately 900 feet east of the Site.
The confluence of the south branch and north branch of the unnamed tributary is located approximately
1,400 feet northeast of the former animal carcass burial area. The confluence of the unnamed tributary and
Hewes Brook is located approximately 1 mile north-northwest of the former animal carcass burial area. Surface
water bodies within the vicinity of the Site are illustrated on Figure 1. Surface water sampling locations
described in Section 2.4 (Stream-1, Stream-2, and Stream-3) are illustrated on Figure 1. The watershed of the
unnamed tributary to Hewes Brook is illustrated on Figure 1 and Figure 1A.
Source ID: 001, Pond View Apartments, 84 Dartmouth College Highway, Route 10.
Water User ID: 20021, Hanover Water Department, Public Water System ID: 1071010.
15 Dug well formerly water supply for 8 Rennie Road.
13
14
May 6, 2016
04.0190030.02
Page | 6
2.2
SURFICIAL GEOPHYSICAL SURVEYS
GZA subcontracted with Hager-Richter to complete surficial geophysical surveys to identify areas within bedrock
with relatively higher concentrations of fractures (PFZs). Geophysical methods used include VLF and ERI. The
VLF data were acquired along a series of traverses of the survey area. The survey area was expanded relative to
the area described in GZAs work plan dated December 2, 2015 to include potentially downgradient areas east of
the Site.
The VLF survey was performed by using a GEM Systems GSM-19VLF meter with integrated global positioning
system (GPS) unit. The Cutler, Maine (NAA) and Jim Creek, Washington (NLK) transmitters were used. Data
were acquired for the LaMour, North Dakota transmitter, but were too weak to provide useful data. The ERI
survey was performed using an Advanced Geosciences, Inc. (AGI) Super Sting R8 earth resistivity instrument with
56 smart electrodes. Schlumberger and Wenner electrode configurations were used. However, Hager-Richter
reports that, the Schlumberger arrays provided better resolution and were used for their interpretation of the
PFZs. The results of the VLF and ERI surveys were used to produce cross-sectional depictions of relative fracture
density included in Hager-Richters report.
Eight VLF survey lines were completed in the approximate locations illustrated on Plate 1 of Hager-Richters
report in Appendix B. VLF data are described in Section 3.4 of Hager-Richters report. Six ERI survey lines were
completed in the approximate locations illustrated on Plate 1 of Hager-Richters report. The ERI data are
described in Section 3.5 of Hager-Richters report.
Based on the bedrock structural mapping, and the VLF and ERI surveys, Hager-Richter inferred the locations of
10 PFZs. The locations of the PFZs are illustrated along with selected contoured VLF data provided by HagerRichter on Figure 5. A summary of the methods used to identify each of the PFZs is included in Section 3.6 of
Hager-Richters report. Hager-Richter notes in their report that PFZs only were shown where surficial
geophysical survey data were available due to the location and orientation of the surveys. Hager-Richter also
notes that a photo-lineament identified by Hager-Richter located near the path identified by GZA as indicating
the inferred direction of groundwater flow may indicate the presence of a PFZ, although not identified as a PFZ
based on the results of the surficial geophysical survey. The location of this photo-lineament is illustrated on
Figure 5.
The average strike of PVZs 3 through 8 is N44E, consistent with the range of strikes (N30E N45E) estimated by
Hager-Richter based on the bedrock outcrop mapping. The strike of PFZ 9 was estimated by Hager-Richter as
N8E. PFZ 9 transects the area immediately downgradient of the former animal burial area through which
1,4-dioxane is transported. None of the other PFZs identified by Hager Richter transect identified areas of
1,4-dioxane transport.
Refer to Section 3.7 of Hager-Richters report for important limitations of the interpretation of the data.
2.3
SUBSURFACE EXPLORATIONS
Six groundwater monitoring wells, and one bedrock water supply well and an associated sentinel well were
installed at the Site during the Phase I - Supplemental Hydrogeologic Investigation. The groundwater monitoring
wells installed include one overburden and five bedrock groundwater monitoring wells. The following
subsections describe objectives, well installation procedures, and conditions encountered. The locations of the
Site groundwater monitoring wells are illustrated on Figure 2.
May 6, 2016
04.0190030.02
Page | 7
Groundwater Monitoring Well Installation
Installation and sampling of supplemental groundwater monitoring wells was completed to provide additional
1,4-dioxane concentration and hydraulic head data needed to further evaluate the distribution and transport of
1,4-dioxane within the overburden and fractured bedrock groundwater systems at the Site. Groundwater
monitoring wells were installed using conventional monitoring well installation methods between January 13,
2016 and January 28, 2016 and are designated GZ-12L, GZ-13L, GZ-14U, GZ-14L, GZ-9D, and GZ-17L. With one
exception, groundwater monitoring wells were generally installed as proposed in GZAs December 2, 2015 work
plan. Based on the conditions encountered while drilling, a shallow bedrock and overburden monitoring well
couplet (GZ-14U/L) was installed within the former animal carcass burial area, along with proposed shallow
bedrock wells GZ-12L and GZ-13L. Well couplet GZ-14U/L was not proposed in GZAs December 2 work plan.
GZA contracted with New England Boring Contractors (NEBC) of Londonderry, New Hampshire to drill borings
and construct the monitoring wells. Drilling and monitoring well construction methods were consistent with
previous phases of work at the Site and Env-Or 610.04 (Groundwater Monitoring Wells). A GZA field geologist
observed and documented the drilling of the borings and construction of the wells by NEBC. GZAs project
manager selected the well designs based on the geologic conditions encountered while drilling the borings. The
conditions encountered while drilling and well construction diagrams are summarized on GZAs boring logs
included in Appendix C. Selected monitoring well construction information is summarized in Table 2.
The general locations and purpose of the installation of the monitoring wells include:
GZ-12L, GZ-13L, and GZ-14L - screened within the upper 2 feet to 7 feet of bedrock within the approximate
portion of the former animal carcass burial area where evidence of laboratory waste was encountered
during the excavation of animal carcasses in later 2011 (burial pits 34 through 43).
GZ-14U - screened from 3.8 feet to 7.8 feet below ground surface (bgs) within the overburden and
weathered bedrock. The well was installed to create an overburden/bedrock well couplet to collect data
and evaluate 1,4-dioxane and hydraulic head within overburden and shallow fractured bedrock at a location
within the anticipated 1,4-dioxane source area.
GZ-9D - screened within fractured bedrock at a depth of 83 feet to 93 feet bgs. The well was installed
proximate to well couplet GZ-9U/L to create a well triplet, and provide a sampling location vertically below
the well screen of well GZ-9L (37.5 feet to 42.5 feet bgs), from which groundwater samples with the highest
detected concentrations of 1,4-dioxane had previously been detected, and evaluate vertical transport of 1,4dioxane.
GZ-17L - screened within fractured bedrock from a depth of 48 feet to 53 feet bgs. The well was installed
proximate to the downgradient Site boundary along the anticipated path of 1,4-dioxane transport within
fractured bedrock to provide a monitoring location at prior to the point where 1,4-dioxane is transported
beyond the Site boundary.
Borings GZ-12L, GZ-13L, and GZ-14L were advanced through the overburden using hollow stem auger drilling
methods, and soil samples collected continuously to the top of bedrock using standard penetration test
methods and a 2-foot-long soil sampler. Soil samples were not collected from boring GZ-14U. Soil samples were
described and screened in the field by GZAs field geologist. Soil jar headspace screening methods were used to
May 6, 2016
04.0190030.02
Page | 8
screen soil samples for total volatile organic compounds (VOCs) using a photoionization detector. 16 Soil samples
were selected for laboratory analysis of VOCs using EPA Method 8260B, including low level analysis for
1,4-dioxane using EPA Method 8260B SIM from the borings including two soils samples each from borings
GZ-12L and GZ-13L, and one soil sample from boring GZ-14L.
Total VOCs were not detected during field screening of the soil samples. Selection of soil samples for analytical
laboratory analysis was based primarily on depth with samples collected from the lower overburden and/or
weathered bedrock in each of the three borings. The following table lists the soil samples submitted for
laboratory analysis.
Soil Sample Collection
Depth bgs (feet)
GZ-12L
S-3
46
GZ-12L
S-4
6 7.3
GZ-13L
S-2
24
GZ-13L
S-3
46
GZ-14L
S-5
8 8.5
Note: Refer to boring logs in Appendix C for stratum descriptions.
Boring Number
Soil Sample Number
Soil samples were submitted to Eastern Analytical, Inc. (EAI), of Concord, New Hampshire for laboratory analysis
of VOCs and low level 1,4-dioxane. Copies of EAIs analytical laboratory reports are included in Appendix D.
The portion of borings GZ-9D and GZ-17L drilled within overburden were advanced using standard drive and
wash methods. Soil samples were collected at approximate 5 foot intervals within the boring for GZ-17L to
characterize the stratigraphy. Based on the results previous work, soil samples were not collected while drilling
the boring for well GZ-9D.
Portions of borings drilled within bedrock were advanced using standard bedrock coring methods, with
approximate 5 foot cores collected while advancing the borings.
The groundwater monitoring wells were constructed using 2-inch internal diameter schedule 40 PVC screens
and riser sections. The annular space above the screen section of each well was filled with bentonite to near the
ground surface. Each well was completed with a locking protective casing. Due to a flowing artesian
groundwater condition observed within GZ-17L during the completion of the well, GZA installed a mechanical
packer within the riser of GZ-17L to limit the possibility of groundwater discharging from the well.
The following summarize the results of the monitoring well installation program.
Soil samples collected within the borings drilled within the former animal carcass burial area are generally
described as very loose to medium dense brown fine to medium sand and clayey silt. Soils within the former
animal carcass burial area are anticipated to be glacial till and glacial till from the site that has been
excavated from the former animal carcass burial area and placed as fill during the excavation of the animal
carcasses.
16
MiniRae PID equipped with a 10.6 electron volt bulb and calibrated using an isobutylene-in-air standard.
May 6, 2016
04.0190030.02
Page | 9
A layer of severely weathered bedrock was encountered in borings GZ-13L and GZ-14L at depths of 5.5 feet
and 6.0 feet bgs, respectively. The layer of severely weathered bedrock was 2.5 feet thick at boring GZ-13L
and 4 feet thick at boring GZ-14L. A definable layer of severely weathered bedrock was not encountered in
boring GZ-12L.
The top of bedrock which was sufficiently competent to core was encountered at depths between 7.5 feet
(GZ-12L) and 10 feet bgs (GZ-14).
Auger refusal on probable boulders was encountered at depth between 2.5 feet and 4 feet bgs at three
locations while attempting to drill boring GZ-12L. Refer to GZAs boring log in Appendix C for additional
information.
Field jar headspace screening did not detect VOCs above background readings in ambient air.
Laboratory analysis of the soil samples for VOCs by EPA Method 8260B detected naphthalene in soil samples
GZ-13L, S-2, 2 feet to 4 feet bgs and GZ-14L, S-5, 8 feet to 8.5 feet bgs at a concentration of 0.4 milligrams
per kilogram (mg/kg) in each of the samples. The detected concentration of naphthalene is below the New
Hampshire Soil Remediation Standard 17 (SRS) for naphthalene (5 mg/kg). VOCs were not detected in the
other soil samples submitted for laboratory analysis of VOCs by EPA Method 8260B.
Laboratory analysis of the soil samples for 1,4-dioxane by EPA Method 8260B using low level methods
detected 1,4-dioxane at a concentration of 0.15 mg/kg in the soil sample submitted for analysis from boring
GZ-14L (S-5, 8 feet to 8.5 feet bgs). The detected concentration of 1,4-dioxane is below the SRS for
1,4-dioxane (5 mg/kg). 1,4-dioxane was note detected in the other soil samples submitted for low level
analysis of 1,4-dioxane above the laboratory reporting limit (RL) of 0.1 mg/kg.
The upper approximately 6 feet to 7 feet of fractured bedrock was cored in the former animal carcass burial
area and is generally described as moderately hard, moderately to severely weathered, gray schist, and
moderately fractured with nearly vertical fractures present. Refer to GZAs boring logs in Appendix C for
additional information.
Bedrock was cored in boring GZ-9D from 19 feet to 94 feet bgs. The bedrock cores are generally described
as moderately hard, moderately to severely weathered, gray schist, and moderately fractured with nearly
vertical fractures present. RQD 18 values range from 18 to 100 percent. The occurrence of fractures is
generally greatest in the upper 20 feet of bedrock (RQD 18 to 57 percent). Between approximately 20 feet
and 75 feet below the top of bedrock the occurrence of fractures decreases with RQD values ranging from
66 percent to 100 percent and an average RQD of approximately 88 percent. Within the screened interval
of GZ-9D the RQD ranges from 66 percent to 88 percent. Refer to GZAs boring logs in Appendix C for
additional information.
17 As defined in State of New Hampshire Code of Administrative Rules Env-Or 606. 19 Soil Remediation Criteria, Table 600-2, as
included in Env-Or 600 (Contaminated Site Management), revised May 2015.
18 RQD indicates rock quality designation and is defined as the length of the core run divided by the sum of the length of recovered
core pieces that are individually greater than 4 inches in length.
May 6, 2016
04.0190030.02
Page | 10
Bedrock was cored in boring GZ-14L from 28 feet to 53 feet bgs. The bedrock cores are generally described
as moderately hard, moderately to severely weathered, gray schist, and severely fractured (RQD from 0 to
33%) with nearly vertical fractures present. Refer to GZAs boring logs in Appendix C for additional
information.
Water Supply and Sentinel Well Installation
Two wells consisting of open 6-inch-diameter bedrock boreholes were drilled at the Site. The wells include a
potential water supply well (WSW-1) and a sentinel well (GZ-16D). Water supply well WSW-1 is located within
the southern portion of the Site near the entrance to the Site on Hanover Center Road. WSW-1 was drilled as an
optional alternate source of water to replace residential water supply wells impacted by 1,4-dioxane from the
Site. Sentinel well GZ-16D was drilled between the former animal carcass burial area and WSW-1 to evaluate
the potential for hydraulic connection between the former animal carcass burial area and WSW-1, and provide a
long-term water quality and hydraulic head monitoring location during operation of WSW-1.
GZA contracted with Capital Water Company, Inc. (Capital) of Dunbarton, New Hampshire to drill the wells.
Wells WSW-1 and GZ-16D were drilled using air-rotary drilling methods on December 22, 2015 and
December 30, 2015, respectively. A GZA field geologist observed and documented the drilling of the wells by
Capital. GZAs project manager selected the final well depths based on depth relative to bedrock and ground
surface, estimates of the potential yield calculated by Capital at approximate 20-foot intervals as the wells were
drilled, and drill behavior potentially indicative of the presence of fractures within bedrock. Flow rate estimates
are based on volumetric measurement of water recovered over time measured with the drill stationary and air
forced though the drill rods and back through the annular space between the drill roads and side boring wall.
Based on our experience, estimates of well yield obtained while drilling should be considered a relative indicator
of well yield and typically vary from yields obtained using conventional longer duration withdrawal test
methods.
Borings are cased within the overburden and weathered rock using steel well casings set into competent
bedrock, and are protected above ground surface with locking well covers.
An initial attempt to drill a well at the location of WSW-1 was abandoned due to damage to the well casing. The
abandoned well location was filled with a bentonite and Portland cement grout.
The conditions encountered while drilling are summarized on GZAs boring logs included in Appendix C.
Sample and stratum descriptions are based on samples of drill cuttings collected by GZA while the well was
being drilled. Selected monitoring well construction information is summarized in Table 2. The approximate
locations of wells WSW-1 and GZ-16D are illustrated on Figure 2.
The following summarize information regarding wells WSW-1 and GZ-16D.
Wells WSW-1 and GZ-16D were drilled to depths of 580 feet and 260 feet bgs, respectively.
Steel well casings were set in wells WSW-1 and GZ-16D at depths of approximately 120 feet and 18 feet,
respectively.
Top of weathered bedrock was encountered at WSW-1 and GZ-16D at depths of 22 feet and 2 feet,
respectively.
May 6, 2016
04.0190030.02
Page | 11
Top of competent bedrock was encountered at WSW-1 and GZ-16D at depths of 100 feet and 8 feet,
respectively. Drill cuttings within the weathered bedrock encountered at WSW-1 included fragments of
gray schist mixed with clay. WSW-1 is located near the location of PFZ 10 and photo-lineaments. The
anomalous thickness of weathered bedrock at this location is anticipated to be related to the presence of a
fracture zone.
Bedrock cuttings collected while drilling wells WSW-1 and GZ-16D were identified as gray schist.
Drill behavior while drilling WSW-1 indicated the potential presence of fractures at depths of 155 feet, 260,
and 570 feet. The results of flow rate testing at 20 foot intervals while drilling indicated the following flow
rates: approximately 2 to 3 gpm at 140 feet; approximately 10 gpm at 160 feet, 180 feet, 200 feet, 220 feet,
and 240 feet; approximately 13 gpm at 260 feet, 280 feet, 300 feet, 320 feet, 240 feet, 360 feet, 380 feet,
400 feet, 420 feet, 440 feet, 460 feet, and 480 feet; approximately 15 gpm at 500 feet, 520 feet, 540 feet,
and 560 feet; and over 40 gpm at 580 feet. An increase in flow rate between test locations is interpreted as
indicating the potential presence of water baring fractures within the interval between the tests.
Drill behavior while drilling GZ-16D indicated the potential presence of fractures at depths of 105 feet,
115 feet, 120 feet, and 200 feet. The results of flow rate testing at 20 foot intervals while drilling indicated
the following flow rates: approximately 3 gpm at 60 feet, 80 feet, and 100 feet; approximately 20 gpm at
120 feet, 140 feet, 160 feet, 180 feet, and 200 feet; and over 30 gpm at 220 feet, 240 feet, and 260 feet.
Well Development and Survey
Bedrock groundwater monitoring wells were developed by GZA using manual inertia pump and surge block
methods. Due to the decision to abandon plans for the immediate use of WSW-1 as a water supply source,
WSW-1 and GZ-16D were not developed. However, an electric submersible pump was used to purge one well
volume from WSW-1 and GZ-16D, as described in Section 2.4.
The location and reference point elevations of each of the proposed bedrock wells was surveyed by WSP Sells
(WSP) of Nashua, New Hampshire on January 21, 22, and 25, 2016. The locations of the wells illustrated in
Figure 2, and the ground surface and reference elevation data summarized in Table 2 are based on WSPs
January 2016 survey.
2.4
WATER QUALITY MONITORING
Water quality monitoring of selected established and proposed sampling locations was described in GZAs
December 2, 2015 work plan, and was proposed to provide 1,4-dioxane concentration data to evaluate
temporal and spatial trends in 1,4-dioxane concentration. This section provides a summary of 1,4-dioxane
concentration data for water quality samples collected from October 1, 2015 to April 20, 2016. 19 Water quality
data for samples collected from the Site and off-site residential water supply wells prior to October 1, 2015 are
summarized in GZAs letter report 20 dated November 11, 2015. 1,4-dioxane concentration data for groundwater
monitoring well and surface water sampling locations are summarized in Table 3. Field screening results for
19 Water quality data for samples collected between October 1, 2015 and January 8, 2016 were previously submitted to the NHDES
in GZAs letter dated February 10, 2016, and are also described in this report.
20 Letter report by GZA titled Letter Report, Off-Site Water Supply Well Sampling, Dartmouth College, Rennie Farm Site, Hanover
May 6, 2016
04.0190030.02
Page | 12
specific conductance and pH are summarized in Table 4. 1,4-dioxane concentration data water supply well
sampling locations are summarized in Table 5. Depth-to-groundwater and calculated hydraulic head data are
summarized in Table 6.
Water quality samples were collected by GZA personnel on an approximate monthly frequency including the
following dates:
October 1, 2015;
November 10 and 12, 2015;
December 9, 15, and 22, 2015;
January 6 and 7, 2016;
February 10, 11, 18, and 19, 2016;
March 8 and 9, 2016;
April 11, 12, and 13, 2016; and
April 20, 2016.
Additional sampling rounds were performed to collect samples from certain residential water supply wells, in
response to requests by property owners. Sample collection dates associated with individual residential water
supply well samples are summarized in Table 5.
Sampling locations where samples were collected during one or more rounds summarized herein include:
Sixteen groundwater monitoring wells (GZ-2, GZ-3, GZ-8U, GZ-8L, GZ-9U, GZ-9L, GZ-9D, GZ-10U, GZ-10L,
GZ-11U, GZ-11L, GZ-12L, GZ-13L, GZ-14U, GZ-14L, GZ-16D, and GZ-17L);
Three surface water sampling locations (Stream-1, Stream-2, and Stream-3);
On-site dug well (Dug Well-1) that formerly serviced the residence at 8 Rennie Road; 21
Eleven residential water supply wells (7 Rennie Road, 9 Rennie Road, 26 Rennie Road, 39 Rennie Road,
7 Dairy Lane, 9 Dairy Lane, 2 Ferson Road, 8 Ferson Road, 562 Hanover Center Road, 566 Hanover Center
Road, and 594 Hanover Center Road);
The midpoint and final treated water (effluent) sampling points on the POE groundwater treatment system
installed at 9 Rennie Road; and
On-site water supply well WSW-1.
The decision to include sampling locations within a given sampling round was based on the cumulative results of
the prior sampling rounds. Refer to Table 3 and Table 5 for sampling dates for individual sampling locations.
The locations of the monitoring wells and residential water supply wells are illustrated on Figure 2 and Figure 3,
respectively. The approximate location of surface water sampling location Stream-1 is illustrated on Figure 2,
21 Referenced as Dug Well in previous reports. The dug well is located on the Site and formerly supplied water to the residence
located off site at 8 Rennie Road.
May 6, 2016
04.0190030.02
Page | 13
and the approximate locations of surface water sampling locations Stream-2 and Stream-3 are illustrated on
Figure 3.
Water quality samples were collected in accordance with State of New Hampshire Code of Administrative Rules
Env-Or 610.02 (Sampling and Analysis), and submitted for laboratory analysis of 1,4-dioxane using low level
analytical methods (EPA Method 8260 Selective Ion Method [SIM]). Groundwater monitoring wells were purged
prior to sampling and groundwater samples were collected using inertia and peristaltic pumps. Groundwater
purged from monitoring wells was discharged to the ground surface and allowed to infiltrate near the respective
wellhead.
Water supply wells were sampled following a 20-minute purge of water from the well, and purging water from
any additional piping as appropriate.
Treatment system midpoint and effluent (treated water) samples were collected from the POE treatment
system at 7 Rennie Road on a monthly frequency to evaluate the performance of the treatment system.
Midpoint and effluent samples were analyzed for 1,4-dioxane using low level analytical methods (EPA Method
8260 SIM).
Prior to collecting water quality samples from water supply well WSW-1 and sentinel well GZ-16D, one well
volume was removed from each of the wells and the wells allowed to stabilize for approximately 24 hours. As
requested by NHDES, groundwater purged from WSW-1 and GZ-16D prior to sampling was containerized until
receipt of the results of the analyses for 1,4-dioxane indicating that 1,4-dioxane was not detected above the RL.
Samples were subsequently collected from five depths within each well using a peristaltic pump and tubing
weighted and lowered to the selected depths. Sample collection depths were based on the potential locations
of water bearing fractures as described in Section 2.3.1. Within well WSW-1, samples were collected at depths
of 120, 155, 250, 490, and 570 feet. Within well GZ-16D, samples were collected at depths of 50, 115, 156, 200,
and 250 feet.
Water quality samples were submitted to EAI for low level analysis of 1,4-dioxane by United States
Environmental Protection Agency Method 8260B SIM with a laboratory reporting limit (RL) of 0.25 g/L. EAIs
analytical laboratory reports are included in Appendix D.
Duplicate samples were collected from selected locations as noted in Table 3 and Table 5. The results of prior
sampling and analysis for 1,4-dioxane are also summarized in Table 3 and Table 5 for comparison to the recent
data.
GZA understands that two additional active off-site residential water supply wells were sampled by the owners
of the properties. Analytical laboratory reports for the residential water supply wells sampled by their owners
have not been received by Dartmouth or GZA. The locations these water supply wells are listed in Table 5 and
their approximate locations illustrated on Figure 3.
Findings associated with the collected data include:
With the exception of the results from the analysis of samples collected from the residential water supply
well at 9 Rennie Road, the analysis of each of the off-site residential water supply well samples did not
detect 1,4-dioxane above the RL;
May 6, 2016
04.0190030.02
Page | 14
The analysis of samples from the residential water supply well at 9 Rennie Road detected 1,4-dioxane at
concentrations ranging from 4.5 g/L (April 11, 2016) to 6.7 g/L (January 6, 2016). The results of the
analyses are consistent with the results of the analysis of samples collected during prior sampling rounds
(5.9 g/L to 6.2 g/L). Recent water quality data suggest a potential temporal decreasing concentration
trend (Chart 3).
Results of the analysis of samples collected from the midpoint and final treated water for the POE treatment
system at 9 Rennie Road did not detect 1,4-dioxane above the RL, and indicate that the POE treatment
system has been removing 1,4-dioxane.
Results of the analysis of samples collected from the on-site Dug Well-1 (8 Rennie Road) range from 1.5 g/L
(January 6, 2016) to 2.8 g/L (October 1, 2015) (duplicate sample 3.0 g/L) and are consistent with the
analysis of samples previously collected from this location. The concentration detected in the October 1,
2015 sample is the highest detected in the samples collected from this location. However, the
concentration of 1,4-dioxane detected in the April 13, 2106 sample was the lowest detected (0.93 g/L).
Results of the analysis of surface water samples collected from on-site surface water sampling location
Stream-1 range from 0.85 g/L (April 13, 2016) to 1.5 g/L (December 9, 2015 and January 6, 2016) and are
consistent with the analysis of samples previously collected from this location.
Results of the analysis of surface water samples collected from off-site surface water sampling locations
Stream-2 and Stream-3 did not detect 1,4-dioxane above the RL.
Results of the analysis of groundwater samples collected from monitoring well GZ-9L range from 77 g/L
(April 12, 2016) to 350 g/L (November 10, 2015). The results of the analysis of the samples is generally
consistent with the results of the analysis of prior samples, which range from 270 g/L (July 8, 2015) to
520 g/L (July 22, 2015). However, collectively the concentration data indicate a consistent and rapidly
decreasing temporal concentration trend from July 22, 2015 through April 12, 2016 (Chart 1).
Results of the analysis of groundwater samples collected from monitoring well GZ-10L range from 0.95 g/L
(April 12, 2016) to 1.3 g/L (December 9, 2015). The results of the analysis of the samples is consistent with
the results of the analysis of prior samples, which range from 0.98 g/L (July 8, 2015) (duplicate sample 1.0
g/L) to 1.6 g/L (September 15, 2015).
Results of the analysis of groundwater samples collected from monitoring wells GZ-2 and GZ-3, located
proximate to the source area range from 52 g/L (GZ-3; November 10, 2015) to 4.3 g/L (GZ-3; April 11,
2016). Collectively, the 1,4-dioxane concentration data for monitoring well GZ-2 indicate a downward
temporal concentration trend from a maximum concentration of 370 g/L (July 2012) to 21 g/L (April 2016)
(Chart 1).
Results of the analyses of samples collected from the recently installed wells are summarized in the
following table.
May 6, 2016
04.0190030.02
Page | 15
Locations
1,4-dioxane
Concentration Range
(g/L)
GZ-12L, GZ-13L,
GZ-14L
GZ-14U
0.39 - 27
550 - 600
GZ-9D
75 - 94
GZ-17L
3.5 4.1
GZ-16D
<0.25
WSW-1
<0.25
Future water quality sampling and analysis for the balance of 2016 will continue as described in GZAs
December 2, 2015 work plan.
3.0
CONCEPTUAL SITE MODEL
3.1
SITE LOCATION USE AND PHYSIOGRAPHY
The Site consists of a 223.49 acre parcel (Town of Hanover Tax Map 13, Block 14, Lot 1), with a street address of
572 Hanover Center Road, Hanover, New Hampshire. The limits of the Site are illustrated on Figure 1. In
addition to Hanover Center Road, the Site abuts Rennie, Visiting, and Wardrobe roads in Hanover. The Site is
located within a Rural Residential zone and is abutted residential and undeveloped lots. The majority of the Site
is wooded. Five large fields comprising approximately 20 acres of the Site are maintained by Dartmouth by
periodic mowing.
Prior to the 1960s the Site is believed to have been used for agricultural purposes. The Site is currently owned
by Dartmouth College which acquired the Site during the 1960s. During the period from approximately 1966 to
1987 Dartmouth Medical School used an approximate 0.25 acre portion of the Site for the disposal of laboratory
animal carcasses that had been used in radiological testing. An approximately 100-square-foot area adjacent to
the former animal carcass burial area was also used by Dartmouth Medical School for the burial of human
remains. The locations of the animal carcass and human remain burial areas are illustrated on Figure 2.
The only building located on the Site is a partially collapsed barn located near the entrance to the Site off of
Hanover Center Road and the former location of a residence at the Site that was demolished during 2011. The
barn and other site features are illustrated on Figure 2 and include:
An abandoned overburden water supply well (Dug Well) that formerly supplied water to a residence at
8 Rennie Road (Tax Map 13, Block 18, Lot 1);
An abandoned overburden water supply (Dug Well-2) located adjacent to a field within the south central
portion of the Site. This well was recently identified at the Site by GZA and has not been sampled;
An abandoned drilled bedrock water supply well located approximately 100 feet north of the barn. This well
was recently identified at the Site by GZA and has not been sampled;
May 6, 2016
04.0190030.02
Page | 16
Stone and concrete foundations (barn and possible grain silo) located to the north of the Site entrance; and
An approximate 10 foot by 10 foot area marked by a post and chain fence used for the burial of human
remains by the Dartmouth Medical School proximate to the former historical animal carcass burial area.
The remainder of the description of the Site included in this section is focused on the area within the vicinity of
the former animal carcass burial area.
The topography of the Site and surrounding area are illustrated on Figure 1A. Ground surface elevation22 within
the former animal carcass burial area is approximately 1,080 feet, and slopes gradually downward to the east.
Beginning approximately 100 feet east of the burial area the ground surface slopes more rapidly downward to
the east, and the southern branch of an unnamed tributary of Hewes Brook at approximately elevation 890 feet.
3.2
SURFACE WATER
As described in Section 2.1.3, the southern branch of the unnamed tributary of Hewes Brook is the nearest
significant surface water feature to the Site. The stream is located approximately 900 feet east of the Site.
However, a small tributary to the southern branch of the unnamed tributary is originates on the Site at the
approximate location of the on-site Dug Well 23 and springs located downslope of Dug Well. The small tributary
may be an intermittent stream within portions of its reach and flows east to the southern branch of the
unnamed tributary.
The confluence of the south branch and north branch of the unnamed tributary is located approximately
1,400 feet northeast of the former animal carcass burial area. The confluence of the unnamed tributary and
Hewes Brook is located approximately 1 mile north-northwest of the former animal carcass burial area. Hews
Brook discharges to the Connecticut River at a point approximately 2.8 miles northwest of the former animal
carcass burial area.
An unnamed tributary of the Connecticut River originates approximately 1,150 feet west of the former animal
carcass burial area. The locations of surface water bodies within the vicinity of the Site are illustrated on Figure
1 and Figure 1A.
3.3
PREVIOUS SITE INVESTIGATION AND REMEDIATION
Prior to 2012, investigation and remedial work at the Site was related to the removal of animal carcasses used
by the Dartmouth Medical School in testing involving radionuclides and surrounding soils potential
contaminated with radionuclides. The animal carcasses and surrounding soil were excavated during late 2011
and subsequently removed from the Site. Clym Environmental Services, LLC (Clym) and GZA performed the
previous work for Dartmouth College, under the authorization of the Radiological Health Section of the New
Hampshire Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS). Radionuclide related work at the Site has been
completed and the DHHS file closed.
22
23
Referenced to NAVD 88.

Dug well formerly used as water supply for 8 Rennie Road.
May 6, 2016
04.0190030.02
Page | 17
Animal carcasses were buried over time within a series of pits. A sketch showing the approximate locations of
the burial pits is included in Appendix E. During the excavation of the animal carcasses, laboratory waste was
encountered within a portion of the former animal carcass burial area including pits 34 through 43. Prior to the
observation of laboratory waste in the excavation area, there was no information that laboratory wastes were
disposed of at the Site. The presence of laboratory waste in the exaction was not expected. Soils exhibiting the
presence of VOCs, based on field screening for total VOCs, chemical odors, or purple staining were observed
within pits 34 through 43. Confirmatory composite soil sampling of the sidewalls and bottom of these pits was
performed by Clym, and the samples submitted for analytical laboratory analyses including VOCs and semiVOCs. A list of the analytical parameters and results of the analyses are included in GZAs April 23, 2013 letter
report 24. Table 2 of GZAs April 23, 2013 letter report provides a summary of the results of the analyses of the
soil samples and is included in Appendix E. A limited number of organic compounds were detected, however,
none of the compounds were detected at concentrations approaching or exceeding SRS or NHDES Hw 400
Identification and Listing of Hazardous Waste toxicity characteristic standards. VOCs were only detected in the
soil sample from pit number 41, and include toluene, naphthalene, and tetrachloroethylene (TCE).
Groundwater quality monitoring following the removal of the animal carcasses is described in reports by GZA
submitted to the NHDES including reports dated December 9, 2011, 25 January 17, 2012, 26 April 23, 2012, and
June 14, 2012. 27 The VOC 1,4-dioxane was first detected in a sample collected from well GZ-2 on April 19, 2012
at a concentration of 150 /L. NHDES was notified of the detection of 1,4-dioxane in groundwater at a
concentration exceeding the NH AGQS in GZAs letter dated June 14, 2012. The ongoing investigation activities
are related to the detection of 1,4-dioxane in groundwater quality samples initially collected during the previous
work at the Site.
Investigation activities related to 1,4-dioxane have been focused on the delineation of 1,4-dioxane in
groundwater and have included installation of 19 supplemental monitoring wells and collection of water supply
well and surface water samples. Previous reports by GZA describing these activities include reports dated June
24, 2014, 28 December 31, 2014, 29 November 11, 2015, 30 and February 10, 2016 31. Additional letters describing
groundwater quality monitoring during 2012 and 2013 were submitted to NHDES. Data included in these letters
are included in Table 3.
24 Report by GZA titled Dartmouth College Rennie Farm Site, Chemical Waste Management/Groundwater Monitoring Program,
Etna, New Hampshire.
25 Report by GZA titled Dartmouth College Rennie Farm Site, Discovery and Management of Chemical Wastes, Etna, New
Hampshire.
26 Report by GZA titled Dartmouth College Rennie Farm Site, Chemical Waste Management/Groundwater Monitoring Program,
Etna, New Hampshire.
27 Report by GZA titled Dartmouth College Rennie Farm Site, Groundwater Monitoring Results/Notice of AGQS Exceedance, Etna,
New Hampshire.
28 Letter report by GZA titled Supplemental Hydrogeologic Investigation Work Plan, Dartmouth College, Rennie Farm Site, Hanover
29 Letter report by GZA titled Letter Report and Work Plan, Supplemental Hydrogeologic Investigation, Dartmouth College, Rennie
Farm Site, Hanover Center Road, Hanover, New Hampshire, NHDES Site No. 201111109, DES Project No. 277737.
30 Letter report by GZA titled Letter Report, Off-Site Water Supply Well Sampling, Dartmouth College, Rennie Farm Site, Hanover
31 Letter report by GZA titled Water Quality Monitoring Summary, Dartmouth College, Rennie Farm Site, Hanover Center Road,
Hanover, New Hampshire, NHDES Site No. 201111109, DES Project No. 277737.
May 6, 2016
04.0190030.02
Page | 18
3.4
HYDROGEOLOGY
Geology
Site geology includes laterally discontinuous deposits of glacial till overlying fractured bedrock. The thickness of
the glacial till deposits, where borings have been performed on the Site, is up to approximately 25 feet (GZ-7L).
The arithmetic average thickness is approximately 13 feet based on 22 locations where borings have been drilled
to the probable bedrock surface at the Site. Samples of glacial till collected from borings drilled at the Site vary
in grain size, but generally range from silt with some fine to coarse gravel and trace sand, to fine to medium
sand and silt and little clay. Probable boulders have been encountered while drilling borings and probable large
boulders have been observed at the ground surface.
Bedrock cored at the Site has been described by GZA as a medium hard to hard, highly to moderately
weathered, fine to coarse grained, gray, schist, with steeply dipping to near vertical fractures. Bedrock geologic
maps depicting the Site vicinity 32, indicate bedrock beneath the Site consists of Orfordville Formation middle
metamorphic grade black to dark-gray mica-quartz schist, mica schist, garnet schist and quartzite. However,
more recent published bedrock geologic maps 33 identify bedrock beneath the Site as part of the Partridge
Formation, which is described as a black, rusty-weathering sulfidic-graphitic slate or schist and abundant
metagraywacke. Both of these descriptions are inclusive of the lithology observed at bedrock out crops at the
Site and within the vicinity of the Site, and of the bedrock core samples collected from the Site.
The bedrock geologic maps referenced above indicate the predominance of bedding features trending toward
the northeast and generally dipping steeply toward the southeast and northwest in the vicinity of the Site, as
well as northeasterly trending vertical foliations and schistosity. As described in Section 2.1 and Section 2.2,
inspection of bedrock outcrops within the vicinity of the Site indicate that the bedrock fracture system is
dominated by fractures striking to the northeast. The northeast striking fractures dip steeply toward the
northwest with some fractures nearly vertically dipping. A limited number of more northerly striking steeply
dipping fractures are also likely present. Additionally, a limited number of low angle apparently randomly
oriented fractures are also likely present beneath and within the vicinity of the Site. Bedrock geologic
information summarized from review of geologic maps and bedrock mapping described in Section 2.1 are
summarized on Figure 4.
As described in Section 2.2, the locations of 10 potential fracture zones (PFZ) have been identified based on the
bedrock structural mapping, and the VLF and ERI surveys. The locations of the PFZs are illustrated along with
selected contoured VLF data provided by Hager-Richter on Figure 5. The average strike of PVZs 3 through 8 is
N44E, and consistent with the range of strikes (N30E N45E) estimated by Hager-Richter based on the bedrock
outcrop mapping. The strike of PFZ 9 was estimated by Hager- Richter as N8E. Only PFZ 9 transects the area
immediately downgradient of the former animal burial area through which 1,4-dioxane is transported.
32 Including the Geologic Map and Structure Sections of the Mascoma Quadrangle, New Hampshire published 1938 and the Geologic
Map and Structure Sections of the Mt. Cube Quadrangle, New Hampshire published 1938
33 Lyons et al. (1991), A New Bedrock Geologic Map of New Hampshire, revised and automated at the Complex Systems Research
Center of the University of New Hampshire, Durham, New Hampshire.
May 6, 2016
04.0190030.02
Page | 19
Groundwater
Saturated overburden is discontinuous and may be perched on the bedrock surface within certain areas, with
the presence and direction of groundwater flow locally controlled by the topography of the bedrock surface and
presence of fractures. Consequently, the overall lateral direction of groundwater flow within overburden
downgradient of the former animal carcass burial area is anticipated to be generally toward the east-northeast
consistent with the ground surface topography.
Within fractured bedrock, groundwater flow is controlled by the orientation of interconnected open fractures.
Hydraulic head data are summarized in Table 6. Hydraulic head data based on measurements of depth-togroundwater made on March 8, 2016 are shown on Figure 6 along with estimated hydraulic head contours
based on hydraulic head data for groundwater monitoring wells screened within shallow fracture bedrock. Due
to the dependence of hydraulic head with fracture bedrock on the connectivity of interconnected fractures, the
lateral distribution of hydraulic head inferred by the contours should be interpreted as indicating an overall
lateral hydraulic gradient toward the east. Based on the prevalence of northeasterly striking fractures and
detected distribution of 1,4-dioxane downgradient of the source area, the likely lateral component of
groundwater flow is primarily toward the northeast. However, groundwater flow within fractures oriented
toward the east or series of fractures that create an interconnected pathway toward the east may result in a
component of groundwater flow toward the east.
Groundwater flow toward the north-northeast may also be possible along the limited number of fractures
oriented toward the north and more notability within PFZ 9 which transects the area immediately downgradient
of the former animal carcass burial area.
Due to the fracture controlled nature of bedrock groundwater flow within the Site vicinity, calculation of rates of
groundwater flow based on hydraulic head and hydraulic conductivity are not possible. As described in
Section 3.6, GZA estimates a minimum bulk direction of groundwater flow of more than 0.6 feet per day based
on 1,4-dioxane concentration data and our understanding of Site conditions.
The vertical component of the hydraulic head gradient was evaluated, based on the calculated hydraulic head
data for the couplet and triplet well locations, and the observation of flowing artisan conditions at shallow
fractured bedrock groundwater monitoring well GZ-17L. Arrows qualitatively indicating the direction of the
vertical component of the hydraulic head gradient are included on Figure 6 and Figure 9. In general, the vertical
component of hydraulic head within the upland area closer to the former animal carcass burial area is
downward, and then becomes upward with distance down slope (GZ-11U/L and GZ-17L). However, within the
former animal carcass burial area a limited upward vertical component of hydraulic head has been measured at
well couplet GZ-14U/L. The upward gradient within the well couplet is likely related to recharge events within
the surrounding upland area, and may be intermittent. Similar to the lateral component of hydraulic head, the
vertical gradients are a function of fracture connectivity and likely vary spatially.
3.5
CONTAMINANT SOURCE
1,4-dioxane is the primary contaminant currently detected at the Site. Based on our understanding of the use of
1,4-dioxane in radiological analyses and the presence of laboratory waste materials encountered while
excavating animal carcasses at the Site during late 2011, the likely source of the 1,4-dioxane is the burial of
laboratory waste containing scintillation fluids, which can contain 1,4-dioxane. 1,4-dioxane was also detected in
May 6, 2016
04.0190030.02
Page | 20
one soil sample collected from GZ-14L at a concentration of 0.15 mg/kg. While the detected concentration is
low and well below the SRS, the presence of 1,4-dioxane in soil suggests that GZ-14U/L is located within the
source area and burial pits 34 through 43.
In addition to 1,4-dioxane, analysis of groundwater samples collected from wells GZ-1, GZ-2, GZ-3, and GZ-4 for
VOCs using EPA Method 8260B during the period from November 20, 2009 through December 19, 2013
detected naphthalene and diethyl ether in certain samples including:
Naphthalene in a sample collected from well GZ-1 (October 12, 2010 2.2 g/L);
Diethyl ether in samples collected from well GZ-2 (May 23, 2012, 9 g/L; March 12, 2013, 9 g/L;
June 20, 2013, 6 g/L; July 31, 2013, 13 g/L; and September 23, 2013, 5 g/L); and
Diethyl ether in samples collected from well GZ-3 (September 25, 2013, 17 g/L; and December 19,
2013, 23 g/L).
The NH AGQS for naphthalene and diethyl ether are 1,400 g/L and 20 g/L, respectively.
Certain groundwater samples were also collected for analysis of semi-VOCs by EPA Method 8270D.
Naphthalene was detected in one or more sample collected from GZ-1, GZ-2, GZ-3, and GZ-4 at concentrations
ranging from 0.1 g/L to 0.4 g/L. The results of previous groundwater sampling and analysis for parameters
other than 1,4-dioxane are summarized on Table E.1.
Other than 1,4-dioxane, naphthalene and diethyl ether, no other VOCs or semi-VOCs were detected by the
previous groundwater sampling. As noted in Section 3.3, toluene, naphthalene, and TCE were detected in a
composite soil sample collected from animal carcass burial pit number 41.
To evaluate the potential presence of VOCs including, toluene, naphthalene, diethyl ether and TCE in
downgradient groundwater, GZA collected groundwater samples from monitoring wells GZ-9L and GZ-10L for
laboratory analysis for VOCs 8260B on September 15, 2015. The results of the analyses did not detect
naphthalene or diethyl ether above the reporting limits (5 g/L for both naphthalene and diethyl ether).
Based on the results of the soil and groundwater quality data from the source area and downgradient wells,
1,4-dioxane is the only identified VOC detected at concentrations exceeding regulatory standards, and is the
only VOC that has been detected in samples of groundwater collected downgradient of the area immediately
surrounding the source area.
Important properties of 1,4-dioxane include:
Miscibility in water;
Limited tendency to become sorbed to soil particles (low octanol-water coefficient of -0.27 log Kow);
Low volatility making it difficult to volatilize (low Henrys Law Constant of 4.80x10-6 atmosphere-cubic
meters per mole).
May 6, 2016
04.0190030.02
Page | 21
These properties result in 1,4-dioxane being advectively transported in groundwater rapidly compared to most
contaminants, and making it difficult to remove from groundwater. Based on the properties of 1,4-dioxane and
our understanding of conditions and activities at the Site, the remaining source of 1,4-dioxane at the Site is likely
1,4-dioxane dissolved in overburden groundwater within the former animal carcass burial area (source area).
The area that includes burial pits 34 through 43 likely contains the original source area.
Prior to the excavation of animal carcasses during late 2011, it was not known that 1,4-dioxane was contained
within the source area. However, groundwater 1,4-dioxane concentration data for samples collected from wells
GZ-2 and GZ-3 collectively suggest that 1,4-dioxane concentrations in groundwater may have increased during
the excavation of animal carcasses. This conclusion is supported by the following:
The 1,4-dioxane concentration trend for samples collected from well GZ-2 (located immediately
downgradient of the source area) illustrated on Chart 1 suggests an increasing concentration trend from
April 19, 2012 to July 25, 2012 and a decreasing concentration trend from July 25, 2012 to the present;
1,4-dioxane was only detected in samples collected from well GZ-4 during three sampling events at
concentrations including 0.37 g/L (July 31, 2013), 0.59 g/L (June 20, 2013), and 1.4 (March 13, 2013).
1,4-dioxane was not detected above a reporting limit of 0.25 g/L in samples collected during five
subsequent sampling rounds. The short period and timing of low concentration detections of 1,4-dioxane in
samples from GZ-4 is consistent with an expanding and subsequently retracting plume moving along an axis
between GZ-3 and GZ-4 following the excavation of animal carcasses during late 2011.
Although only detected at low concentrations, diethyl ether was not detected in samples collected from well
GZ-2 prior to May 23, 2012, and was not detected in samples collected from well GZ-3 until September 25,
2013. Diethyl ether was included in multiple pre-excavation sampling rounds with RLs of 2 g/L to 5 g/L;
and
1,4-dioxane was not detected in groundwater samples collected prior to April 2012.
GZA notes that 1,4-dioxane was only included as a target VOC in the pre-excavation sampling round performed
on November 29, 2011 and that the analytical method used was EPA Method 8260B and had an RL of 50 g/L.
However, the concentration of 1,4-dioxane detected in samples collected from GZ-2 during the following nine
sampling rounds (April 19, 2011 through December 19, 2013) were greater than 50 g/L, suggesting that it
would have been detected if present at the time of the November 29, 2011 sampling round.
3.6
CONTAMINANT DISTRIBUTION, TRANSPORT, AND FATE
The following subsections summarize the distribution and anticipated transport of 1,4-dioxane within and
downgradient of the source area. 1,4-dioxane concentration data are summarized in Table 3, and recent
1,4-dioxane concentration data are illustrated on Figure 7 and Figure 8. Due to the properties of 1,4-dioxane,
1,4-dioxane is anticipated to be transported within groundwater by advection with hydrodynamic dispersion
eventually attenuating the concentration to below RLs. No significant sorption or transformation are
anticipated.
May 6, 2016
04.0190030.02
Page | 22
Source Area
1,4-dioxane has been detected in groundwater monitoring wells within and immediately downgradient of the
source area including overburden wells GZ-2, GZ-3, GZ-4, and GZ-14U and shallow bedrock wells GZ-12L, GZ-13L,
and GZ-14L. Wells GZ-12L, GZ-13L, GZ-14U, and GZ-14L are located within or proximate to the area including
burial pits 34 through 43. The recent concentrations of 1,4-dioxane detected in groundwater samples collected
from source area fractured bedrock monitoring wells ranges from 27 g/L (GZ-14L) to 0.39 g/L (GZ-13L), while
the concentration of 1,4-dioxane detected in groundwater samples collected from overburden source area well
range from 550 g/L to 600 g/L. T
The vertical concentration gradient within monitoring well couplet GZ-14U/L suggests that the majority of
1,4-dioxane remaining in the source area is dissolved in groundwater and is within overburden. The bedrock
surface and potentially an upward hydraulic gradient within the source area, as suggested by calculated
estimates of hydraulic head in well couplet GZ-14U/L, likely limit downward vertical transport of 1,4-dioxane
into bedrock within the source area. This model suggests that groundwater movement and 1,4-dioxane
transport from the source area is primarily laterally eastward through the overburden.
The concentrations of 1,4-dioxane detected in groundwater samples collected from well GZ-2 have historically
been greater than the concentrations detected in samples collected from wells GZ-3 and GZ-4, and indicate that
GZ-2 is likely close to the axis of the plume within overburden immediately east of the source area. 1,4-dioxane
concentration data for well GZ-2 and GZ-3 are summarized on Chart 1. As noted in Section 3.5, the 1,4-dioxane
concentration trend for GZ-2 suggests a decreasing concentration trend with time from 370 g/L (July 25, 2012)
to 21 g/L at the time of the collection of the most recent sample from this well (April 11, 2016). The
concentrations of 1,4-dioxane detected in samples collected from well GZ-3 are lower and more variable with
maximum of 59 g/L (December 19, 2013), minimum of 2.7 g/L (July 8, 2015), and a current concentration of
4.3 g/L (April 11, 2016). The 1,4-dioxane concentration data for GZ-3 suggest that it is located near the
northern edge of the overburden plume. 1,4-dioxane was detected for a short period at relatively low
concentrations during 2013 in samples collected from GZ-4, suggesting that the current southern limit of 1,4dioxane in overburden groundwater is north of GZ-4.
Downgradient
Hydraulic head and 1,4-dioxane concentration data from well couplets GZ-5U/L and GZ-7U/L suggest that
downgradient of the source area 1,4-dioxane is transported with groundwater from overburden into bedrock.
Further downgradient at well triplet GZ-9U/L/D and well couplet GZ-10U/L 1,4-dioxane has not been detected in
samples collected from the wells screened within overburden GZ-9U and GZ-10U, suggesting that prior to
reaching these wells the groundwater containing 1,4-dioxane has entered into the fractured bedrock
groundwater system.
Based on the general vertically downward component of the hydraulic head gradient measured at GZ-5U/L and
GZ-10U/L, the flowing artesian condition at the Dug Well is anticipated to be due a change in topography that
occurs at the location of the well, and groundwater discharge from the overburden groundwater system to the
stream. The presence of 1,4-dioxane in water quality samples collected from the Dug Well is anticipated to be
due to the presence of 1,4-dioxane in overburden groundwater.
May 6, 2016
04.0190030.02
Page | 23
Laterally the 1,4-dioxane plume within shallow fractured bedrock is bounded to the north and south by well
couplets GZ-8U/L and GZ-11U/L. The concentrations of 1,4-dioxane detected in samples collected from well GZ9L and GZ-9D suggest that well triplet GZ-9U/L/D is located along the axis of the 1,4-dioxane plume moving from
the source area to the northeast. A northeast direction of 1,4-dioxane transport is consistent with orientation of
the primary fracture set within the vicinity of the Site. 1,4-dioxane concentration data for samples collected
from well GZ-9L are summarized on Chart 2 and indicate a steeply decreasing temporal concentration trend
from 550 g/L in a sample collected on July 22, 2015 to 77 g/L in a sample collected on April 11, 2016.
Continued collection of 1,4-dioxane data over time are needed to further evaluate this trend.
The presence of 1,4-dioxane in samples collected from well GZ-9D and downward component of the vertical
hydraulic head gradient between GZ-9L and GZ-9D indicates downward transport of 1,4-dioxane to below
elevation 915 feet. Closer to the midpoint of the valley to the east of the source area occupied by the unnamed
tributary of Hewes Book, the vertical component of hydraulic head is anticipated to become upward as a result
of the hydraulic head associated with the upland area to further to the east. The hydraulic head associated with
the upland area to the east is anticipated to create a boundary to groundwater flow toward the east and
northeast and may result in groundwater flow towed the north and groundwater discharge within the valley.
Hydraulic head and 1,4-dioxane concentration data collected to the northeast of the Site are needed to further
evaluate groundwater flow and 1,4-dioxane transport east of the Site and completion of the delineation of the
plume. The detection of 1,4-dioxane at concentrations of between 75 g/L and 94 g/L at this depth are
consistent with the primary direction of groundwater flow and transport through the northeast striking fracture
set, and being located along the axis of the 1,4-dioxane plume.
The relatively low concentrations of 1,4-dioxane detected in groundwater samples collected from well GZ-10L is
consistent with transport within fractured bedrock primarily toward the northeast due to the predominance of
northeast striking fractures.
Shallow fractured bedrock groundwater monitoring well GZ-17L is located at the downgradient Site boundary
approximately 750 feet from the source area and is the most distant on-site location along the anticipated axis
of the 1,4-dioxane plume relative to the source area.
The water supply well for 9 Rennie Road is the most distant location, relative to the source area, where
1,4-dioxane has been detected, and is located approximately 850 feet from the source area. The 9 Rennie Road
water supply well is not located along the anticipated direction of 1,4-dioxane transport. Based on our
understanding of Site hydrogeology and the spatial distribution of 1,4-dioxane, the likely transport pathway
from the source area to the water supply well includes transport initially through the primary steeply dipping
northeasterly striking fracture set, and subsequent transport to the water supply well through a relatively low
angle fracture. Borehole geophysical logging and zone sampling within the water supply well at 9 Rennie Road
is needed to further evaluate transport of 1,4-dioxane to this water supply well.
The source area and downgradient plume area within the fracture bedrock groundwater system are not located
within the northeast trending PFZs identified by Hager-Richter. However, the PFZs are anticipated to be
indicative of the overall northeasterly striking fracture set, with many similarly striking fractures anticipated to
be located between the PFZs. 1,4-dioxane transport is likely occurring along these fractures between the
northeast striking PFZs. Significantly, PFZ 9 which strikes north-northeast transects the plume to the east of the
source area. Additional water quality and hydraulic head data are needed to evaluate the potential effects of
PFZ 9 on 1,4-dioxane transport.
May 6, 2016
04.0190030.02
Page | 24
3.7
IDENTIFIED AND POTENTIAL RECEPTORS
Identified potential exposure pathways to 1,4-dioxane from the Site include exposure to 1,4-dioxane in
groundwater and surface water containing groundwater discharged to surface water. Human exposure to
groundwater would be primarily through ingestion of groundwater from a private water supply well.
A total of 17 active private water supply wells have been sampled within the area potentially downgradient of
the source area. Other than the water supply well at 9 Rennie Road, 1,4-dioxane has not been detected in water
quality samples collected from active water supply wells.
The water supply well at 9 Rennie Road is the only identified receptor of 1,4-dioxane from the Site. Bottled
water was supplied to the residence at 9 Rennie Road immediately following the detection of 1,4-dioxane in
water samples collected from the well on September 18, 2015, and a point-of-entry (POE) treatment system
installed on November 2, 2015. The POE treatment system consists of two parallel trains of granular activated
carbon (GAC) vessels, with each train including two 2-cubic-foot GAC vessels. The POE treatment system further
is described in GZAs November 11, 2015 letter report. Monthly sampling of the water supply well POE
treatment system midpoint and final treated water is ongoing and has not indicated breakthrough of the
primary pair of GAC vessels.
1,4-dioxane has been detected at concentrations below NH AGQS within in surface water samples collected on
Site from the stream that originates at the Dug Well downgradient of the source area (Stream-1). Sampling of
the south branch of the unnamed stream to which flow from the on-site stream contributes and the unnamed
stream downstream of the confluence of the south branch and unnamed stream (Stream-3) have not detected
1,4-dioxane (see Figure 3 for steam and sampling locations). The reach of the stream from the Dug Well to the
south branch of the unnamed stream are a potential pathway for nonhuman receptors.
4.0
CONCLUSIONS
The following summarize GZAs conclusions based on the results of the Phase I Supplemental Hydrogeologic
Investigation activities summarized in Section 2.0 and our understanding of Site conditions.
Bedrock geologic mapping and surficial geophysical surveys that include the Site and certain areas located
east of the Site support the presence of a predominant northeast striking fracture fabric, and the presence
of northeast striking PFZs. The identified PFZs do not transect the source area. Other fracture trends and
PFZs are present but less commonly observed including low angle fractures and PFZs striking northnortheast, north-northwest, and east-northeast. PFZ 9 strikes north-northeast and crosses the 1,4-dioxane
plume to the east of the source area.
Bedrock fracture orientation and the spatial distribution of 1,4-dioxane as detected in groundwater samples
are consistent with a primary direction of 1,4-dioxane transport in the fractured bedrock groundwater
system toward the northeast, and limited transport toward the east. 1,4-dioxane concentration data for the
water supply well at 9 Rennie Road and GZ-17L indicate the potential for 1,4-dioxane transport toward the
east and northeast of the Site at concentrations exceeding the NH AGQS. Transport of 1,4-dioxane within
overburden has been generally delineated and is limited to the Site. Transport of 1,4-dioxane in fractured
May 6, 2016
04.0190030.02
Page | 25
bedrock is anticipated to be within the anticipated zone conceptually illustrated on Figure 7 toward the
north, south and west of the source area. As previously concluded and proposed in GZAs December 2, 2015
work plan, collection of groundwater samples toward the northeast of the Site are needed to delineate
1,4-dioxane off-site.
Hydrogeologic and 1,4-dioxane soil and groundwater concentration data collected within the former animal
carcass burial area are consistent with the former animal carcass burial area being the source of the
1,4-dioxane detected at and downgradient of the Site. Due to previous documented observations during
excavation of the presence of VOCs proximate to former burial pits 34 through 43, this area of the burial
area are considered a component of the original source of the 1,4-dioxane.
Based on the properties of 1,4-dioxane and our understanding of conditions and activities at the Site, the
remaining source of 1,4-dioxane is likely dissolved in overburden groundwater within the source area.
The conceptual model of 1,4-dioxane transport includes: advective transport within overburden
groundwater toward the east and northeast, with vertically downward transport into the fractured bedrock
groundwater system with distance from the source area. Within the fractured bedrock groundwater system
groundwater flow and 1,4-dioxane occurs consistent with the dominant northeast bedrock fracture
orientation and also (if present) horizontal and sub horizontal fractures that would influence groundwater
flow consistent with bulk hydraulic gradients in the area. This relatively generalized understanding of
groundwater flow and contaminant transport in bedrock is, and our conceptual model relies on, the overall
frequency of fracture trends which supports the northeasterly transport. Borehole specific data are needed
to develop opinions on transport in specific fractures.
Temporal 1,4-dioxane concentration trends for well GZ-2 and other water quality data for samples collected
from wells GZ-2, GZ-3, and GZ-4 collectively suggest that the excavation of animal carcasses during late 2011
may have created an increase in 1,4-dioxane concentrations in groundwater. Additional water quality trend
data are needed to further evaluate attenuation over time.
With the exception of the results from the analysis of samples collected from the residential water supply
well at 9 Rennie Road, the analysis of each of the 17 active off-site residential water supply well samples did
not detect 1,4-dioxane above the RL.
The analysis of samples from the residential water supply well at 9 Rennie Road detected 1,4-dioxane at
concentrations ranging from 4.5 g/L (April 11, 2016) to 6.7 g/L (January 6, 2016). The results of the
analyses are consistent with the results of the analysis of samples collected during prior sampling rounds
(5.9 g/L to 6.2 g/L).
Results of the analysis of samples collected from the midpoint and final treated water for the POE treatment
system at 9 Rennie Road did not detect 1,4-dioxane above the RL, and indicate that the POE treatment
system has been removing 1,4-dioxane.
Identified potential exposure pathways to 1,4-dioxane from the Site include exposure to 1,4-dioxane in
groundwater and surface water containing groundwater discharged to surface water. Human exposure to
groundwater would be primarily through ingestion of groundwater from a private water supply well.
May 6, 2016
04.0190030.02
Page | 26
1,4-dioxane has been detected at concentrations below NH AGQS within in surface water samples collected
on Site from the stream that originates at the Dug Well downgradient of the source area (Stream-1). The
reach of the stream from the Dug Well to the south branch of the unnamed stream are a potential pathway
for nonhuman receptors.
5.0
RECOMMENDATIONS
The following summarize GZAs recommendations based on the conceptual model described in Section 3.0 and
conclusions summarized in Section 4.0.
Continued groundwater monitoring for 1,4-dioxane as described in the following table.

Location
Frequency
GZ-2, GZ-9L, GZ-9D, GZ-10D,

GZ-17L,
GZ-14U,
GZ-14L,
9 Rennie Road, Stream 1, and
Dug Well
Monthly
GZ-3, GZ-5U/L, 7 Rennie Road,

Stream-2
Quarterly
GZ-6, GZ-7U, GZ-7L, Stream-3
Biannually
Installation and sampling of monitoring wells to further delineate the limits of 1,4-dioxane in
groundwater necessary to establish a GMZ and GMP for the Site, and provide future compliance
monitoring wells. Proposed well installation activities are described in the Phase-II Supplemental
Hydrogeologic Investigation work plan in Appendix F.
Supplemental investigations within the source area to further characterize the 1,4-dioxane source and
support a remedial feasibility evaluation of the source area. Proposed source area investigation
activities are described in the Phase-II Supplemental Hydrogeologic Investigation work plan in
Appendix F.
p:\04jobs\0190000s\04.0190030.00\04.0190030.02\report\supplemental hydrogeologic investigation phase i\text\final 04 0190030 02 shi phase i report 050516.docx
Proactive by Design
Tables
TABLE 1
WATER WELL BOARD INFORMATION SUMMARY
DES Site #201111109, DES Project #27737
Location
108.0052
108.0398
108.0399
108.0301
108.0178
108.0353
108.0106
108.0058
108.0465
108.0502
108.0345
108.0193
108.0194
108.0289
146.0314
108.0148
108.0187
146.0319
108.0523
146.0133
146.0075
108.0107
108.0521
108.0092
108.0093
108.0157
108.0073
108.0072
108.0185
146.0026
108.0186
108.0397
108.0128
108.0155
108.0121
108.0118
Depth to Bedrock (ft)

4
5
3
6
23
8
0
8
52
4
15
42
52
5
7
8
16
2
90
117
102
105
0
73
69
31
70
50
11
5
20
45
84
18
20
0
Depth to Bottom (ft)

120
205
505
115
265
405
85
125
185
320
300
120
160
305
200
140
240
240
345
380
280
340
540
300
300
300
220
140
125
285
160
205
460
160
205
125
Flow Rate (GPM)

7.5
25
25
60
10
2
20
12
15
20
8.5
30
20
3
3
30
10
30
20
8
12
1.5
6.5
6
3
6
6
50
20
30
20
10
6
12
25
20
Address Where Sampled by GZA
562 Hanover Center Road

7 Dairy Lane
9 Dairy Lane
Notes:
1. Information based on review of New Hampshire Water Well Board records avaiable on the
NHDES OneStop website.
P:\04Jobs\0190000s\04.0190030.00\04.0190030.02\Report\Supplemental Hydrogeologic Investigation Phase I\Tables\

04.0190030.02 TABLE 1 050416.xlsx
TABLE 2
MONITORING WELL CONSTRUCTION SUMMARY
Well ID
GZ-1
GZ-2
GZ-3
GZ-4
GZ-5U
GZ-5L
GZ-6
GZ-7U
GZ-7L
GZ-8U
GZ-8L
GZ-9U
GZ-9L
GZ-9D
GZ-10U
GZ-10L
GZ-11U
GZ-11L
GZ-12L
GZ-13L
GZ-14U
GZ-14L
GZ-16D
GZ-17L
WSW-1
Screened
Hydrogeologic
Unit
Bedrock
Overburden
Overburden
Overburden
Overburden
Bedrock
Overburden
Overburden
Bedrock
Overburden
Bedrock
Overburden
Bedrock
Bedrock
Overburden
Bedrock
Overburden
Bedrock
Bedrock
Bedrock
Overburden
Bedrock
Bedrock
Bedrock
Bedrock
Ground Surface PVC Reference

Elevation
Point Elevation
1,083.63
1,086.73
1,077.93
1,081.91
1,076.81
1,079.93
1,081.17
1,084.47
1,043.19
1,045.57
1,042.57
1,045.37
1,062.38
1,065.04
1,061.48
1,064.44
1,061.76
1,064.71
1,046.33
1,049.28
1,046.41
1,049.38
1,009.12
1,011.31
1,008.10
1,010.33
1,007.46
1,009.93
999.55
1,002.09
999.78
1,002.50
985.29
987.97
985.63
988.34
1,080.60
1,083.29
1,080.90
1,083.52
1,079.50
1,081.87
1,079.70
1,082.06
1,089.50
1,090.80
968.90
971.40
1,038.50
1,039.60
Depth to
Bedrock
6.0
12.5
14.5
12.0
18.5
10.0
25.0
25.0
17.0
23.0
19.0
8.0
9.2
4.0
4.0
7.5
5.5
6.0
6.0
2.0
23.0
22.0
Bedrock Surface
Elevation
1,077.6
1,065.4
1,062.3
1,031.2
1,024.1
1,052.4
1,036.5
1,036.8
1,029.4
985.1
988.5
991.6
990.6
981.3
981.6
1,073.1
1,075.4
1,073.5
1,073.7
1,087.5
945.9
1,016.5
Depth-toGroundwater
Surface
Top of Well
Top of Well
Bottom of Well Bottom of Well Groundwater (38-16)
Screen Depth Screen Elevation Screen Depth Screen Elevation
Elevation
6.5
1,077.1
11.5
1,072.1
9.52
1,077.2
8.0
1,069.9
13.0
1,064.9
8.57
1,073.3
4.5
1,072.3
14.5
1,062.3
5.30
1,074.6
7.0
1,074.2
12.0
1,069.2
8.67
1,075.8
8.0
1,035.2
13.0
1,030.2
Frozen
25.0
1,017.6
30.0
1,012.6
Frozen
6.0
1,056.4
11.0
1,051.4
4.74
1,060.3
20.0
1,041.5
25.0
1,036.5
9.65
1,054.8
33.0
1,028.8
9.47
1,055.2
28.0
1,033.8
12.0
1,034.3
17.0
1,029.3
3.58
1,045.7
28.0
1,018.4
33.0
1,013.4
28.44
1,020.9
12.0
997.1
17.0
992.1
9.47
1,001.8
37.5
970.6
42.5
965.6
16.82
993.5
83
924.5
93
914.5
17.42
992.5
3.0
996.6
8.0
991.6
7.11
995.0
20.0
979.8
25.0
974.8
9.58
992.9
4.0
981.3
9.0
982.3
3.86
984.1
15.0
970.6
20.0
965.6
2.88
985.5
9.0
1,071.6
14.0
1,066.6
7.04
1,076.3
11.0
1,069.9
15.0
1,065.9
6.5
1,077.0
12.5
1,067.0
7.8
1,071.7
5.82
1,076.1
12.5
1,067.2
16.0
1,063.7
5.46
1,076.6
18.0
1,071.5
260.0
829.5
23.04
1,067.8
48.0
920.9
53.0
915.9
Frozen
120.0
918.5
580.0
458.5
16.18
1,023.4
Notes:
1. All Units are feet.
2. Vertical datum is NAVD 88.
3. Overburden at the site generally consist of glacial till deposits.
4. Well screen depths are relative to ground surface elevation; depth-to-groundwater is relative to top of PVC riser of monitoring well.
5. Refer to GZA's boring logs for additional information.
6. "-" indicates no data/not measured.
7. Locations of monitoring wells GZ-1 through GZ-17L and Water Supply Well WSW-1 are based on surveys by WSP Transportation and Infrastructure during October 2014, June 2015, and January 2016.

04.0190030.02 TABLE 2 050416.xlsx
TABLE 3
1,4-DIOXANE CONCENTRATION DATA SUMMARY
NHDES Site #201111109, DES Project #277737
(Revised April 21, 2016)
Date
11/20/09
10/12/10
5/19/11
10/27/11
11/29/11
12/5/11
12/12/11
12/19/11
4/19/12
5/23/12
7/25/12
11/30/12
3/13/13
6/20/13
7/31/13
9/25/13
12/19/13
4/17/14
6/12/14
8/22/14
9/5/14
7/8/15
7/22/15
9/15/15
10/1/15
11/10/15
12/9/15
1/6/16
2/11/16
2/19/16
3/8/16
4/11/16
GZ-1/R
<50
dry
<0.25
-
GZ-2
<50
150
190
250/370*
160/220*
170/220*
90/71*
120/150*
140/120*
90/94*
<50/9.6*
<50/91*
160
47
37/40
15
27
13
21
GZ-3
<50
<50
<50
<50/30*
<50/32*
<50/<0.25*
<50/3.9*
<50/4.2*
<50/25*
<50/59*
<50/19*
<50/2.7*
21
2.7
52
38
17
8.5
4.4
4.3
GZ-4
<50
<50
<50
<50/1.4*
<50/0.59*
<50/0.37*
<50/<0.25*
<50/<0.25*
<50/<0.25*
<50/<0.25*
dry
<0.25
-
GZ-5U
GZ-5L
GZ-6
GZ-7U
GZ-7L
GZ-8U
GZ-8L
GZ-9U
GZ-9L
Sampling Location
GZ-9D
GZ-10U
GZ-10L
GZ-11U
GZ-11L
GZ-12L
GZ-13L
GZ-14U
GZ-14L
GZ-17L
Dug Well
Stream - 1
Stream-2
Stream-3
Location not included in prior sampling rounds

Well not installed at time of sampling rounds
12/11
13
8.7
-
9.1
8.8
4.9
-
24
dry
17
-
dry
dry
5.9
-
2.1
3.1
1.1
-
<0.25
<0.25
<0.25
<0.25
<0.25
<0.25
<0.25
<0.25
<0.25
270
520
300/380*
350
340
300
290
160
77
75
83
94
<0.25
<0.25
<0.25
0.93/1.0
1.5
<50/1.6*
1.1
1.3
1.2
1.2
0.9
0.95
<0.25
<0.25
<0.25
<0.25
<0.25
<0.25
2.4
1.5
0.96
0.65
0.45
0.39
550
600
560
27
13
27
3.6
3.5
4.1
<50/1.8*
<50/1.5*
<50/1.2*
2.0
1.1
2.8/3.0
1.5
1.6
1.1
0.93
0.98
1.1
1.0
1.5
1.5
1.6
1.1
0.85
<0.25
<0.25
<0.25
<0.25
-
<0.25
<0.25
<0.25
<0.25
-
Notes:
1. Data indicate concentrations of 1,4-dioxane in micrograms per liter.
2. "<" indicates that 1,4-dioxane was not detected above the associated reporting limit.
3. "/" indicates results of labeled and blind duplicate sample, respectively.
4. "-" indicates sampling location not included in respective sampling round.
5." dry" indicates no water in monitoring well at the time of the respective sampling round.
6. "Value/Value*" indicates analysis for 1,4-dioxane perfroemed using EPA Method 8260B and 8260B SIM, respectively.

DRAFT 04.0190030.02 TABLE 3 and TABLE 4 042516.xlsx\
Table 3
TABLE 4
FIELD SCREENING DATA SUMMARY
NHDES Site #201111109, DES Project #277737
(Revised April 21, 2016)
Date
11/10/15
12/9/15
1/6/16
2/11/16
2/19/16
3/8/16
4/11/16
Date
11/10/15
12/9/15
1/6/16
2/11/16
2/19/16
3/8/16
4/11/16
GZ-1/R
GZ-2
Parameter: pH (Standard Units)
6.3
6.9
6.8
6.8
6.5
GZ-3
GZ-4
GZ-5U
GZ-5L
GZ-6
GZ-7U
GZ-7L
GZ-8U
GZ-8L
GZ-9U
GZ-9L
6.4
6.7
6.3
6.5
6.6
6.3
7.4
7.4
6.8
6.3
6.2
6.4
6.8
6.8
GZ-4
GZ-5U
GZ-5L
GZ-6
GZ-7U
GZ-7L
GZ-8U
GZ-8L
GZ-9U
GZ-9L
120
106
231
249
240
231
273
191
GZ-1/R
GZ-2
GZ-3
Parameter: Specific Conductivity (S/cm)
133
376
136
293
130
323
130
347
7.4
243
127
Sampling Location
GZ-9D
GZ-10U
Well not
installed at
time of
sampling
7.5d
7.7
6.9
7.5
Sampling Location
GZ-9D
GZ-10U
Well not
installed at
time of
sampling
259d
165
127
125
GZ-10L
GZ-11U
GZ-11L
GZ-12L
GZ-13L
GZ-14U
7
7
7
7.2
6.7
7.6
7.5
6.8
6.5
6.2
6.8
7
6.2
6.6
6.6
6.4
GZ-10L
GZ-11U
GZ-11L
GZ-12L
GZ-13L
GZ-14U
152
155
147
148
127
174
178
GZ-14L
GZ-17L
Dug Well
Stream - 1
Stream-2
Stream-3
6.7
6.5
6.5
7.4
7.6
7.3
6.7
7
7.2
7.6
7.7
7.1
8.3
7.30
7.7
8.1
8.2
-
7.9
8.1
8.5
-
GZ-14L
GZ-17L
Dug Well
Stream - 1
Stream-2
Stream-3
140
140
130
82
82
75.6
79.0
85.0
85.0
87.0
74.70
149
184
133
-
107
182
87
-

153
140
138
123
128
120
472
510
484
123
139
146
Notes:
1. "/" indicates results of labeled and blind duplicate sample, respectively.
2. "-" indicates sampling location not included in respective sampling round.
3." dry" indicates no water in monitoring well at the time of the respective sampling round.

DRAFT 04.0190030.02 TABLE 3 and TABLE 4 042516.xlsx\
Table 4
TABLE 5
WATER SUPPLY WELL WATER QUALITY DATA SUMMARY
(updated 4/21/16)
Tax Map
No.
Block - Lot
Number
Street Address
Well Type
Bedrock (B)/
Overburden "Dug"
(O)
Active (A)/
Inactive (I)
Sampling Dates
Result one or more rounds

<0.25 ug/L
<0.25 ug/L
<0.25 ug/L
<0.25 ug/L
<0.25 ug/L
<0.25 ug/L
<0.25 ug/L
<0.25 ug/L
Comments
Included in September 1, 2015 Work Plan
Sampled at Owner Request
13
17-1
7 Rennie Road
9/15/15
9/30/15
11/12/15
12/9/15
1/6/16
2/10/16
3/9/16
4/11/16
13
15-1
9/17/15
10/9/15
<0.25 ug/L
<0.25 ug/L
10/1/2015
1/6/2016
2/11/16
3/8/16
4/11/16
2.8 ug/L (3.0 ug/L duplicate)

1.5 ug/L
1.6 ug/L
1.1 ug/L
0.93 ug/L
Included in September 1, 2015 Work Plan - see

Table 1 for historic data
6.0 ug/L (5.9 ug/L duplicate)

6.2 ug/L
5.6 ug/L
5.9 ug/L
6.7 ug/L
5.6 ug/L
4.7 ug/L
4.5 ug/L
Included in September 1, 2015 Work Plan; point-of-entry

treatment system also sampled on 11/10/15, 12/9/15, 1/6/16,
2/10/16, 3/9/16, and 4/11/16 at midpoint and effluent (finished
treated water) with a result of
<0.25 ug/L for each sample.
13
18-1
8 Rennie Road
13
81-1
9 Rennie Road
9/15/15
9/30/15
11/10/15
12/9/15
1/6/16
2/10/16
3/9/16
4/11/16
15
42-1
20 Rennie Road
not sampled
not sampled
9/15/15
9/30/15
3/11/2016
4/12/16
11/12/15
12/15/15
<0.25 ug/L
<0.25 ug/L
<0.25 ug/L
<0.25 ug/L
<0.25 ug/L
<0.25 ug/L
15
41-1
22 Rennie Road
15
51-1
26 Rennie Road
15
37-1
39 Rennie Road
Included in September 1, 2015 Work Plan - no access

15
31-1
48 Rennie Road
not reported
not reported
13
12-1
11/12/15
12/22/15
<0.25 ug/L
<0.25 ug/L
Owner sampled well

13
13-1
1/6/2016
0.25 ug/L
9/14/15
10/1/15
9/14/15
9/30/15
<0.25 ug/L
<0.25 ug/L
<0.25 ug/L
<0.25 ug/L
not reported
not reported
2/2/2016
2/23/16
9/15/15
9/30/15
12/22/15
1/6/16
9/11/15
9/25/15
<0.25 ug/L
<0.25 ug/L
<0.25 ug/L
<0.25 ug/L
<0.25 ug/L
<0.25 ug/L
<0.25 ug/L
<0.25 ug/L
13
19-1
13
20-1
16
22-1
1 Dairy Lane
16
25-1
7 Dairy Lane
16
27-1
8 Dairy Lane
16
26-1
9 Dairy Lane
16
34-1
10 Dairy Lane
13
23-1
2 Ferson Road
4/12/2016
<0.25 ug/L
13
25-1
8 Ferson Road
11/12/15
12/15/15
<0.25 ug/L
<0.25 ug/L

Owner sampled well
Notes:
1. Results are in micrograms per liter (ug/L).
2. "<" indicates not detected above the laboratory reporting limit shown.
3. "not reported" indicates well sampled by owner, results not reported to Dartmouth College.

04.0190030.02 TABLE 5 042816.xlsx
TABLE 6
Well
GZ-1
GZ-2
GZ-3
GZ-4
GZ-5L
GZ-5U
GZ-6
GZ-7L
GZ-7U
GZ-8L
GZ-8U
GZ-9D
GZ-9L
GZ-9U
GZ-10L
GZ-10U
GZ-11L
GZ-11U
GZ-12L
GZ-13L
GZ-14L
GZ-14U
GZ-16D
GZ-17L
WSP
Dug Well
Ground Surface
Elevation
1,083.6
1,077.9
1,076.8
1,081.2
1,042.6
1,043.2
1,062.4
1,061.8
1,061.5
1,046.4
1,046.3
1,007.5
1,008.1
1,009.1
999.8
999.6
985.6
985.3
1,080.6
1,080.9
1,079.7
1,079.5
968.9
-
Date
Reference Point
Elevation
1,086.7
1,081.9
1,079.9
1,084.5
1,045.4
1,045.6
1,065.0
1,064.7
1,064.4
1,049.4
1,049.3
1,009.9
1,010.3
1,011.3
1,002.5
1,002.1
988.3
988.0
1,083.3
1,083.5
1,082.1
1,081.9
1,090.8
971.4
1,039.6
1,019.28
8/8/2014
Groundwater
Elevation
Depth-to-Water
9.39
1,036.0
9.34
1,036.2
12.49
1,052.6
23.81
1,040.9
24.15
1,040.3
NI
NI
NI
NI
NI
NI
NI
NI
NI
NI
NI
NI
NI
NI
NI
NI
NI
NI
NI
NI
NI
NI
NI
NI
NI
NI
NI
NI
NI
NI
NI
NI
-
8/22/2014
Groundwater
Elevation
Depth-to-Water
dry
<1,073.7
14.34
1,067.6
12.24
1,067.7
dry
<1,069.2
14.79
1,030.6
12.00
1,033.6
13.42
1,051.6
29.49
1,035.2
dry
<1,036.4
NI
NI
NI
NI
NI
NI
NI
NI
NI
NI
NI
NI
NI
NI
NI
NI
NI
NI
NI
NI
NI
NI
NI
NI
NI
NI
NI
NI
NI
NI
NI
NI
flowing
1,019.30
9/5/2014
Groundwater
Elevation
Depth-to-Water
17.54
1,027.8
14.6
1,031.0
dry
<1,050.9
32.69
1,032.0
dry
<1,036.4
NI
NI
NI
NI
NI
NI
NI
NI
NI
NI
NI
NI
NI
NI
NI
NI
NI
NI
NI
NI
NI
NI
NI
NI
NI
NI
NI
NI
NI
NI
NI
NI
-
7/8/2015
Groundwater
Elevation
Depth-to-Water
10.08
1076.7
9.31
1072.6
5.4
1074.5
9.09
1075.4
1.59
1043.8
1.78
1043.8
5.78
1059.3
10.82
1053.9
10.82
1053.6
29.6
1019.8
4.52
1044.8
NI
NI
17.33
993.0
10.84
1000.5
9.64
992.9
7.65
994.4
3.44
984.9
4.07
983.9
NI
NI
NI
NI
NI
NI
NI
NI
NI
NI
NI
NI
NI
NI
-
7/22/2015
Groundwater
Elevation
Depth-to-Water
32.65
6.83
NI
19.77
12.84
11.91
9.57
7.02
6.71
NI
NI
NI
NI
NI
NI
NI
-
1016.7
1042.5
NI
990.6
998.5
990.6
992.5
981.3
981.3
NI
NI
NI
NI
NI
NI
NI
-
12/9/2015
Groundwater
Elevation
Depth-to-Water
11.77
1070.1
8.96
1071.0
NI
NI
20.54
989.8
13.00
989.5
NI
NI
NI
NI
NI
NI
NI
NI
NI
NI
NI
NI
NI
NI
-
Notes:
1. Data are in feet.
2. "-" indicates no measurement taken.
3. "dry" indicates well dry , less than elevation
shown is based on bottom of well.
4. "NI" indicates not installed.

04.0190030.02 TABLE 6 042816.xlsx\
Table 6
Page 1 of 2
TABLE 6
Well
GZ-1
GZ-2
GZ-3
GZ-4
GZ-5L
GZ-5U
GZ-6
GZ-7L
GZ-7U
GZ-8L
GZ-8U
GZ-9D
GZ-9L
GZ-9U
GZ-10L
GZ-10U
GZ-11L
GZ-11U
GZ-12L
GZ-13L
GZ-14L
GZ-14U
GZ-16D
GZ-17L
WSP
Dug Well
Ground Surface
Elevation
1,083.6
1,077.9
1,076.8
1,081.2
1,042.6
1,043.2
1,062.4
1,061.8
1,061.5
1,046.4
1,046.3
1,007.5
1,008.1
1,009.1
999.8
999.6
985.6
985.3
1,080.6
1,080.9
1,079.7
1,079.5
968.9
-
Date
Reference Point
Elevation
1,086.7
1,081.9
1,079.9
1,084.5
1,045.4
1,045.6
1,065.0
1,064.7
1,064.4
1,049.4
1,049.3
1,009.9
1,010.3
1,011.3
1,002.5
1,002.1
988.3
988.0
1,083.3
1,083.5
1,082.1
1,081.9
1,090.8
971.4
1,039.6
1,019.28
1/6/2016
Groundwater
Elevation
Depth-to-Water
9.59
1072.3
6.29
1073.6
NI
NI
18.48
991.9
10.72
991.8
NI
NI
NI
NI
NI
NI
NI
NI
NI
NI
NI
NI
NI
NI
-
2/2/2016
Groundwater
Elevation
Depth-to-Water
12.16
1074.6
10.70
1071.2
7.68
1072.3
11.48
1073.0
5.03
1040.3
3.25
1042.3
5.98
1059.1
15.39
1049.3
15.31
1049.1
30.68
1018.7
6.17
1043.1
18.68
991.3
18.55
991.8
11.47
999.8
10.8
991.7
8.27
993.8
4.21
984.1
4.56
983.4
9.92
1073.4
9.41
1074.1
8.24
1073.8
8.09
1073.8
24.51
1066.3
Frozen
16.44
1023.2
-
2/10/2016
Groundwater
Elevation
Depth-to-Water
9.36
1072.6
5.86
1074.1
17.33
993.0
9.57
992.9
7.66
1075.6
6.94
1076.6
5.95
1076.1
6.05
1075.8
-
2/18/2016
Groundwater
Elevation
Depth-to-Water
18.65
991.3
Frozen
-
3/8/2016
Groundwater
Elevation
Depth-to-Water
9.52
1077.2
8.57
1073.3
5.30
1074.6
8.67
1075.8
Frozen
Frozen
4.74
1060.3
9.47
1055.2
9.65
1054.8
28.44
1020.9
3.58
1045.7
17.42
992.5
16.82
993.5
9.57
1001.7
9.58
992.9
7.11
995.0
2.88
985.5
3.86
984.1
7.04
1076.3
6.50
1077.0
5.46
1076.6
5.82
1076.1
23.04
1067.8
Frozen
16.18
1023.4
-
4/11/2016
Groundwater
Elevation
Depth-to-Water
8.46
1073.5
4.81
1075.1
28.50
1020.9
3.27
1046.0
16.96
993.0
17.31
993.0
9.65
1001.7
9.23
993.3
6.68
995.4
2.65
985.7
3.67
984.3
6.42
1076.9
5.83
1077.7
4.94
1077.1
5.04
1076.8
0.39
971.0
-
Notes:
1. Data are in feet.
2. "-" indicates no measurement taken.
3. "dry" indicates well dry , less than elevation
shown is based on bottom of well.
4. "NI" indicates not installed.

04.0190030.02 TABLE 6 042816.xlsx\
Table 6
Page 2 of 2
Proactive by Design
Figures
LEGEND:
RI
VE
R
ABANDONED DUG WELL
V
!
WATER SUPPLY WELL
!
A
WATER SUPPLY WELL BASED ON WATER

WELL BOARD RECORDS
CU
T
BLUE CIRCLE INDICATES PROPERTY OWNER

REQUESTED SAMPLING OF WELL
GREEN CIRCLE INDICATES PROPERTY OWNER
HAS SAMPLED THEIR OWN WELL
INTERMITTENT/PERENNIAL STREAM; ARROW

INDICATES DIRECTION OF SURFACE WATER FLOW
LOCATION OF INTERMITTENT STREAM
H
H
H H H
H
H
108.0037
!
>
108.0062
!
>
108.023
STREAM - 2
!
>
er
Rd
!
>
!
>
nt
V
!
P
1) 2010-2011 1-FT COLOR AERIAL PHOTOS FOR THE TOWN OF HANOVER

WERE OBTAINED FROM THE NH GRANIT NEW HAMPSHIRE STATEWIDE
GIS CLEARINGHOUSE.
2) LOCATIONS OF ON SITE DUG WELL AND PORTION OF ONSITE

INTERMITTENT STREAM BASED ON SURVEYS BY WSP TRANSPORATION
AND INFRASTRUCTURE ON OCTOBER 14, 2014 AND JUNE 1, 2015.
H
H
3) SUPPLY WELLS SHOWN HEREON WERE ADAPTED FROM THE NEW HAMPSHIRE
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES ONESTOP PROGRAM WEB GIS
WATER WELL INVENTORY LAYER IN JANUARY 2016, OR BASED ON OBSERVATION
BY GZA.
H
H
108.0106
!
>
!
>
108.0058
!
>
NO.
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
LOCUS PLAN / WATER RESOURCES PLAN
PREPARED BY:

Engineers and Scientists
www.gza.com
PROJ MGR:
JMW
DESIGNED BY: JMW
DATE
WATER QUALITY DATA SUMMARY (JANUARY 2016)

DARTMOUTH COLLEGE, RENNIE FARM SITE
HANOVER, NEW HAMPSHIRE
NHDES SITE NO. 201111109, PROJECT NO. 277737
BY
UNLESS SPECIFICALLY STATED BY WRITTEN AGREEMENT, THIS DRAWING IS THE SOLE PROPERTY OF GZA
GEOENVIRONMENTAL, INC. (GZA). THE INFORMATION SHOWN ON THE DRAWING IS SOLELY FOR THE USE BY GZA'S
CLIENT OR THE CLIENT'S DESIGNATED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE SPECIFIC PROJECT AND LOCATION IDENTIFIED ON
THE DRAWING. THE DRAWING SHALL NOT BE TRANSFERRED, REUSED, COPIED, OR ALTERED IN ANY MANNER FOR
USE AT ANY OTHER LOCATION OR FOR ANY OTHER PURPOSE WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT OF GZA, ANY
TRANSFER, REUSE, OR MODIFICATION TO THE DRAWING BY THE CLIENT OR OTHERS, WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN
EXPRESS CONSENT OF GZA, WILL BE AT THE USER'S SOLE RISK AND WITHOUT ANY RISK OR LIABILITY TO GZA.
H H
ISSUE / DESCRIPTION
2016 - GZA GeoEnvironmental, Inc.
1,200
!
(
P
H
108.0399
600
GENERAL NOTES:
108.0353
!
>
!
>
!
>
V
!
P
!
>
V
!
P
V
!
P
108.0398
108.0178
108.0301
V
V!
!
!
>
300
SCALE IN FEET
108.0052
SUPPLY WELL WSW - 1
H
H
H
ABANDONED SITE
WATER SUPPLY WELL
V
!
P
!
(
P
!
(
H
DUG WELL - 2
V
!
P
108.0465
!
>
DUG WELL
!
(
P
Ce
H
H
er
ov
n
a
V
!
P
STREAM - 1
APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF HISTORIC

ANIMAL CARCASS BURIAL AREA
P:\04Jobs\0190000s\04.0190030.00\04.0190030.02\Figures-CAD\April Figures\MXD\Figure 1 - Locus Water Resources Plan.mxd, 5/5/2016, 10:27:28 AM, matthew.deane
!
> 108.0057
108.0502
!
>
!
>
STREAM - 3
V
!
P
108.0063
108.0035
!
>
108.009
108.0294
108.0061
V
!
P
!
>
108.0405
!
>
108.0138
!
>
108.0141
108.0345
!
>
!
>
!
>
108.0405
!
>
108.0107
!
>
108.0059
V
!
P
V
!
P
108.0118
H
H
108.0185
!
>
!
>
!
>
!
>
108.0193
!
>
!
>
!
>
!
>
!
>
!
>
108.0161
108.0131
108.0056
!
>
!
>
108.0091
108.0154
108.0137
!
>
108.0289
H
108.018
108.0194
V
!
P
!
>
146.0314
!
>
V
!
P
108.0155
108.0121
108.0148
!
>
V
!
P
108.0072
!
>
!
>
108.0187
H
H
!
>
V!>
!
P
!
>
V
!
P
H
H
!
>
108.0128
108.0177
SITE BOUNDARY / TAX MAP BOUNDARY
108.0179
!
>
V
!
V
!
P
108.0073
!
>
108.0124
!
>
146.0319
!
>
!
>
108.0115
!
>
108.0157
APPROXIMATE WATERSHED BOUNDARY OF UNNAMED

TRIBUTARY TO HEWES BROOK BASED ON TOPOGRAPHY
AND SURFACE WATER FEATURES SHOWN ON USGS
QUADRANGLE
MAPS INCLUDING ENFIELD AND LYME
H
!
>
108.0267
Rd
108.0125
LYM
E
HAN
OVE
R
ie
!
>
108.0093
!
>
!
>
!
>
!
>
nn
Re
108.0092
108.0208
108.0523
108.015
108.0136
108.0107
!
> 108.0521
!
>
!
>
TOWN AND/OR STATE BOUNDARY
!
>
108.0232
!
>
108.0328
146.0133
!
>
146.0075
!
>
>
108.0111!
108.0143
TI
RED CIRCLE INDICATES WELL SAMPLED

DURING INITIAL AND/OR CONFIRMATORY OFF
SITE WATER QUALITY SAMPLING ROUND
(
!
CO
E
NN
ACTIVE DUG WELL
Hewes
Brook
(
!
DATE:
05-05-2016
REVIEWED BY: SRL

DRAWN BY:
PROJECT NO.
MJD
04.0190030.02
PREPARED FOR:
DARTMOUTH COLLEGE
CHECKED BY:
RAB
SCALE: 1 inch = 600 feet

REVISION NO.
FIG
LEGEND:
RI
VE
R
ABANDONED DUG WELL
V
!
WATER SUPPLY WELL
!
A
WATER SUPPLY WELL BASED ON WATER

WELL BOARD RECORDS
CU
T


H
108.0118
H
H
H H H
H
H
108.0037
!
>
108.0062
!
>
108.023
!
>
STREAM - 2
!
>
er
Rd
!
>
nt
V
!
P
2) LOCATIONS OF ON SITE DUG WELL AND PORTION OF ONSITE

WATER WELL INVENTORY LAYER IN JANUARY 2016, OR BASED ON OBSERVATION
BY GZA.
H
H
108.0106
H
H
108.0399
!
>
108.0058
!
>
NO.
H
H
H
H
H
H
LOCUS PLAN / WATER RESOURCES PLAN

(USGS QUADRANGLE BASE)
PREPARED BY:

www.gza.com
PROJ MGR:
JMW
DESIGNED BY: JMW
DATE
WATER QUALITY DATA SUMMARY (JANUARY 2016)

BY
H H
ISSUE / DESCRIPTION
1,200
1) BASEMAP CONTAINS ENFIELD AND LYME USGS 7.5 MINUTE QUADRANGLES.
!
(
P
H
!
>
600
GENERAL NOTES:
108.0353
!
>
!
>
V
!
P
!
>
V
!
P
V
!
P
!
>
108.0398
108.0178
108.0301
V
V!
!
!
>
300
SCALE IN FEET
108.0052
SUPPLY WELL WSW - 1
H
H
H
ABANDONED SITE
WATER SUPPLY WELL
V
!
P
!
(
P
!
(
H
DUG WELL - 2
V
!
P
108.0465
!
>
DUG WELL
!
(
P
Ce
H
H
er
ov
n
a
V
!
P
STREAM - 1
APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF HISTORIC

P:\04Jobs\0190000s\04.0190030.00\04.0190030.02\Figures-CAD\April Figures\MXD\Figure 1A - Locus Water Resources Plan - USGS.mxd, 5/5/2016, 11:05:47 AM, matthew.deane
!
> 108.0057
108.0502
!
>
!
>
STREAM - 3
V
!
P
108.0063
108.0035
!
>
108.009
108.0294
108.0061
V
!
P
!
>
108.0405
!
>
108.0345
!
>
108.0138
!
>
108.0141
V
!
P
!
>
!
>
108.0405
!
>
H
H
108.0107
!
>
108.0059
V
!
P
!
>
!
>
!
>
!
>
108.0185
!
>
!
>
!
>
108.0193
!
>
!
>
108.0161
108.0131
108.0056
!
>
!
>
108.0091
108.0154
108.0137
!
>
108.0289
!
>
H
108.018
108.0194
V
!
P
!
>
146.0314
!
>
V
!
P
108.0155
108.0121
108.0148
!
>
V
!
P
108.0072
!
>
!
>
108.0187
V!>
!
P
H
H
!
>
V
!
P
!
>
SITE BOUNDARY / TAX MAP BOUNDARY
H
H
!
>
108.0128
108.0177
146.0319
!
>
108.0179
V
!
V
!
P
108.0073
!
>
108.0124
!
>
!
>
!
>
108.0115
!
>
108.0157
APPROXIMATE WATERSHED BOUNDARY OF UNNAMED

TRIBUTARY TO HEWES BROOK BASED ON TOPOGRAPHY
AND SURFACE WATER FEATURES SHOWN ON USGS
QUADRANGLE
MAPS INCLUDING ENFIELD AND LYME
H
!
>
108.0267
Rd
108.0125
LYM
E
HAN
OVE
R
ie
!
>
108.0093
!
>
!
>
!
>
!
>
nn
Re
108.0092
108.0208
108.0523
108.015
108.0136
108.0107
!
> 108.0521
!
>
!
>
!
>
108.0232
!
>
108.0328
146.0133
!
>
146.0075
!
>
>
108.0111!
108.0143
TI

(
!
CO
E
NN
ACTIVE DUG WELL
Hewes
Brook
(
!
DATE:
05-05-2016
REVIEWED BY: SRL

DRAWN BY:
PROJECT NO.
MJD
PREPARED FOR:
DARTMOUTH COLLEGE
CHECKED BY:
RAB

REVISION NO.
FIG
1A
04.0190030.02 Copyright: 2013 National Geographic Society, i-cubed
(
!
ACTIVE DUG WELL
(
!
ABANDONED DUG WELL
V
!
WATER SUPPLY WELL
LEGEND:
A'
GZ-1
GZ-17L A
@
GZ-8U
GZ-8L
GZ-9D
@
A
PHASE I GMZ INVESTIGATION GROUNDWATER

MONITORING LOCATION INSTALLED JANUARY 2016
H
!
SPRING
GZ-9L
GZ-9U
9 RENNIE ROAD
GZ-9D
V
!
SURFACE WATER QUALITY MONITORING LOCATION

(SEE FIGURE 1 FOR SURFACE SAMPLING LOCATIONS
STREAM - 2 AND STREAM - 3)
STREAM - 1
B'
@
@
A
@A
A
GF
@
@
A
A
GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL
@
A

GZ-10L
GZ-10U
APPROXIMATE PROPERTY BOUNDARY
@
A
A
GZ-1
@
A
GZ-2
GZ-14U
GZ-7L
7 RENNIE ROAD
@
@
A
A
V
!
GZ-11L
GZ-12L
V
!
GZ-7U
GZ-14L
APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF CROSS SECTION

SEE FIGURE 8 FOR CROSS SECTIONS
!
V
A'
GZ-13L
GZ-3
@
@
A
A
@
A
@
A
@
A
GZ-5U
@
A
@
A
DUG WELL (FORMERLY WATER

SUPPLY FOR 8 RENNIE ROAD)
@
A
H
!
GZ-5L
594 HANOVER
CENTER ROAD
@
A
@
A
STREAM - 1
@ GZ-6
A
APPROXIMATE LIMITS OF
HISTORICAL ANIMAL CARCASS
BURIAL AREA
!
(
HUMAN BURIAL AREA
GF
@
A
@
A
GZ-11U
GZ-4
H
BUILDING DEMOLISHED
603 HANOVER
CENTER ROAD
H
GZ-16D
@
A
!
(
DUG WELL - 2
!
(
125
250
SCALE IN FEET
GENERAL NOTES:

GIS CLEARINGHOUSE.
2) APPROXIMATE PROPERTY BOUNDARIES BASED ON REVIEW OF TOWN OF

HANOVER, NEW HAMPSHIRE TAX MAP 13, 15, AND 16, DATED APRIL 1, 2015.
3) LOCATIONS OF MONITORING WELLS GZ-1 THROUGH GZ-17L, WATER SUPPLY

WELL WSW-1, DUG WELL (FORMERLY WATER SUPPLY WELL FOR 8 RENNIE
ROAD), ONSITE INTERMITTENT STREAM AND CERTAIN OTHER SITE
FEATURES BASED ON SURVEYS BY WSP TRANSPORATION AND
INFRASTRUCTURE DURING OCTOBER 2014, JUNE 2015, AND JANUARY 2016.
SUPPLY WELL WSW - 1

NO.
@
?
ABANDONED WATER SUPPLY WELL
@ !
?
V
BUILDING DEMOLISHED IN 2011
566 HANOVER
CENTER ROAD
PREPARED BY:

www.gza.com
PROJ MGR:
V
!
JMW
DESIGNED BY: JMW
V
!
DATE
SITE PLAN/MONITORING LOCATION PLAN
!
V
!
V
BY

DATE:
562 HANOVER
CENTER ROAD
SITE ENTRANCE
572 HANOVER
CENTER ROAD
ISSUE / DESCRIPTION
P:\04Jobs\0190000s\04.0190030.00\04.0190030.02\Figures-CAD\April Figures\MXD\Figure 2 - Monitoring Well Location Plan.mxd, 5/5/2016, 11:10:48 AM, matthew.deane
V
!
05-05-2016
REVIEWED BY: SRL

DRAWN BY:
PROJECT NO.
MJD
04.0190030.02
PREPARED FOR:
DARTMOUTH COLLEGE
CHECKED BY:
JMW

REVISION NO.
FIG
H
H
ACTIVE DUG WELL
(
!
ABANDONED DUG WELL
V
!
WATER SUPPLY WELL
!
A
wes
WATER SUPPLY
WELL BASED ON WATER
Br o ok
WELL BOARD RECORDS

Hewes
Brook

H
H
He
GZ-1
@
A

GF
H
H
H
10 DAIRY LANE
TAX MAP 16, LOT 34-1

V
!
P
HA
LYM
E
NO V
ER
V
!
P
8 DAIRY LANE
1 DAIRY LANE
V
!
P
H
26 RENNIE ROAD
7 DAIRY LANE
V
!
P
V
!
P
STREAM - 1
V
!
P
9 DAIRY LANE
Rd
SPRING
ie
V
!
P
H
!
39 RENNIE ROAD
nn
V
!
@
A

Re
48 RENNIE ROAD
GZ-9D
(
!
LEGEND:
V
!
P
H
22 RENNIE ROAD
V
!
P
H
H
H
STREAM - 3
V
!
P
20 RENNIE ROAD
(NO ACCESS - NOT IN USE)
GF
H
GF
603 HANOVER CENTER ROAD
V
!
P
2) LOCATIONS OF ON SITE DUG WELL AND ONSITE


H
SUPPLY WELL WSW - 1
!
(
P
V
!
P
H
H
PREPARED BY:
PREPARED FOR:

www.gza.com
H
H
HH
JMW
DESIGNED BY: JMW

DATE:
HH
DATE
WATER SUPPLY WELL

SAMPLING LOCATION PLAN
PROJ MGR:
HH
BY

ISSUE / DESCRIPTION
2 FERSON ROAD
NO.
8 FERSON ROAD
V
!
P

V
!
P

V
V !
!
ABANDONED SITE
WATER SUPPLY WELL

GIS CLEARINGHOUSE.
!
(
P
!
(
800
05-05-2016
REVIEWED BY: SRL

DRAWN BY:
PROJECT NO.
MJD
04.0190030.02
DARTMOUTH COLLEGE
CHECKED BY:
RAB

REVISION NO.
FIG
DUG WELL - 2
@ GZ-16D
A
400
GENERAL NOTES:
H
200
SCALE IN FEET
GZ-7U
GZ-11L
GZ-7L
H
H
GZ-11U
GZ-2
H
7 RENNIE ROAD
GZ-14U
V
!
P
@
@
A
A
GZ-5U
V
!
P
GZ-4
GZ-5L
GZ-1
@
A
GZ-12U/L
@
A
@
@@
A
A
@
A
@A
A
@ A
A
@
GZ-13L

8 RENNIE ROAD
H
GZ-14L
STREAM - 1
@
A
@
A
!
( !
H
@ P
A
@
A
GZ-6
GZ-10L
GZ-3
V
!
P
GZ-10U
GF
GZ-9U
@
@
A
A
GZ-9D A
@
HUMAN BURIAL AREA
ve
no R d
a
H ter
en
C
9 RENNIE ROAD
GZ-9L
@
A
GZ-8U
GZ-17L A
@
GZ-8L
STREAM - 2
P:\04Jobs\0190000s\04.0190030.00\04.0190030.02\Figures-CAD\April Figures\MXD\Figure 3 - Water Supply Well Sampling Plan.mxd, 5/5/2016, 11:25:58 AM, matthew.deane
!
(!
(
!
(!
(
!
(!
(
!
(!
(
!
(!
(
!
(!
(
!
(!
(
!
(!
(
!
(!
(
!
(!
(
!
(!
(
!
(!
(
!
(!
(
!
(!
(
!
(!
(
!
(!
(
!
(!
(
!
(!
(
!
!(
(
!
!(
(
!
!(
(
!
!(
(
!
!(
(
!
!(
(
!
!(
(
!
!(
(
!
!(
(
!
!(
(
!
!(
(
!
!(
(
!
!(
(
!
!(
(
!
!(
(
!
!(
(
!
!(
(
!
!(
(
!
!(
(
!
!(
(
(
(!
!
(!
BEDROCK GEOLOGIC MAPPING SUMMARY
(
(!
!
(!
(
(!
!
(!
H
H
H
H
(
(!
!
(!
PREPARED BY:
(
(!
!
(!
(
(!
!
(!

www.gza.com
(
(!
!
(!
600
(
(!
!
(!
300
(
(!
!
(!
SCALE IN FEET
(
(!
!
(!
!(
(
!(
!(
!
(
(!
(!
(!
(!
!
(!
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
(
(!
!
(!
(
(!
!
(!
!
!(
(
!
(
(
(!
!
(!
!
!(
(
!
(
!
!(
(
!H
(
!
(
!
!(
(
!
(
!
!(
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
!(
(
!
(
!
(
!
!(
(
!
!(
(
!
(
!
(
!
!(
(
!
(
!
!(
(
H
!
(
!
!(
(
H
H
!
(
H
H
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
(
!
(!
!
(
(
!
(!
(
(!
!
(!
!(
(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!
(
!
(!
(
(!
!
(!
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
H
H
!
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
(
H
(
(!
!
(!
(
!
(!
(
(!
!
(!
!(
(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!
(
!
(!
(
!
(!
!
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
(
!
(
!
!(
!(
(
!
(
!
!(
(
!
(
!
!(
(
(
!
(!
(
(!
!
(!
(
(!
!
(!
!
!(
(
(
!
(!
!
!(
(
(
!
(!
(
!
(!
!
!(
(
(
(!
!
(!
(
!
(!
!
(
!
!(
(
!
(
(
(!
!
(!
(
!
(!
!
!(
(
(
!
(!
(
!
(!
(
!
(!
! !
(
((
!!
!
((
!
(
!
(
(
!
(
(!
!
(
(!
(!
!
(
!
(!
!
!(
(
!
(
(
!
(!
(
!
(!
!
!(
(
(
!
(!
H
H
Ce (! (! (! (! (! (! (!
!(
(
!(
!(
!(
nt
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
er
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
Rd
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!
H
!
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
(
!
!(
(
(
(!
!
(!
!(
(
!(
!
H
!
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
(
!
!(
(
(
(!
!
(!
!
(
(
!
(!
(
(!
!
(!
!(
(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!
!
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
(
!
(
!
!(
!(
(
!
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
(
!
(
!
!(
!(
!(
!(
(
!(
(
!
!(
(
!
!
(
!
!(
(
H
!
(
!
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
(
!
(
!
!(
!(
(
!(
(
!
!
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
(
!
(
!
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
(
!
!(
(
!
(!
(
!
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
(
!
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
(
!
(
!
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
(
!
(
!
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
(
!
(
!
(
!
(!
(
!
!(
!(
!(
!(
!
!(
(
!
(!
(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!H(
!(
!(
(
!
(!
(
!(
(
!
!(
(
!
!
!(
(
!
(!
(
!
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
(
!
(
!
(
!
(!
(
!
!(
(
!
(!
(
!
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
(
!
(
!
!(
!(
!(
!(
(
!
!(
(
!
(!
(
!
!(
(
H
H
!
!(
(
!
(!
(
!(
(
!
!
(!
(
!
!(
(
!
(!
(
!
!(
(
!
(!
(
!(
(
!
!
(!
(
!
!(
(
!
(!
(
!
(!
(
!(
(
!
!
!(
(
!
(!
(!
(!
(!
(!
(!
!(
(
!(
(!
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!
!(
(
!(
!(
!(
(!
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!
!(
(
!(
!(
(!
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
(
!(
!(
!(
(!
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!
!(
!(
!(
(!
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!
!(
(
(!
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!
!(
(
(!
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!
!(
(!
(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(!
!
((
!(
!(
!(
!(
! ((
!
(
(!
!
(!
!
!(
(
(
(!
!
!
(
(!
!(
(
!
(
(!
!
!
(
(!
!(
(
(!
!
(
!(
(!
!
!
(
(!
!
(
!
(
(!
!
(
!
(!
(
!(
(
(
!
(
!
!
(
!
(
!
!(
(
(
!
!
(
!(
(
!
(
!
(
!(
(
(!
!(
!(
(!
!(
(!
!(
!
(!
!(
!
(
!(
!
(
!(
!
(
!(
!(
!
(
!(
!
(
!(
!
(
!(
!
(
!(
!
!(
(
!(
!
(
!
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
(
(!
(!
(!
!
(!
!
(
(
(!
(!
(!
!
(!
!
(!
(
!
(!
(
!
(!
(
!
(!
(
!
(!
(
!
(!
(
!
(!
(
!
(!
(
!
(!
(
!
(!
(
!
(!
(
!
(!
(
!
(!
(
!
(!
(
!
!(
(
!
(!
(
!
!(
(
!
!(
(
!
!(
(
!(
(
!
H
H
H
!
!(
(
!
(
(
(!
!
(!
!(
(
!
!
!(
(
!(
(
!(
!
!
!(
(
!(
(
!
!(
(
!
H
DATE
SUPPLEMENTAL HYDROGEOLOGIC INVESTIGATION

!(
(
!
!(
(
!
!
(
BY
(
(!
!
(!
(
(!
(!
(!
(!
(!
!
(!
!(
(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!
(
(!
(!
(!
(!
(!
!
(!
ISSUE / DESCRIPTION
!(
(
!
!(
(
!(
!
!
(
!
!(
(
!
(
H (! (!
!(
(
!
!
!(
(
H
(
(!
!
(!
!(
(
!
!(
(
!
!(
(
!
!(
(
!(
!
!
(
!
!(
(
NO.
(
(!
!
(!
!(
(
!
!(
(
!
!(
(
!(
!
!(
(
!
!
!(
(
!
!(
(
!
!(
(
!
!(
(
!
!(
(
!
!(
(
!
!(
(
!
!(
(
!
!(
(
!(
(
!
!(
(
!
!(
(
!
!(
(
!
!(
(
!
!
(
!
(
!(
(
!
!
(
!
!(
(
!
!(
(
!
!(
(
!
!(
(
!
!(
(
!
!(
(
!
!(
(
!
!(
(
!
!(
(
!
!(
(
!
!(
(
!
(!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
!(
(
!
!(
(
!(
(
!
!(
(
!
!(
(
!
!(
(
!
!(
(
!
!(
(
!(
!
!(
(
!(
!
!(
(
!
!(
(
!(
!
!(
(
!(
!
!
(
!(
(
!
!(
(
!(
!
!(
(
!(
!
!(
(
!
!(
(
!(
!
!
!(
(
!(
(
!
!(
(
!
!
(
!(
(
!
!(
(
!
!
(
!
(
!(
(
!
!(
(
!
!(
(
!(
!
!
!(
(
!(
(
!
!(
(
!
!(
(
!(
!
!(
(
!(
!
!(
(
!(
!
!(
(
!
!(
(
!
!(
(
!
!(
(
!
!
(
!(
(
!
!(
(
!
!
!(
(
!(
(
!(
!
!(
(
!(
!
!
(
!
(
!
(
!(
(
!
!(
(
!
!
(
!(
(
!
!(
(
!
!
(
!(
(
!(
!
!(
(
!(
!
!(
(
!(
!
!(
(
!(
!
!(
(
!
!(
(
!(
!
!(
(
!
!(
(
!(
!
!(
(
!
!(
(
!(
!
!(
(
!(
!
!(
(
!(
!
!(
(
!(
!
H
!(
(
!(
!
(
(!
!
(!
(
(!
!
(!
(
(!
!
(!
!
!(
(
!
!(
(
!
!(
(
!
(
P:\04Jobs\0190000s\04.0190030.00\04.0190030.02\Figures-CAD\April Figures\MXD\Figure 4 - Bedrock Geologic Mapping Summary.mxd, 5/5/2016, 11:53:42 AM, matthew.deane
(
(!
!
(!
(
(!
!
(!
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
(
(!
!
(!
(
(!
(!
(!
(!
(!
!
(!
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!
(
(!
(!
(!
(!
(!
!
(!
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
(
(!
!
(!
(
(!
(!
(!
(!
(!
!
(!
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
WATER WELL INVENTORY LAYER.
(
(!
!
(!
(
(!
!
(!
108.0058
5) LINEAMENTS SHOWN HEREON WERE GEOREFERENCED FROM THE EXISTING

FIGURE TITLED "LINEAMENT MAP OF AREA 10 OF THE NEW HAMPSHIRE
BEDROCK AQUIFER ASSESSMENT, NORTHWEST-NORTHCENTRAL
NEW HAMPSHIRE" BY ERIC W. FERGUSON, STEWART F. CLARK, JR.,
HEATHER A. SHORT, GARRIKCK J. MARCOUX, AND RICHARD BRIDGE
MOORE, 1999.
6) BEDROCK GEOLOGY SHOWN HEREON WAS GEOREFERENCED FROM THE
EXISTING FIGURE TITLED "GEOLOGIC MAP AND STRUCTURE SECTIONS OF
THE MASCOMA QUADRANGLE, NEW HAMPSHIRE" BY CARLETON A. CHAPMAN
ET. AL., 1938.
(
(!
!
(!
4) GZA UNDERSTANDS THAT 20 RENNIE ROAD IS CURRENTLY NOT OCCUPIED;

ACCESS FOR COLLECTION OF A WATER SUPPLY SAMPLE COULD NOT
BE OBTAINED.
(
(!
!
(!
(
(!
!
(!
108.0106
!
>

GIS CLEARINGHOUSE.

(
(!
!
(!
GENERAL NOTES:
(
(!
!
(!
AMMONOOSUC VOLCANICS/ORFORDVILLE FORMATION POST POND VOLCANIC

!
>
!(
(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!
H H
(
(!
!
(!
PARTRIDGE FORMATION/ORFORDVILLE FORMATION
(
(!
!
(!
H
H
!(
(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!
!
>
(
(!
!
(!
108.0399
!
(!
(
(
(!
!
(!
!
(
(
(!
!
(!
LITTLETON FORMATION
(
(!
!
(!
!
(
(
(!
!
(!
!
(
(
(!
!
(!
!
(
(
(!
!
(!
!
(
(
(!
!
(!
!
(
(
(!
!
(!
108.0465
!
>
(
(!
!
(!
!
(
(
(!
!
(!
!
(
(
(!
!
(!
!
(
(
(!
!
(!
!
(
LINEAMENT OBSERVED BY THE USE OF HIGH-ALTITUDE

AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY HAVING AN APROXIMATE SCALE OF
1:80,000. LOCATION +/- 80 FEET.
BEDROCK GEOLOGY
(
(!
!
(!
!
(
BEDROCK OUTCROPS
(
(!
!
(!
!
(
!
(
(
(!
!
(!
!
(
!
(
P
(
(!
!
(!
!
(
!
(
LINEAMENT OBSERVED BY THE USE OF 1:250,000-SCALE

LANDSAT IMAGERY, BAND 7, IMAGES NUMBERS 10057-004
AND 10054-109, OBTAINED DECEMBER 20, 1990. LOCATION +/150 FEET.
(
(!
!
(!
!
(
!(
(
!(
!
LINEAMENT OBSERVED BY THE USE OF SIDE-LOOKING

AIRBORNE RADAR MOSAIC (FAR RANGE), GLEN FALLS, NY,
VT, AND NH.: US GEOLOGICAL SURVEY, 1:250,000. LOCATION
+/- 200 FEET.
(
(!
!
(!
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
(
(!
!
(!
!
>
!
>
!
(
!
(
!
(
GZA MAPPED BEDROCK OUTCROPS
!
(!
(!
(!
(!
(!
(!
(!
(!
(!
(!
(
(
(!
!
(!
!
(
108.0353
!
(
!
(
!
>
V
!
P
!
>
V
!
P
V
!
P
!
(
!
(
108.0398
!
(
!
(
108.0178
108.0301
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
V
V!
!
!(
(
!
LINEAMENT OBSERVED BY THE USE OF LOW-ALTITUDE

AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY HAVING AN APROXIMATE SCALE OF
1:20,000. LOCATION +/- 80 FEET.
(
(!
!
(!
!
>
!
(
!
(
!(
(
!
(
(!
!
(!
108.0052
!
(
!(
(
!
(
(!
!
(!
!
(
!(
(
!
(
(!
!
(!
!
(
!(
(
!
(
(!
!
(!
!
(
!(
(
!
!
!(
(
SUPPLY WELL WSW - 1
!
?
108.0345
(
(!
!
(!
!
(
!
!(
(
!
(
!
(
!
!(
(
!
(
!(
(
!
!
!(
(
ABANDONED SITE
WATER SUPPLY WELL
!
(
!
(
!
(
!(
(
!
!
!(
(
!
(
!(
(
!
!(
(
!
!
>
(
(!
!
(!
!
(
!
!(
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
V
!
P
(
(!
!
(!
!
(
108.0193
!
>
(
(!
!
(!
!
(
!(
(
!
!
>
(
(!
!
(!
!
(
!
(
!
(
DUG WELL - 2
!
(
!
(
!
(
P
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!(
(
!
!
>
(
(!
!
(!
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
?
!
(
!
(
!(
(
!
!
!(
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!(
(
!
!
!(
(
GZ-7L
!
(
!
(
er
ov
n
Ha
108.0289
108.0194
(
(!
!
(!
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!(
(
!
146.0314
(
(!
!
(!
!
(
!(
(
!
!(
(
!(
!(
INTERMITTENT/PERENNIAL
STREAM; ARROW
!(
!(
!(
!(
!
INDICATES DIRECTION OF(! (!SURFACE
WATER FLOW
!
(
108.0502
V
!
P
!
(
!
(
!
(!
!
?
?GZ-11U
!
?
!
(
!
(
GZ-7U
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!(
(
!
!
!(
(
GZ-4
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!(
(
!
!
>
(
(!
!
(!
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
V
!
P
GZ-1
V
!
P
!
(
!
(
SPRING
!(
(
!
!(
(
!
!
!(
(
!
(
!(
(
!
!
!(
(
!
(
!(
(
!
!(
(
!(
INFERRED DIRECTION OF GROUNDWATER
FLOW BASED
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
ON 1, 4 - DIOXANE DISTRIBUTION IN GROUNDWATER
!(
!
(
(!
!
(!
!
(
!
(!
H
P
GZ-2
!(
(
!
!
!(
(
!
(
!(
(
!
!
!(
(
!
(
!(
(
!
SUPPLY WELL
!
A
!
!(
(
!
(
!(
(
!
(
(!
!
(!
!
(
V
!
P
@
A
!
(
@
A
@ A
A
@
@ A
A
@
!
?!
@
A
(
GZ-5L A
@ A
A
@
@ (
!
!
!
(
(
GZ-5U
!
?GZ-11L
!
(
!(
(
!
!
!(
(
!
(
!(
(
!
!
!(
(
!
(
!(
(
!
!
!(
(
!
(
!
!(
(
!
(
!(
(
!
(
(!
!
(!
!
(
!
!(
(
!
(
!(
(
!
!
!(
(
!
(
!(
(
!
!
!(
(
!
(
!(
(
!
!
GZ-3
?
APPROXIMATE LIMITS!
(OF
!(
(
!
(
(!
!
(!
!
(
!(
(
!
!
>
!
(
!(
(
!
!
(
!
!(
(
!
(
!(
(
!
(
(!
!
(!
!
(
GZ-10U
!
(
@
A
!
(
H (!
!
(
GZ-10L
GZ-8U
GZ-6
!
!(
(
!
(!
(
!
!(
(
!
(
!(
(
!
@
A
(
(!
!
(!
!
(
GZ-1
!(
(
!
(
(!
!
(!
!
(
!(
(
!
(
(!
!
(!
!
(
!(
(
!
(
(!
!
(!
!
(
!(
(
!
(
(!
!
(!
!
(
!(
(
!
(
(!
!
(!
!
(
GZ-9L
GZ-8L
!
(
!(
(
!
(
(!
!
(!
!
(
!(
(
!

WATER SUPPLY WELL
(
(!
!
(!
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
GZ-9U
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!(
(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
108.023
!
>
!
(
!
(
!
(
Rd
!
(
!
(
ie
!
(
!
(
nn
Re
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
(
(!
!
(!
!
(
!
(
!
>
!
>
!
>
(
(!
!
(!
!
(
108.0294
!
(
!
(
(
(!
!
(!
!
(
!
>
108.0062
108.009
(
(!
!
(!
!
(
108.0037
(
(!
!
(!
!
(
!
> 108.0057
V
!
P
(
(!
!
(!
!
(
!
>
!
>
!
(
!
(
(
(!
!
(!
!
(
108.0061
!
>
(
(!
!
(!
!
(
108.0063
108.0148
V
!
P
!
(
V
!
P
!
(
(
(!
!
(!
!
(
!
>
108.0405
!
(
(
(!
!
(!
!
(
108.0035
(
(!
!
(!
!
(
!
>
V
!
P
!
(
!(
(
!
V
!

HAS REQUESTED SAMPLING OF WELL,
SAMPLING PLANNED
!
>
V
!
P
V
!
P
!
>
(
(!
!
(!
!
(
108.0138
!(
(
!
!
>
!
>
V
!
P
!
>
108.0107
(
(!
!
(!
!
(
!
(
(
(!
!
(!
!
(
108.0059
146.0319
108.0187
108.0185
(
(!
!
(!
!
(
108.0118
!
>
108.0072
!
>
(
(!
!
(!
!
(
!
>
!
>
LYM
HAN E
OVE
R
(
(!
!
(!
!
(
!
>
!(
(
!
(
(!
!
(!
!
(
108.0056
!
>
!
>
108.0161
108.0131
!
>
108.0121
108.0154
!
>
!
>
(
(!
!
(!
!
(
!
(
(
(!
!
(!
!
(
!
(
!
>
!
>
108.0128
V
!
V
!
P
108.0073
(
(!
!
(!
!
(
!
(
(
(!
!
(!
!
(
!
(
(
(!
!
(!
!
(
!
(
(
(!
!
(!
!
(
!
(
(
(!
!
(!
!
(
!
(
(
(!
!
(!
!
(
!
(
108.0177
!
>
!
>
!
(
!
>
!
>
108.0141
!
(
108.0124
!(
(
!
H
!
108.0155
108.0137
108.0405
!
(
(
(!
!
(!
!
(
!
(
(
(!
!
(!
!
(
!
(
(
(!
!
(!
!
(
108.018
!
>
!
(
(
(!
!
(!
!
(
!
(
!
>
V
!
P
!(
(
!
!
!(
(
(
(!
!
(!
!
(
!
(
(
(!
!
(!
!
(
!
(
108.0157
!
!(
(
(
(!
!
(!
!
(
!
(
!
>
!
>
108.0091
!
>
!
>
!
!(
(
(
(!
!
(!
!
(
!
(
108.0115
!
>
!
>
!(
(
!
(
(!
!
(!
!
(
!
(
108.0328
!
>
!
>
108.0267
108.0093
!(
(
!
(
(!
!
(!
!
(
!
(
108.0179
!
>
108.0111
108.0125
!
(
!
(
!
>
!
>
!
>
108.0092
!(
(
!

ABANDONED DUG WELL
!
!(
(
(
(!
!
(!
!
(
!(
(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!(
(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!
!
(!
(
108.0208
108.0136
108.0523
!
> 108.0521
!
>
!
!(
(
(
(!
!
(!
!
>
(
(!
!
(!
108.015
!
>
108.0107
!
!(
(
(
(!
!
(!
!
>
ACTIVE DUG WELL
(
!
(
(!
!
(!
108.0232
!
!(
(
(
!
146.0133
!
>
(
(!
!
(!
!
>
146.0075
LEGEND:
(
(!
!
(!
108.0143
!
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
(
!
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
(
!
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
(
(
(!
!
(!
T
,V
H
IC
R
RW VE
O
O
N
N
HA
!
!(
!(
(
!
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
(
!
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
(
!
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
(
1,200
PROJ MGR:
JMW
DESIGNED BY: JMW

DATE:
05-05-2016
REVIEWED BY: TWK

DRAWN BY:
PROJECT NO.
MJD
04.0190030.02
PREPARED FOR:
DARTMOUTH COLLEGE
CHECKED BY:
RAB

REVISION NO.
FIG
(
!
ACTIVE DUG WELL
(
!
ABANDONED DUG WELL
V
!
WATER SUPPLY WELL
nn
Re
LEGEND:
ie

Rd
GZ-1
LYM
HAN E
OV E
R
H
!
SPRING

V
!
P

@
A
V
!
P

SAMPLING PLANNED
V
!
P
V
!
V
!
P
V
!
P
V
!
P
H
V
!
P
H
INFERRED DIRECTION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW BASED

V
!
P
V
!
P
POSSIBLE FRACTURE ZONES IDENTIFIED BY HAGER-RICHTER
V
!
P
RELATIVE RESPONSE REAL COMPONENT OF THE VLF FIELD
6
H
!
(
P
GZ-5U
HH
e
d r
GZ-11U
GZ-7U
V
!
P


BE OBTAINED.
5) VLF DATA ACQUIRED USING A GSM-19 WALKING MAG-VLF SYNCED WITH

DGPS. RELATIVE REAL COMPONENT RESPONSE SHOWN.
V
!
P
V
!
P

www.gza.com
JMW
DESIGNED BY: JMW

DATE:
05-05-2016
REVIEWED BY: TWK

DRAWN BY:
PROJECT NO.
MJD
04.0190030.02
DARTMOUTH COLLEGE
CHECKED BY:
RAB

REVISION NO.
PREPARED FOR:
PROJ MGR:
H
H
PREPARED BY:
!
(
P
VLF SURVEY SUMMARY

H
V
!
P
DATE

H
V
!
BY
V
!
ISSUE / DESCRIPTION
10
H
H
NO.
H
H

GIS CLEARINGHOUSE.

!
(
P
!
(
600
GZ-11L
GZ-4
300
GENERAL NOTES:
GZ-1
V
!
P
@
@
A
A
150
SCALE IN FEET
GZ-5L
@
A
GZ-7L
@
A
V
!
P
@
A
@
A
GZ-2
!
H
H
@
A
@
A
@
A
@
A
H
@
A
@
A
V
!
P
@
@
A
A
@
@
A
A
GZ-3
v
no R
a
H ter
n
Ce
GZ-10U
GZ-6
GZ-10L
GZ-8U
GZ-9L
GZ-8L
P:\04Jobs\0190000s\04.0190030.00\04.0190030.02\Figures-CAD\April Figures\MXD\Figure 5 - VLF Survey Summary Plan.mxd, 5/5/2016, 1:42:21 PM, matthew.deane
GZ-9U
FIG
(
!
ACTIVE DUG WELL
(
!
ABANDONED DUG WELL
V
!
WATER SUPPLY WELL
LEGEND:
H
H
GZ-1
1020.9 GZ-8L
GZ-9D

H
!
SPRING
GZ-9U 1001.7
@
A
GZ-9L 993.5
9 RENNIE ROAD
@
@
A
A
@
A
1045.7 GZ-8U
GZ-17L A
@
GZ-9D 992.5
GF
1050
@
@
A
A
GZ-14L 1076.6
H
7 RENNIE ROAD
V
!
GZ-12L 1076.3
ESTIMATED HYDRAULIC HEAD CONTOUR

(SEE NOTE 5)
VERTICAL COMPONENT OF HYDRAULIC HEAD
GRADIANT ARROW (SEE NOTE 6)
CALCULATED HYDRAULIC HEAD
(SEE NOTE 4)
1001.7
GZ-11U 984.1
GZ-14U 1076.1
GF
GZ-7L 1055.2
GZ-2 1073.3
!
V
V
!
GZ-7U 1054.8
GZ-3 1074.6
1019.3
10
0
@
A
@
A

GZ-5L
H
!
GZ-5U
594 HANOVER
CENTER ROAD
STREAM - 1
GZ-11L 985.5
GZ-4 1075.8
@
A
1077.2
GZ-1
@
A
@
A
@
A
!
(
@
A
@
@
A
A
@
A
@
A
@
A
@
A
@
A
@
A
1077.0 GZ-13L
992.9 GZ-10L
HUMAN BURIAL AREA

BURIAL AREA

995.0 GZ-10U
1060.3 GZ-6

STREAM - 1
V
!
@
@
A
@A
A
0
10
0
BUILDING DEMOLISHED
603 HANOVER
CENTER ROAD
125
250
SCALE IN FEET
GENERAL NOTES:

GIS CLEARINGHOUSE.
@
A
GZ-16D

1067.8
4) GROUNDWATER ELEVATION DATA ARE BASED ON DEPTH TO

GROUNDWATER LEVEL MEASUREMENTS BY GZA MADE ON MARCH 8,
2016.
REFER TO TABLE 6 FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION.
!
(
H
DUG WELL - 2
!
(
5) HYDRAULIC HEAD CONTOURS ARE BASED ON COMPARISON OF THE

HYDRAULIC HEADS WITHIN WELLS SCREENED WITHIN OVERBURDEN AND
THE UPPER 40 FEET OF BEDROCK. WHERE OVERBURDEN AND BEDROCK
WELLS ARE PRESENT THE ESTIMATED HYDRAULIC HEAD OF THE BEDROCK
WELL WAS USED. THE DIRECTION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW WITHIN
BEDROCK IS A FUNCTION OF THE HYDRAULIC HEAD GRADIENT AND
FRACTURE CONNECTIVITY, THEREFORE THE DIRECTION OF GROUNDWATER
FLOW SHOULD NOT BE ASSUMED TO BE ORTHOGONAL TO THE ESTIMATED
HYDRAULIC HEAD CONTOURS.
6) VERTICAL COMPONENT OF HYDRAULIC HEAD GRADIENT ARROWS ARE

BASED ON COMPARISON OF CALCULATED HYDRAULIC HEAD ON MARCH 8,
2016 WITHIN WELL COUPLETS AND TRIPLETS AND INDICATE THE ONLY THE
PRESENCE OF AN UPWARD OR DOWNWARD VERTICAL COMPONENT OF
THE HYDRAULIC HEAD GRADIENT.
SUPPLY WELL WSW - 1
1023.4
NO.
@
?
@ !
?
V
ISSUE / DESCRIPTION
HYDRAULIC HEAD DATA SUMMARY
!
V
566 HANOVER
CENTER ROAD
PREPARED BY:

www.gza.com
!
V
PROJ MGR:
V
!
JMW
DESIGNED BY: JMW
V
!
DATE

DATE:
562 HANOVER
CENTER ROAD
SITE ENTRANCE
572 HANOVER
CENTER ROAD
BY
P:\04Jobs\0190000s\04.0190030.00\04.0190030.02\Figures-CAD\April Figures\MXD\Figure 6 - Hydraulic Head Data Summary.mxd, 5/5/2016, 1:59:26 PM, matthew.deane
V
!
05-05-2016
REVIEWED BY: SRL

DRAWN BY:
PROJECT NO.
MJD
04.0190030.02
PREPARED FOR:
DARTMOUTH COLLEGE
CHECKED BY:
JMW

REVISION NO.
FIG
LEGEND:
ACTIVE DUG WELL
(
!
ABANDONED DUG WELL
V
!
WATER SUPPLY WELL
(
!
H
H
GZ-8U
@
A
<0.25 GZ-8L
<0.25
GZ-9L 160
9 RENNIE ROAD
GF
H
H
H
H
<0.25
7 RENNIE ROAD
V
!
GZ-12L 1.5
<0.25
GZ-11L <0.25
INFERRED AXIS OF 1,4 - DIOXANE TRANSPORT

CONCENTRATION OF 1,4 - DIOXANE IN
MICROGRAMS PER LITER
(SEE NOTE 4)
8.7
@
@
A
A
GZ-14L 13
V
!
GZ-7U 1.1
13
GZ-14U 600
GZ-11U <0.25
<0.25
GZ-4
!
V
5.9
ESTIMATED LIMITS OF 1:4 DIOXANE IN GROUNDWATER
1.1
GZ-7L
4.4
GF
GZ-5U 8.7
@
A
@
A

4.9
H
!
GZ-2
GZ-5L
594 HANOVER
CENTER ROAD
<0.25
@
A
GZ-1
@
A
@
A
@
A
GZ-3
STREAM - 1 1.1
!
(
@
A
@
A

@
A
@
A
BURIAL AREA
@
@
A
A
@
A
@
A
@
A
SPRING
GZ-10U
HUMAN BURIAL AREA
0.45 GZ-13L
83
GZ-10L
<0.25
H
!
STREAM - 1
4.7
GZ-9D
17 GZ-6

V
!
@
@
A
@A
A
0.9
@
A
GZ-9U
@
@
A
A
GZ-9D
<0.25
GZ-1
3.5 GZ-17L A
@
H
BUILDING DEMOLISHED
603 HANOVER
CENTER ROAD
V
!
@
A
GZ-16D
<0.25
APRIL 21, 2016
125
<0.25
!
(
250
SCALE IN FEET
GENERAL NOTES:
GIS CLEARINGHOUSE.
DUG WELL - 2
!
(


4) EXCEPT AS NOTED, 1,4-DIOXANE CONCENTRATION DATA SHOWN

REPRESENT THE RESULTS OF THE MOST RECENT SAMPLING ROUND FOR
EACH LOCATION FOR THE PERIOD FROM JULY 8, 2015 THROUGH MARCH 8,
2016. REFER TO TABLE 3 AND TABLE 4 FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION.
@
?
<0.25
APRIL 21, 2016
NO.
H
ISSUE / DESCRIPTION
WATER QUALITY DATA SUMMARY
!
V
566 HANOVER
CENTER ROAD
V
!
<0.25
PREPARED BY:

www.gza.com
!
V
<0.25
PROJ MGR:
JMW
DESIGNED BY: JMW
V
!
DATE

DATE:
562 HANOVER
CENTER ROAD
SITE ENTRANCE
572 HANOVER
CENTER ROAD
BY
@ !
?
V
SUPPLY WELL WSW - 1
P:\04Jobs\0190000s\04.0190030.00\04.0190030.02\Figures-CAD\April Figures\MXD\Figure 7 - Water Quality Data Summary.mxd, 5/5/2016, 2:35:20 PM, matthew.deane
<0.25
05-05-2016
REVIEWED BY: SRL

DRAWN BY:
PROJECT NO.
MJD
04.0190030.02
PREPARED FOR:
DARTMOUTH COLLEGE
CHECKED BY:
JMW

REVISION NO.
FIG
1120
1120
TOP OF WEATHERED ROCK
GZ-14L
1100
1080
0.39
GZ-6
GZ-9L
0.96
4.3
27
BOTTOM OF
BORING
EL.=1062.3'
1040
17
BOTTOM OF
BORING
EL.=1051.4'
1020
GZ-9D
1040
2) VERTICAL COMPONENT OF HYDRAULIC HEAD GRADIENT ARROWS ARE BASED ON COMPARISON OF CALCULATED
HYDRAULIC HEAD ON MARCH 8, 2016 WITHIN WELL COUPLETS AND TRIPLETS AND INDICATE THE ONLY THE
PRESENCE OF AN UPWARD OR DOWNWARD VERTICAL COMPONENT OF THE HYDRAULIC HEAD GRADIENT.
1020
OVERBURDEN
SOILS
BOTTOM OF
BORING
EL.=1071.7
1000
BOTTOM OF
BORING GZ-12L
EL.=1066.6'
BOTTOM OF
BORING GZ-13L
EL.=1065.9'
?
?
980
BOTTOM OF
BORING
EL.=965.1'
960
77
PVC WELL SCREEN
940
BOTTOM OF
BORING
EL.=992.1'
BEDROCK
BEDROCK SURFACE
920
94
900
1+00
2+00
3+00
4+00
5+00
6+00
7+00
LEGEND:
940
VERTICAL COMPONENT OF HYDRAULIC HEAD GRADIENT ARROW
4.1
PVC WELL SCREEN

(TYPICAL)
BOTTOM OF
BORING
EL.=913.5'
0+00
1) CROSS SECTIONS BASED ON MATERIALS ENCOUNTERED WHILE DRILLING THE BORINGS SHOWN ON THE CROSS
SECTIONS, AND OBSERVATIONS OF WELLS AND GROUND SURFACE CONDITIONS.
GZ-17L
TOP OF WEATHERED ROCK
<0.25
960
DATUM ELEV
880.0
1060
BEDROCK SURFACE
980
NOTES:
EXISTING GRADE
?
BOTTOM OF
BORING
EL.=1063.7
1000
1080
GZ-9U
1060
ELEVATION IN FEET
1100
GZ-3
GZ-14U
560
ELEVATION IN FEET
GZ-13L
GZ-12L
920
BOTTOM OF
BORING
EL.=915.9'
8+00
900
8+50
17
INDICATES CONCENTRATIONS 1,4-DIOXANE IN MICROGRAMS PER LITER BASED

ON JULY 8, 2015 SAMPLING ROUND
4.5
INDICATES CONCENTRATION OF 1,4-DIOXANE IN MICROGRAMS PER LITER BASED

ON APRIL 11, 2016 SAMPLING ROUND
880
PROFILE A-A'
VERTICAL SCALE IN FEET
40
80
20
20
40
80
HORIZONTAL SCALE IN FEET
120
120
1120
1120
GZ-7U
GZ-1
1100
GZ-2
1080 ?
<0.25
1060
GZ-5U
PVC WELL SCREEN

(TYPICAL)
?
21
GZ-10L
5.9
BOTTOM OF
BORING
EL.=1064.9'
1040
1080
TOP OF
WEATHERED ROCK
BOTTOM OF
BORING
EL.=1071.6'
1100
GZ-5L
GZ-7L
?
?
BOTTOM OF
BORING
EL.=1028.8'
980
1040
PVC WELL SCREEN
(TYPICAL)
1.1
1000
GZ-10U
STREAM 1
0.85
8.7
1020
1060
DUG WELL
4.9
BOTTOM OF
BORING
EL.=1036.5'
BOTTOM OF
BORING
EL.=1012.2'
?
BOTTOM OF
BORING
EL.=1030.2'
0.93
BOTTOM OF
BORING
EL.=1009.3'
<0.25
?
1000
?
BOTTOM OF
BORING
EL.=991.6'
BEDROCK SURFACE
1020
OVERBURDEN
SOILS
RENNIE
ROAD
WATER
SUPPLY
WELL 9
RENNIE
ROAD
0.95
BOTTOM OF
BORING
EL.=974.8'
960
940
980
960
940
BEDROCK
920
900
900
880
880
860
860
840
840
4.5
820
820
800
800
780
780
760
760
740
740
720
DATUM ELEV
700.0
920
700
0+00
ELEVATION IN FEET
ELEVATION IN FEET
BOTTOM OF BORING
NOT KNOWN MINIMUM
200' DEPTH ASSUMED

720
700
1+00
2+00
3+00
5+00
4+00
6+00
7+00
8+00
9+00
9+80

SECTION A-A AND SECTION B-B'
PROFILE B-B'
0
0
VERTICAL SCALE IN FEET

20
40
80
20
40
80
HORIZONTAL SCALE IN FEET
PREPARED FOR:
PREPARED BY:
120
DARTMOUTH COLLEGE

www.gza.com
120
PROJ MGR:
JMW
REVIEWED BY:
JMW
CHECKED BY:
DESIGNED BY:
JMW
DRAWN BY:
CRB
SCALE:
DATE:
MAY, 2016
PROJECT NO.
04.0190030.02
AS NOTED
REVISION NO.
FIGURE
8
SHEET NO.
Proactive by Design
APPENDIX A - LIMITATIONS
GEOHYDROLOGICAL LIMITATIONS
04.0190030.02
Page | 1
April 2012
active by Design
USE OF REPORT
1. GZA GeoEnvironmental, Inc. (GZA) prepared this report on behalf of, and for the exclusive use of our Client for the stated
purpose(s) and location(s) identified in the Proposal for Services and/or Report. Use of this report, in whole or in part, at
other locations, or for other purposes, may lead to inappropriate conclusions; and we do not accept any responsibility for
the consequences of such use(s). Further, reliance by any party not expressly identified in the agreement, for any use,
without our prior written permission, shall be at that partys sole risk, and without any liability to GZA.
STANDARD OF CARE
2. GZAs findings and conclusions are based on the work conducted as part of the Scope of Services set forth in the Proposal
for Services and/or Report and reflect our professional judgment. These findings and conclusions must be considered not
as scientific or engineering certainties, but rather as our professional opinions concerning the limited data gathered during
the course of our work. Conditions other than described in this report may be found at the subject location(s).
3. GZAs services were performed using the degree of skill and care ordinarily exercised by qualified professionals performing
the same type of services, at the same time, under similar conditions, at the same or a similar property. No warranty,
expressed or implied, is made. Specifically, GZA does not and cannot represent that the Site contains no hazardous
material, oil, or other latent condition beyond that observed by GZA during its study. Additionally, GZA makes no warranty
that any response action or recommended action will achieve all of its objectives or that the findings of this study will be
upheld by a local, state or federal agency.
4. In conducting our work, GZA relied upon certain information made available by public agencies, Client and/or others. GZA
did not attempt to independently verify the accuracy or completeness of that information. Inconsistencies in this
information which we have noted, if any, are discussed in the Report.
SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
5. The generalized soil profile(s) provided in our Report are based on widely-spaced subsurface explorations and are
intended only to convey trends in subsurface conditions. The boundaries between strata are approximate and idealized,
and were based on our assessment of subsurface conditions. The composition of strata, and the transitions between
strata, may be more variable and more complex than indicated. For more specific information on soil conditions at a
specific location refer to the exploration logs. The nature and extent of variations between these explorations may not
become evident until further exploration or construction. If variations or other latent conditions then become evident, it
will be necessary to reevaluate the conclusions and recommendations of this report.
6. Water level readings have been made, as described in this Report, in and monitoring wells at the specified times and under
the stated conditions. These data have been reviewed and interpretations have been made in this report. Fluctuations
in the level of the groundwater however occur due to temporal or spatial variations in areal recharge rates, soil
heterogeneities, the presence of subsurface utilities, and/or natural or artificially induced perturbations. The observed
water table may be other than indicated in the Report.
COMPLIANCE WITH CODES AND REGULATIONS
7. We used reasonable care in identifying and interpreting applicable codes and regulations necessary to execute our scope
of work. These codes and regulations are subject to various, and possibly contradictory, interpretations. Interpretations
and compliance with codes and regulations by other parties is beyond our control.
GEOHYDROLOGICAL LIMITATIONS
04.0190030.02
Page | 2
April 2012
SCREENING AND ANALYTICAL TESTING

active by Design
8. GZA collected environmental samples at the locations identified in the Report. These samples were analyzed for the
specific parameters identified in the report. Additional constituents, for which analyses were not conducted, may be
present in soil, groundwater, surface water, sediment and/or air. Future Site activities and uses may result in a
requirement for additional testing.
9. Our interpretation of field screening and laboratory data is presented in the Report. Unless otherwise noted, we relied
upon the laboratorys QA/QC program to validate these data.
10. Variations in the types and concentrations of contaminants observed at a given location or time may occur due to release
mechanisms, disposal practices, changes in flow paths, and/or the influence of various physical, chemical, biological or
radiological processes. Subsequently observed concentrations may be other than indicated in the Report.
INTERPRETATION OF DATA
11. Our opinions are based on available information as described in the Report, and on our professional judgment.
Additional observations made over time, and/or space, may not support the opinions provided in the Report.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
12. In the event that the Client or others authorized to use this report obtain additional information on environmental or
hazardous waste issues at the Site not contained in this report, such information shall be brought to GZA's attention
forthwith. GZA will evaluate such information and, on the basis of this evaluation, may modify the conclusions stated in
this report.
CONCEPTUAL SITE MODEL)
13. Our opinions were developed, in part, based upon a comparison of site data to conditions anticipated within our
Conceptual Site Model (CSM). The CSM is based on available information, and professional judgment. There are rarely
sufficient data to develop a unique CSM. Therefore observations over time, and/or space, may vary from those depicted
in the CSM provided in this report. In addition, the CSM should be evaluated and refined (as appropriate) whenever
significant new information and/or data is obtained.
Proactive by Design
APPENDIX B FEBRUARY 2016 REPORT BY HAGER RICHTER
HAGER-RICHTER
GEOSCIENCE, INC.
SURFACE GEOPHYSICAL SURVEYS

DARTMOUTH COLLEGE - RENNIE FARM SITE
RENNIE ROAD
Prepared for:
5 Commerce Park North
Bedford, New Hampshire 03110
Prepared by:
Hager-Richter Geoscience, Inc.
8 Industrial Way - D10
Salem, New Hampshire 03079
File 15J101
February, 2016
2016 Hager-Richter Geoscience, Inc.
HAGER-RICHTER
GEOSCIENCE, INC.
Surface Geophysical Surveys

Dartmouth College - Rennie Farm Site
Rennie Road
File 15J101
February, 2016
0. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Hager-Richter Geoscience, Inc. conducted surface geophysical surveys for GZA GeoEnvironmental, Inc. (GZA) of Bedford, New Hampshire at the Dartmouth College - Rennie Farm
Site located on Rennie Road in Hanover, New Hampshire. The geophysical surveys consisted of
geologic mapping of fractures, fracture trace analysis (FTA), very low frequency
electromagnetics (VLF), and electrical resistivity imaging (ERI).
The Statement of Work (SOW) for the geophysical surveys consisted of the following:
Geologic mapping to determine the orientation of fractures in exposed bedrock outcrops
in and around the site.
FTA to detect possible bedrock fracture zones (PFZs) across the Site.
VLF to detect, and if detected, to provide additional information about PFZs across the
Site.
ERI to detect, and if detected, to provide additional information about PFZs across the
Site.
The field work was conducted during the period of November 23, 2015 to January 12,
2016 as weather permitted.
The geologic mapping of fractures shows that bedrock fractures strike generally
southwest-northeast (N45E) and dip steeply to the NW. About 32% of the fractures strike
between N30E and N45E, and about 63% of the dip angles are equal to or greater than 75o.
There is a small percentage of fractures with shallow dips and almost random strikes
Ten PFZs were detected in the study area on the basis of the integrated interpretation of
the data provided by FTA, VLF, and ERI. Additional undetected PFZs associated with
photolinears may be present outside the area of the VLF and ERI study area, but could not be
confirmed due to lack of coverage of them with VLF and ERI.
The average strike of seven of the ten PFZs is N44E. The average strike is within the
range of strikes, N30E-N45E, of the bedrock fractures determined in the Geologic Mapping task.
This significant overlap suggests that the PFZs and the bedrock fractures are consistent with one
another and were likely created by the same geologic processes.
-i-
HAGER-RICHTER
GEOSCIENCE, INC.

Rennie Road
File 15J101
February, 2016
TABLE OF CONTENTS
0.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Executive Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i
Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Approach and Methods. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.1
General .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.2
Geologic Mapping, Site Specific . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.3
Fracture Trace Analysis (FTA), Site Specific .. . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.4
Very Low Frequency Electromagnetics (VLF), Site Specific . 3
2.5
Electrical Resistivity Imaging (ERI), Site Specific . . . . . . . . . 4
Results and Discussion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.1
General .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.2
Geologic Mapping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.3
Fracture Trace Analysis (FTA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.4
Very Low Frequency Electromagnetics (VLF) . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.5
Electrical Resistivity Imaging (ERI) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.6
Integrated Interpretation.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.7
Limitations of the Integrated Interpretation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Conclusions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Limitations on use of Report. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
FIGURES
1
2
General Site Location and Topography

ERI - View Looking NE
PLATES
1
2
3
4
5
Site Plan
Geology and Fracture Trace Analysis
VLF Survey
ERI Survey
Integrated Interpretation
- ii -
HAGER-RICHTER
GEOSCIENCE, INC.

Rennie Road
File 15J101
February, 2016
TABLE OF CONTENTS CONTINUED

APPENDIX
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Geologic Mapping Method

Fracture Trace Analysis Method
Very Low Frequency Electromagnetics (VLF) Method
Electrical Resistivity Imaging (ERI) Method
Geologic Mapping Data
VLF Data (as Profiles after Fraser filtering)
ERI Data (as Profiles)
- iii -
HAGER-RICHTER
GEOSCIENCE, INC.

Rennie Road
File 15J101
February, 2016
1. INTRODUCTION
Hager-Richter Geoscience, Inc. conducted surface geophysical surveys in late 2015 and
early 2016 for GZA GeoEnvironmental, Inc. (GZA) of Bedford, New Hampshire at the
Dartmouth College - Rennie Farm Site located on Rennie Road in Hanover, New Hampshire.
The surveys are part of a supplemental hydrogeologic investigation of the Site by GZA on
behalf of Dartmouth College. The Site is a large, relatively undeveloped parcel located on the
west side of Rennie Road in the town of Hanover. The general location of the site is shown in
Figure 1. GZA indicated that a remediated source area for buried hazardous waste is located at
the edge of a field about 900 feet west of Rennie Road (Plate 1). A domestic water supply well
along Rennie Road reportedly has been impacted, and GZA is investigating the possible effects
of fractured bedrock on groundwater transport.
The site is situated on a ridge that trends approximately N30oW, and the elevation varies
from about 800 ft along a creek bed east of Rennie Road to about 1100 ft near the source area,
relief of about 300 ft. Figure 1 shows the topography of the immediate site and surrounding area.
The surface is generally smooth with moderate slopes on the flanks of the northeast/southwest
trending ridge.
Plate 1 is a site plan. The site includes open and treed areas. Photos P1 and P2 are
typical views of the open and treed areas, respectively.
Photo P1
Photo 2
As shown in Plate 2, the site is underlain by the Partridge Formation. The Partridge
Formation is described as Black, rusty-weathering sulfidic-graphitic slate or schist and sparse to
- Page 1 -
HAGER-RICHTER
GEOSCIENCE, INC.

Rennie Road
File 15J101
February, 2016
abundant metagraywacke.1 The hydraulic permeability of such rock is typically very low and
interconnected fractures provide the primary pathways for fluid migration. Hence the use in this
project, a supplemental hydrogeological investigation, of standard geophysical and geologic
methods to map the fractures.
The Statement of Work (SOW) for the geophysical surveys consisted of the following:
Geologic mapping to determine the orientation of fractures in exposed bedrock outcrops
in and around the site.
FTA to detect possible bedrock fracture zones across the Site.
VLF to detect, and if detected to provide additional information about possible bedrock
fracture zones across the Site.
ERI to detect, and if detected to provide additional information about possible bedrock
fracture zones across the Site.
The geophysical surveys and the dates on which the corresponding data were acquired are
as follows:
Geologic Mapping of fractures, November 23-24, 2015
Fracture Trace Analysis (FTA), December 9-10, 2015
Very Low Frequency Electromagnetics (VLF), December 1,3,4, 8, 2015
Electrical Resistivity Imaging (ERI), December 16, 23, 2015 and January 12, 2016
Jeffrey Reid, P.G. and Michael Howley, P.G., of Hager-Richter led the field teams. The
project was coordinated with Mr. James M. Wieck, P.G., Hydrogeologist/Senior Project Manager
of GZA. Data analysis and interpretation were performed at the Hager-Richter offices. Original
data and field notes will be retained in the Hager-Richter files for a minimum of three years.
Preliminary results for the FTA and VLF were provided GZA on December 14, 2015;
preliminary results for the Geologic Mapping and ERI were provided on January 5, 2016; and
preliminary copies of the Report plates were provided on January 22, 2016.
Lyons et al. (1991), "A New Bedrock Geologic Map of New Hampshire," revised and automated at the
Complex Systems Research Center, UNH.
- Page 2 -
HAGER-RICHTER
GEOSCIENCE, INC.

Rennie Road
File 15J101
February, 2016
2. APPROACH AND METHODS

2.1
GENERAL
Appendices 1 through 4 provide brief discussions of the methods, including

instrumentation, field work details, and processing as used by Hager-Richter for this project for
geologic mapping, FTA, VLF, and ERI, respectively. Specific site details for each method are
provided in this section. The outcrops and field traverse lines were located with DGPS, and their
locations are provided in Plate 1. The locations of photolinears identified by Hager-Richter were
determined from GIS-referenced photographs.
2.2
GEOLOGIC MAPPING, SITE SPECIFIC
Inasmuch as one objective of this project was to determine the orientation of fractures in
exposed bedrock outcrops in and around the site, Hager-Richter personnel located outcrops by
traversing the property in a regular pattern. The outcrop locations, determined with GPS, and
identifications are shown in Plate 2.
2.3
FRACTURE TRACE ANALYSIS (FTA), SITE SPECIFIC
Several aerial photos were used for this project, a low resolution photo downloaded from
the TerraServer website, a high resolution georeferenced photo from Terra Server, and several
aerial georeferenced images from the NHGranit website.
2.4
VLF LOW FREQUENCY ELECTROMAGNETICS (VLF), SITE SPECIFIC
The VLF survey line locations were selected by Hager-Richter in conjunction with GZA
based on existing site conditions, access, and the results of the fracture trace analysis conducted
by Hager-Richter. The locations of the survey traverses are shown in Plate 1. The instrumentation used for this project was a GEM Systems GSM-19 VLF meter with an integrated GPS unit.
The GSM-19 records up to three VLF-EM frequencies simultaneously as well as the total
magnetic field and the location at each station. Station spacing was approximately 20 feet.
For this project, we used the Cutler, Maine transmitter identification NAA, frequency
of 24.0 kHz, power 1000 kW and Jim Creek, Washington identification of NLK, frequency
of 24.8 kHz, power 250 kW. Although we acquired data for the LaMour, North Dakota VLF
station, the signal was too weak during acquisition to provide useful data.
- Page 3 -
HAGER-RICHTER
GEOSCIENCE, INC.

Rennie Road
File 15J101
February, 2016
2.5
ELECTRICAL RESISTIVITY IMAGING (ERI), SITE SPECIFIC
The ERI traverse line locations were selected by Hager-Richter based on existing site
conditions, access, and the results of the FTA and VLF conducted by Hager-Richter. The line
locations were reviewed by GZA, and are shown in Plate 1. The instrumentation used for ERI in
this project was our Advanced Geosciences, Inc. (AGI) Super Sting R8 earth resistivity
instrument with 56 smart electrodes. We used the Schlumberger and Wenner electrode
configurations.
The distance between adjacent smart electrodes for Lines 1-5 of this project was 15 ft,
resulting in line lengths of 825 feet. The distance for Line 6 was 20 feet, resulting in a line length
of 1100 feet. While both Schlumberger and Wenner arrays were acquired for the survey, the
Schlumberger arrays provided better resolution and were used for the interpretation.
- Page 4 -
HAGER-RICHTER
GEOSCIENCE, INC.

Rennie Road
File 15J101
February, 2016
3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

3.1
GENERAL
In this section, we present and discuss the results of each method separately and then
provide an integrated interpretation. The results of the geologic mapping and FTA, VLF survey
and ERI survey are presented in Plates 2, and 3, respectively. Plate 5 shows the integrated
interpretation of the geologic and geophysical data acquired at the Rennie Farm site.
3.2
GEOLOGIC MAPPING
As noted above in the Site Specific section, Hager-Richter personnel traversed over the
site and abutting properties for which access permission had been obtained by GZA in a regular
pattern designed to provide a statistically representative sampling of bedrock outcrops. Bedrock
exposures are not abundant at the site. Although not every outcrop in those areas was visited and
examined, we examined 22 outcrops in the Site and six outcrops in abutting properties. We
interpreted the results as showing twenty-two outcrops in the Site and three outcrops outside the
site to be true outcrops. The data, consisting of the strike and dip of fractures at each outcrop, are
provided in Appendix 5 and are shown in graphical format in Figure 2. Photos P3 and P4 show
typical outcrops. The areal extent of most outcrops is small, several yards in dimension at most.
Photo P3
Photo P4
As noted in the Introduction, the objective of the geologic mapping was to determine the
orientation of fractures in exposed bedrock outcrops in and around the site. The results are
shown on Plate 2 in two formats: one as a stereogram of the poles of the fractures, and the other
as a rose diagram of the azimuths of the dip vector and a histogram of the dip angles.
The stereogram shows that the poles are oriented predominantly southeast with a shallow
dip, which in the usual geologic terminology means the fractures strike northeast (N45E) and dip
steeply. The rose diagram shows that about 32% of the dip azimuths (90o to strike) range
- Page 5 -
HAGER-RICHTER
GEOSCIENCE, INC.

Rennie Road
File 15J101
February, 2016
between 300o and 315o and the dip angle histogram shows that about 63% of the dip angles are
equal to or greater than 75o. In addition to the closely grouped fracture orientations, there is a
small percentage of fractures with shallow dips and almost random strikes.
3.3
FRACTURE TRACE ANALYSIS (FTA)
As noted above, we used georeferenced high resolution aerial photographs to identify and
locate the photolinears shown in Plate 2. The locations of the photolinears were checked in the
field to insure they are not due to anthropogenic features such as old roads, stonewalls, or other
non-fracture related features.
Thirteen photolinears identified by Hager-Richter extend across the site or are located
within about 600 ft of the site. The azimuths of seven and six of those photolinears are 90o20o
and 0o20o, respectively.
Six lineaments identified by the USGS2 extend across the site or are located within about
600 ft of the site. The azimuths of two and four of those lineaments are 90o20o and 0o 20o,
respectively.
Two of the Hager-Richter photolinears are close to, and roughly parallel to, two of the
USGS lineaments, one pair approximately E-W, the other pair roughly N-S.
We note explicitly that the location of any PFZ associated with a photolinear or lineament
is likely to be approximately parallel to, but may be no closer than about 50 ft to the photolinear
and/or lineament (uncertainty of the USGS lineaments may be larger due to small scale of the
published map). Hence the uncertainty of the PFZ locations is about 50 ft.
3.4
VERY LOW FREQUENCY ELECTROMAGNETICS (VLF)
The locations of the eight VLF survey lines are shown in Plate 1. Six lines are located on
the site and two lines are located northeast of the site. The Fraser filtered real component VLF
data are presented as profiles in Appendix 6 and in contour form on Plate 3.
Interpretation of the VLF results is chiefly based on pattern recognition. The physics of
the method indicates the presence of steeply dipping thin zones of electrically conducting
material approximately below the high values of Fraser filtered real component.
Ferguson, et al, 1999. Lineament Map of Area10 of the Bedrock Aquifer Assessment. NorthwestCentral New Hakmpshire.
- Page 6 -
HAGER-RICHTER
GEOSCIENCE, INC.

Rennie Road
File 15J101
February, 2016
3.5
ELECTRICAL RESISTIVITY IMAGING (ERI)
The locations of the ERI survey lines are shown in Plate 1. The data are provided in
profile format on Plate 4 and in Appendix 7. The resistivity profiles are shown on Figure 2 in a
3D perspective intended to facilitate visualization of the subsurface resistivity and associated
PFZs.
The locations of ten Possible Fracture Zones (PFZs) that, as discussed below in Section
3.6, have been determined using the results of all of the methods, are shown on Plate 4 for
comparison with the ERI results. In general, where a PFZ crosses an ERI traverse line, the
subsurface resistivity is low (as would be expected).
Linear zones of low resistivity that are near the surface of an ERI traverse line are
commonly interpreted as PFZs, especially if such zones along several ERI lines have similar
resistivities, similar dips, and can be correlated to several ERI lines.
3.6
INTEGRATED INTERPRETATION
Our integrated interpretation of the geologic mapping, FTA, and surface geophysical
surveys is shown in Plate 5. We have inferred ten Possible Fracture Zones (PFZ) on the basis of
the VLF, ERI, and FTA surveys. With the exception of PFZ3, all PFZs were based on two or
three of the methods. Although there may be PFZs associated with one or more of the H-R
photolinears and USGS lineaments located outside the area of the surface geophysical surveys,
we have not shown any such PFZs on Plate 5 because the VLF and ERI data were not available
to confirm (or refute) their presence due to the location and orientation of the VLF and ERI
traverse lines. We note explicitly that the photolinear located near the path denoted as inferred
direction of ground water flow leading from the excavated source location may indicate the
presence of a PFZ at this location.
The following table shows the basis of our interpretation of all available data in terms of
PFZs:
BASIS OF INTERPRETATION
ID
STRIKE
VLF
N87E
N15W
N47E
ERI
LINE
FTA
PNB
PARA 5
X
- Page 7 -
USGS
HAGER-RICHTER
GEOSCIENCE, INC.

Rennie Road
File 15J101
February, 2016
BASIS OF INTERPRETATION
ID
STRIKE
VLF
ERI
LINE
N42E
N40E
N40E
1,2,4
N48E
1,2,4
N41E
N8E
1,3,4
10
N45E
FTA
USGS
Abreviations:
ID
Possible Fracture Zone Identification
PNB Parallel and Nearby
PARA Parallel to
USGS USGS Lineaments
The average strike of PFZs 3-8 and 10 is N44E. The average strike is within the range of
strikes N30E - N45E (converted from the range of dip azimuths, Figure 2) of the bedrock
fractures determined in the geologic mapping task and discussed in Section 4.2. This significant
overlap suggests that the PFZs and the bedrock fractures are consistent with one another and
were likely created by the same geologic processes.
3.7
LIMITATIONS OF THE INTEGRATED INTERPRETATION
There are limitations to our integrated interpretation of the geologic mapping, FTA, and
surface geophysical surveys shown in Plate 5. Each method has limitations, and these are discussed in the Appendix. Here we call explicit attention to the following limitations specific to our
interpretation:
Orientation. The horizontal orientation of the VLF lines were constrained by the
location of VLF transmitters. Possible fracture zones oriented with strikes that differ by
more than about 40o from the directions to the transmitters (Cutler, Maine and Jim Creek,
Washington) could have been missed. Thus, the VLF results would not have included
any PFZ with a strike between about N35E and N35W. VLF transmitters were not
available in other orientations.
- Page 8 -
HAGER-RICHTER
GEOSCIENCE, INC.

Rennie Road
File 15J101
February, 2016
Dip. As discussed in the Appendix, the VLF method responds best to PFZs that are
vertical (within about 15o to 20o). Thus, PFZs with dips less than about 70o would not
have been detected in the VLF survey.
Geologic mapping undersamples horizontal features.
- Page 9 -
HAGER-RICHTER
GEOSCIENCE, INC.

Rennie Road
File 15J101
February, 2016
4. CONCLUSIONS
Based on the results of the geophysical surveys conducted for GZA of Bedford, New
Hampshire at the Dartmouth College - Rennie Farm Site located in Hanover, New Hampshire,
and consisting of geologic mapping of fractures, fracture trace analysis (FTA), very low
frequency electromagnetics (VLF), and electrical resistivity imaging (ERI), we conclude the
following.
The geologic mapping of fractures shows that in general bedrock fractures strike
southwest-northeast (N45E) and dip steeply to the NW. About 32% of the fractures strike
between N30E and N45E and about 63% of the dip angles are equal to or greater than 75o. There
is a small percentage of fractures with shallow dips and almost random strikes
Ten PFZs were detected in the study area on the basis of the integrated interpretation of
the data provided by FTA, VLF, and ERI. Additional undetected PFZs associated with
photolinears may be present outside the area of the ERI study area, but could not be confirmed
due to lack of coverage of them with VLF and ERI.
The average strike of seven of the ten PFZs is N44oE. The average strike is within the
range of strikes, N30E - N60E, of the bedrock fractures determined in the Geologic Mapping
task. This significant overlap suggests that the PFZs and the bedrock fractures are consistent
with one another and were likely created by the same geologic processes.
- Page 10 -
HAGER-RICHTER
GEOSCIENCE, INC.

Rennie Road
File 15J101
February, 2016
5 LIMITATIONS ON USE OF REPORT

This report was prepared for the exclusive use of GZA GeoEnvironmental, Inc. (Client)
in its work at the Dartmouth College - Rennie Farm Site. Any use by any third party of this
Report or any information, documents, records, data, interpretations, advice or opinions given to
the Client by Hager-Richter Geoscience, Inc. in the performance of its work shall be at such third
party's own risk and without any liability to Hager-Richter Geoscience, Inc.
Hager-Richter Geoscience, Inc. has performed its professional services, obtained its
findings, and made its conclusions in accordance with generally accepted and customary
principles and practices in the field of geophysics. No other warranty, either expressed or
implied, is made. Hager-Richter Geoscience, Inc. is not responsible for the independent
conclusions, opinions, or recommendations made by others based on the information,
geophysical data, and interpretations presented in this report.
This geophysical survey included a limited set of data obtained at the project Area and
was conducted with limited knowledge of the Area and its subsurface conditions. Hager-Richter
Geoscience, Inc. does not assume responsibility for the accuracy of information that was
provided to us by others about the Area and its subsurface conditions. The findings provided by
Hager-Richter Geoscience, Inc. are based solely on the information described in this document.
The conclusions drawn from this investigation are considered reliable; however, there may exist
localized variations in subsurface conditions that have not been completely defined at this time.
It should be noted that our conclusions might be modified if subsurface conditions were better
delineated with additional subsurface exploration including, but not limited to, test pits, soil
borings with collection of soil and water samples, and laboratory testing.
- Page 11 -
845000
850000
855000
460000
460000
Site
Copyright: 2013 National Geographic Society, i-cubed
845000
850000
Note that below the Line marked above that elevations

are in feet and below the line, the elevation are in meters.
2,000 1,000
2,000
Feet
450000
450000
455000
455000
855000
Figure 1
General Site Location and Topography
Rennie Road
H-R File 15J101
February, 2016
HAGER-RICHTER GEOSCIENCE, INC.

Salem, New Hampshire
850000
852000
848000
846000
114
113
Dairy L
VLF-8
111
VLF-7
205
206
ie
nn
Re
207
Rd
215
VLF-6
VLF-3
LEGEND
Site
HH
106
105
104
102
VLF-4
458000
VLF-5
214
458000
204
103
Approximate Location of Excavated Source (GZA)

H
VLF-2
e
d r
ERI Line 2
ERI Line 1
ERI Line 6
VLF Line Locations with ID

ERI Line Locations with ID
Bedrock Outcrops
H
VLF-1
v
no
Ha ter R
n
Ce
112
203
ERI Line 5
Inferred Direction of Groundwater Flow (GZA)
108
Property Lines
Roads
107
107a
101
202
201
208
Streams
212
GENERAL NOTES
209
1) MODIFIED FROM BASE MAP PROVIDE BY GZA ENTITLED

"FIGURE 2 - WATER SUPPLY SAMPLING SUMMARY PLAN."
211
2) AERIAL PHOTOS SHOWN OBTAINED FROM THE NEW

HAMPSHIRE STATEWIDE GIS CLEARINGHOUSE (NH GRANIT).
210
ERI Line 3
H
H
110
456000
109
456000
ERI Line 4
848000
850000
852000
846000
Coordinate System: NAD 1983 CORS96 StatePlane New Hampshire FIPS 2800 Ft US
PLATE 1
SITE PLAN
RENNIE ROAD
600
Feet
H-R FILE 15J101
1 Inch = 300 Feet
FEBRUARY, 2016

SALEM, NEW HAMPSHIRE
300
600
844000
846000
848000
850000
852000
854000
856000
Re
Partridge Formation
nn
ie
Rd
Ammonoosuc Volcanics
460000
Baker
Hill Rd
460000
Littleton Formation
114
113
Dairy L
n
111
206
205
207
215
458000
458000
LEGEND
214
204
102
Site
106
105 104
103
112
203
v
R er
d
Outcrop Locations
no
Ha ter
en
C
Property Lines
Roads
108
107
107a
Streams
USGS Lineaments
101
201
208
209
202
H-R Photo Linears
212
456000
456000
211
109
210
110
GENERAL NOTES
3) BEDROCK GEOLOGY TAKEN FROM "BEDROCK GEOLOGIC
MAP OF NEW HAMPSHIRE," BY LYONS, BOTHNER, MOENCH,
AND THOMPSON, 1997.
454000
454000
4) USGS LINEAMENTS TAKEN FROM "LINEAMENT MAP OF AREA

10 OF THE NEW HAMPSHIRE BEDROCK AQUIFER ASSESSMENT,
NORTHWEST-CENTRAL NEW HAMPSHIRE," BY FERGUSON,
CLARK, SHORT, MARCOUX, AND MOORE, 1999.
844000
846000
848000
850000
1,000
500
1 Inch = 500 Feet
852000
1,000
Feet
854000
856000
PLATE 2
GEOLOGY AND FRACTURE TRACE ANALYSIS
RENNIE ROAD
H-R FILE 15J101
FEBRUARY, 2016

846000
848000
850000
852000
Dairy L
VLF-8
VLF-7
ie
nn
Re
Rd
VLF-6
458000
458000
VLF-5
VLF-4
VLF-3
LEGEND
Possible Fracture Zones with IDs
VLF-2
Site
e
d r
v
no R
a
H ter
n
Ce
VLF-1

VLF Line Locations with ID
Property Lines
Roads
H
Streams
GENERAL NOTES
456000
456000

3) VLF DATA ACQURED USING A GSM-19 WALKING MAG-VLF
SYNCED WITH DGPS. RELATIVE REAL COMPONENT RESPONSE
SHOWN.
Relative Response
Real Component of the VLF Field
846000
848000
850000
600
300
1 Inch = 300 Feet
852000
600
Feet
PLATE 3
VLF SURVEY
RENNIE ROAD
H-R FILE 15J101
FEBRUARY, 2016

850000
#2
ERI Line 6
ERI Line 2
#3
ERI Line 1
ERI Line 5
#6
LEGEND
Site
Possible Fracture Zone with ID
ERI Line Locations with ID
Property Lines
#4
Roads
H
Streams
GENERAL NOTES
#5

3) ERI DATA ACQUIRED USING AN ADVANCED GEOSCIENCES
INC. SUPERSTING R8 WITH 56 ELECTRODES AND USING THE
SCHLUMBERGER ARRAY.
Re
nn
4) THE RESISTIVITY PROFILES FOR EACH ERI LINE SHOWS THE

RESISTIVITY IMMEDIATELY BELOW OR NEAR THE LINE.
ie
Rd
5) SURFACE INTERSECTION OF INFERRED FRACTURE ZONES

INTERPRETED ON THE BASIS OF THE ERI DATA ALONE ARE
MARKED AT THE TOP OF THE LINES WITH A BOLD BLACK LINE.
#10
ERI Line 4
456000
456000
#8
Ha n
Cen over
t e r Rd
#7
ERI Line 3
PLATE 4
ERI SURVEY
RENNIE ROAD
#9
850000
200
100
1 Inch = 100 Feet
200
Feet
H-R FILE 15J101
FEBRUARY, 2016

H
H
850000
852000
848000
846000
Dairy L
ie
nn
Re
458000
458000
Rd
LEGEND
HH
Possible Fracture Zones with ID
Site
H
e
d r
v
no R
a
H ter
n
Ce
H
H
H-R Photo Linears
USGS Lineaments
Property Lines
Roads
Streams
H
H
456000

H
H

456000
GENERAL NOTES
3) USGS LINEAMENTS TAKEN FROM "LINEAMENT MAP OF AREA

10 OF THE NEW HAMPSHIRE BEDROCK AQUIFER ASSESSMENT,
NORTHWEST-CENTRAL NEW HAMPSHIRE," BY FERGUSON,
CLARK, SHORT, MARCOUX, AND MOORE, 1999.
848000
850000
852000
846000
PLATE 5
INTEGRATED INTERPRETATION
RENNIE ROAD
600
Feet
H-R FILE 15J101
1 Inch = 300 Feet
H
H
FEBRUARY, 2016

H
300
600
HAGER-RICHTER
GEOSCIENCE, INC.

Rennie Road
File 15J101
February, 2016
APPENDICES
HAGER-RICHTER
GEOSCIENCE, INC.

Rennie Road
File 15J101
February, 2016
APPENDIX 1
GEOLOGIC MAPPING METHOD

Rennie Road
File 15J101
February, 2016
HAGER-RICHTER
GEOSCIENCE, INC.
GEOLOGIC MAPPING
1.
Concept
Geologic maps display spatial distribution of such geologic features as rock types interruptions of rock types (i.e., faults), concentrations of certain minerals, and their orientations. The
data on which geologic maps are based include, but are not limited to, field observations, remote
imagery, and geophysical and geochemical data. This section is primarily concerned with field
observations, and specifically with the spatial distribution and orientation of rock fractures. It is
not intended to be a tutorial on geologic mapping, but a brief description of the methods as used
by Hager-Richter and their limitations. In particular, it is concerned with mapping the distribution
of fractures and their orientation.
2.
Field Work
The field work consists of visiting individual outcrops and recording the location of the
outcrop and abundance and orientation of fractures in the outcrop. The orientation, strike and dip,
is determined with a Brunton compass. The strike is the azimuth of the intersection of a fracture
and a horizontal plane, which, of course is a line. The dip is the angle between the fracture and a
horizontal plane. In this context, we note explicitly that the orientation of fractures determined in
borehole logging is reported as the azimuth as the dip vector and the dip angle.
The location of each outcrop is determined with GPS.
3.
Data Analysis and Interpretation
Data processing consists of preparing one or more of several plots. One plot is the spatial
distribution of the orientation of fractures on a geologic map of the area. This plot is analyzed to
determine which outcrops are likely a part of a much larger rock mass (which for ease of discussion we call true outcrops) and which are likely smaller rock pieces detached from the
underlying rock mass. If the orientation of fractures at a particular location differs significantly
from the orientation expected on the basis of the orientations of fractures in nearby locations, then
the rock at that location is interpreted as float (i.e., not a true outcrop).
The orientation of all fractures interpreted to have been measured on true outcrops can be
presented in a single plot called a stereogram or in two plots, one of which is a circular histogram
showing the angular distribution of azimuths and the other is a regular histogram showing the
distribution of dip angles.

Rennie Road
File 15J101
February, 2016
4.
HAGER-RICHTER
GEOSCIENCE, INC.
Limitations of Geologic Mapping
The chief limitation of geologic mapping is, arguably, the availability of representative
outcrops. For projects in which the chief interest is fracture orientation, another limitation is the
ability to distinguish different sets of fractures that were created at different times and under
sometimes very different geologic conditions.
HAGER-RICHTER
GEOSCIENCE, INC.

Rennie Road
File 15J101
February, 2016
APPENDIX 2
FRACTURE TRACE ANALYSIS METHOD

Rennie Road
File 15J101
February, 2016
HAGER-RICHTER
GEOSCIENCE, INC.
FRACTURE TRACE ANALYSIS

1.
Concept
The permeability of the material in bedrock fracture zones, which are present in bedrock
throughout most of New England, is commonly several orders of magnitude greater than the
permeability of the igneous and metamorphic bedrock. Significant practical consequences of such
disparity in hydraulic properties are:
C
Fracture zones provide the only effective path of water transport in bedrock throughout
most of the northeastern US where the bedrock consists of igneous and metamorphic rock.
The permeability of such rock outside of fractures is very lowFreeze and Cherry3 give a
range of about 10-5 to less than 10-8 darcy (10-8 to less than 10-11 cm/s). Because
groundwater travels in bedrock through fractures and fracture zones, contaminants also
move through bedrock primarily through the fractures and fracture zones.
The fracture zones can provide the setting for high yield water wells. The average yield of
bedrock wells sited at random locations is approximately 10 gpm (gallons per minute) and
many such wells produce less than 1 gpm. However, wells completed in bedrock fracture
zones often produce water at very high rates, several hundred gallons per minute.
The tracing of contaminants and landfill effluents in environmental investigations and the
siting problem for drilling high yield water wells is the same namely, how to detect and locate
fracture zone(s).
During the last 20 to 25 years, a technique known as fracture trace analysis has been used
in New England with increasing frequency and with excellent success to detect and locate bedrock
fracture zones. Subtle features in aerial photographs, termed photolinears, are linear features of
contrasting light and dark images that is, tonal changes in the aerial photographs. They may
indicate the presence and location of fracture zones. Although fracture zones produce
photolinears, not all photolinears are caused by fracture zones. They may also be caused by such
other features as stonewalls, old roads, old paths (animal as well as human), edges of formerly
tilled fields that are now woodlands, and other cultural features. Verification in the field is
therefore essential.
Freeze RA, Cherry JA 1979. Groundwater, Prentice-Hall, 604 pp.

Rennie Road
File 15J101
February, 2016
2.
HAGER-RICHTER
GEOSCIENCE, INC.

The complete process of locating a bedrock fracture zone is the following:
3.
1)
Acquire aerial photographs and examine them for the presence of photolinears in
the area of interest.
2)
Check in the field for explanations of the photolinears other than the presence of
fracture zones. Eliminate from further consideration all photolinears that are not
possibly due to bedrock fracture zones.
Field Work
The field work for FTA consists of examining the locations on the ground of each photolinear detected in the aerial photographs, looking for any anthropogenic feature that could account
for the change in tonal qualities of the aerial photographs that provided the basis for the
photolinears. Such features include stonewalls, abandoned roads, animal as well as human
footpaths, edges of formerly tilled fields that are now woodlands, power and telephone lines,
shallow ditches, and many other cultural features. Streams with long straight stretches commonly
produce photolinears. However, streams are commonly located along bedrock fracture zones.
Topographic lows observed at the locations of a photolinear on the ground during the field
verification process can be interpreted as evidence of bedrock fracture zones.
The orientations of planar bedrock features such as fractures and joints were measured on
outcrops encountered during the field verification of photolinears. Bedrock outcrops were
selected for measurement on the basis of accessibility, and all outcrops measured are located
within the right-of-way of Route 111 and multiple town roads.
4.
Limitations of the FTA Method
The technique itself is subject to limitations. Obviously, there must be fracture zones
present in the area of interest in order to detect them, and there must be aerial photography that is
available. Additionally, for the best results, the photographic prints should be processed to
enhance the photolinears. Verification of the cause of photolinears must be conducted on the site
in order to rule out such causes as stonewalls, trails, animal and human paths.
The accuracy of the location of fracture zones based on aerial photographs depends in part
on the scale and quality of the photographs as well as the presence of objects that can be
recognized both in the photography and on the ground, but is seldom better than 25 ft. The
accuracy can be improved with geophysical techniques.
HAGER-RICHTER
GEOSCIENCE, INC.

Rennie Road
File 15J101
February, 2016
APPENDIX 3
VERY LOW FREQUENCY ELECTROMAGNETIC METHOD
HAGER-RICHTER
GEOSCIENCE, INC.

Rennie Road
File 15J101
February, 2016
VERY LOW FREQUENCY ELECTROMAGNETICS (VLF)

1.
Concept
There are about fifty radio transmitters in fixed locations and several mobile transmitters
that operate throughout the world in the so-called very low frequency (VLF) range, 15-30 kHz,
and are used for communication with submersed submarines, and other purposes. In North
America, such stations are located in Cutler, Maine, La Mour, North Dakota, and Jim Creek,
Washington. There are also stations in Hawaii and Puerto Rico.
The principle of VLF subsurface exploration is simple. At distances greater than a few
tens of miles from a transmitter, the magnetic field lines due to the radio wave transmission are
concentric circles about the transmitter. In one theory, the magnetic fields cause electric currents
to flow in subsurface conductors. In another, more recent, theory, the subsurface currents flow
along interfaces between bodies of differing conductivity. [The interpretation, however, is much
the same for both theories.] Such induced currents, in turn, produce secondary magnetic fields
which can be measured and interpreted in terms of the spatial variation of subsurface electrical
conductivity. The strength of the incident, also called primary, magnetic field in the earth
decreases with depth, and, therefore, the induced currents decrease with depth. Thus, the method
is sensitive to conductivity changes to depths of about 100 to several hundred feet and the
exact value depends on the frequency of the signal and the electrical conductivity of the
subsurface.4 An excellent discussion of the physics of the VLF method is given by McNeill and
Labson.5
VLF is an excellent geophysical method to explore for bedrock fracture zones for the
following two reasons. First, the dip of many fracture zones is near vertical. Observations of
fracture zones in road cuts in bedrock commonly show their dips to be within 10o to 20o of
vertical. Additional data on dips of fracture zones have accumulated in the water well drilling
industry during the past 30 to 40 years as a result of intentionally drilling into fracture zones to
obtain high yields, and those data confirm the dips observed in road cuts. Second, saturated
bedrock fracture zones are electrically conducting and, therefore, detectable with the VLF method.
The electrical conductivity of most intact, massive rock (such as most igneous and metamorphic
rock and many sedimentary rocks, including limestone) depends on the porosity and electrical
The penetration depth, for practical purposes, in feet is given by

DEPTH (Ft) = 500 [RESISTIVITY (Ohm-m)/FREQUENCY (Hz)]
McNeill JD and Labson VF, Geological Mapping Using VLF Radio Fields, in Nabighian MN, editor,
Electromagnetic Methods in Applied Geophysics, Vol 2, Application, Part B, pp 521-640, published by Soc. of
Exploration Geophysicists, Tulsa, Oklahoma, 1987.

Rennie Road
File 15J101
February, 2016
HAGER-RICHTER
GEOSCIENCE, INC.
conductivity of the fluid filling the pores. The bedrock outside fracture zones is typically highly
resistive commonly $1000 Ohm-m whereas that of fracture zones is commonly no more
than a few Ohm-m.
Several commercial VLF instruments are available. Hager-Richter used a GEM Systems
GSM-19 VLF meter for this project. The GSM-19 records up to three VLF-EM frequencies
simultaneously as well as the total magnetic field at each station location. This unit is a microprocessor controlled instrument that measures both the in-phase and the quadrature phase
components of the secondary magnetic field as a percentage of the primary magnetic field. It
actually detects the ratios of the vertical component to the horizontal component. Where the earth
is horizontally layered, and the electrical conductivity of each layer is uniform, the vertical
component is zero. The in-phase component, also called the real component, is a sensitive
indicator of the presence of subsurface electrical conductors that are not horizontal.
2.
Field Work
The design of the field program is often constrained by access and by the need to correlate
the VLF results with those of other methods and perhaps other programs. Ideally, however, data
are acquired along lines that are oriented approximately perpendicular to the strike of the structure
being investigated. The choice of the interval to be used for data acquisition along the survey
lines depends on the subsurface conductivity structure, but for the investigation of bedrock structures, a satisfactory practical choice is to space the data stations at no more than the depth of
bedrock. Because there is typically a large amount of noise in the data, probably caused by small
scale variations in the electrical conductivity of the subsurface unrelated to the structure(s) of
interest, data acquisition along several parallel lines is desirable.
3.
The real component is used for the detection of water bearing bedrock fractures. The data
are filtered using the filter described by Fraser6 and are plotted in profile format. VLF data are
interpreted using pattern recognition of anomalies that are departures of the real component of the
VLF signal judged to be significantthat is, well above noise. Such anomalies indicate
subsurface regions along a particular VLF survey line as having increased electrical conductivity.
The highs are then correlated between VLF survey lines and connected to form zones of
increased conductivity. Because zones of increased hydraulic permeability in bedrock are likely
to have increased electrical conductivity, such anomalies are excellent guides to such zones.
The VLF method is commonly used with other methods that are sensitive to near-vertical
zones of increased conductivity such as fracture trace analysis (FTA) and resistivity imaging. The
results of FTA are a set of photolinears that may be due to subsurface fracture zones. Where the
6
Fraser DC, 1969, Contouring of VLF-EM Data, Geophysics 34, 958.

Rennie Road
File 15J101
February, 2016
HAGER-RICHTER
GEOSCIENCE, INC.
FTA photolinears coincide with, or at least are parallel to and located near, zones of increased
conductivity identified with a VLF survey, confidence in the presence of bedrock fracture zones is
strengthened. The location and dip of such zones of increased conductivity can be significantly
improved with the resistivity imaging method.
The location of the intersection of two or more VLF identified fracture zones and/or FTA
identified fracture zones is commonly used with success in siting high yield water wells, and it is
generally accepted that locations with several such intersections are preferred over those with
fewer intersections. Locations with both VLF identified fracture zones and FTA identified
fracture zones are better than those with only one type of zone.
4.
Limitations of the VLF Method
An excellent summary of the limitations of the VLF method is given by McNeill and
Labson7 as follows:
The disadvantages are principally (1) the relatively shallow depth of exploration
in all but the most resistive terrain; (2) the large number of variables that control
the response of 2-D and 3-D targets, combined with the fact that we generally
measure only two variables, making any but the most rudimentary interpretation
difficult or impossible; (3) the relatively poor ability to resolve better conductors,
and (4) the existence of significant topographic response.
McNeill JD and Labson VF, Geological Mapping Using VLF Radio Fields, in Nabighian MN, editor,
Electromagnetic Methods in Applied Geophysics, Vol 2, Application, Part B, pp 521-640, published by Soc. of
Exploration Geophysicists, Tulsa, Oklahoma, 1987.
HAGER-RICHTER
GEOSCIENCE, INC.

Rennie Road
File 15J101
February, 2016
APPENDIX 4
ELECTRICAL RESISTIVITY IMAGING METHOD

Rennie Road
File 15J101
February, 2016
HAGER-RICHTER
GEOSCIENCE, INC.
ELECTRICAL RESISTIVITY IMAGING

1.
Concept
Electrical Resistivity Imaging (ERI) determines the electrical structure of the subsurface,
and has the potential to show the locations of regions in which the electrical resistivity differs
(either higher or lower) from the enclosing materials. The electrical resistivity of the subsurface
can be measured using four electrodes inserted a short distance into the earth, injecting current (I)
using any two electrodes and measuring the potential (V) between the other two electrodes. The
equations are simplified if (1) the four electrodes are placed inline, (2) current is passed between
the outer electrodes and potential is measured between the inner electrodes, and (3) the spacing
between the electrodes is uniform and denoted by a. Such an array is the Wenner array and the
resistivity a, called apparent resistivity is given by a = 2 a V / I. By using successively larger
values of a, deeper sections of the subsurface are sampled, and the resulting data can be
processed to provide the subsurface resistivity as a function of depth.
The digital revolution of the late 20th Century provided the capability to use many smart
electrodes (i.e., addressable) and select many different pairs using computer control. A common
setup the one used by Hager-Richter is the dipole-dipole array in which the current electrodes and potential electrodes are separated by a distance n*a where a is the distance between the
two current electrodes and also between the two potential electrodes and n is a small integer,
typically 5 to 15. By varying the locations of the dipoles and their spacing of a multi-electrode
array, a large quantity of data can be acquired. Many data are redundant, providing the ability to
estimate the precision, and possibly the accuracy, of the data set.
Another electrode configuration, termed the Schlumberger array, also uses four electrodes,
two for measuring the potential that are relatively close together, distance apart denoted by a,
and two that are located farther apart and used for injecting current. The current electrodes are
centered on the potential electrodes and the distance between a current electrode and the nearest
potential electrode is denoted by b. The four electrodes are usually located linearly because the
locations are easily measured and the inversion math is simpler. The resistivity a determined
with the Schlumberger array, also called apparent resistivity is given by
a = 2 b2 a-1 V / I.
By using successively larger values of a and b, deeper sections of the subsurface are sampled,
and the resulting data can be processed to provide the subsurface resistivity as a function of depth.

Rennie Road
File 15J101
February, 2016
2.
HAGER-RICHTER
GEOSCIENCE, INC.
Field Work
The design of the field program is often constrained by access and by the need to correlate
the ERI results with those of other methods and perhaps other programs. Ideally, however, data
are acquired along lines that are oriented approximately perpendicular to the strike of the structure(s) being investigated. Electrode spacing is a major consideration, and it is usually a compromise among these factors: 1. Resolution, smaller spacing produces higher resolution. 2. Depth
of investigation, longer lines produce greater depth of investigation. 3. Line length, which is
determined by the number of electrodes and electrode spacing. 4. Time and budget available,
recognizing that greater electrode spacing and longer lines require more time and larger budgets.
Resolution and depth of investigation are determined by the objective(s) and/or target(s) of the
project. The effective line length can be increased with a procedure called roll along in which a
segment of the array is moved from one end of the array to the other end of the array and the
measurements are repeated. The nominal depth of investigation is ten times the electrode spacing.
Hager-Richter uses an Advanced Geosciences, Inc. (AGI) Super Sting R8 earth resistivity
instrument with an addressable multi-electrode system for ERI surveys. The Super Sting R8
allows automatic measurement of several types of array, i.e. most combinations of current and
voltage electrode connections can be controlled by the Super Sting system. Fifty-six electrodes,
or any multiple of 14 electrodes (with a maximum of 252 electrodes) can be used with the Super
Sting system. Brief specifications of the Super Sting R8 are as follows:
8 channels (decreasing thereby the time required to acquire data)
Output power of 200 W (although supplementary units increasing the power significantly
are available)
Automatic cancellation of SP (subsurface ambient voltages)
Overall accuracy of 1% of reading for laboratory measurements higher for field

measurements due to ground noise and resistivity
Input voltage 12v

Additional specifications are available at AGIs web site www.Supersting.com.
The Super Sting R8 earth resistivity instrument measures the contact resistance of each
electrode, and, if the resistance of any electrode is judged to be excessive, salt water is poured on
the ground around that electrode to decrease the surface resistance. After the contact resistance of
all electrodes is satisfactory, the data are acquired under program control. The instrument
measures and averages the apparent resistivity for each pair of current and potential electrode
spacing until the number of cycles reaches the user specified value or the user specified standard
deviation is exceeded. Thus, the stored values of resistivity are averages of several measurements.
The physical location of the survey lines must be established. For some sites, distances
measured with tape can be used to tie the lines to such site features as borings, buildings, roads,

Rennie Road
File 15J101
February, 2016
HAGER-RICHTER
GEOSCIENCE, INC.
and stone wall intersections. Where such site features do not exist or better accuracy of location is
desired, the line locations can be surveyed by survey companies or, as commonly done by HagerRichter they can be located with GPS. For locating the resistivity survey lines with GPS, we use a
Trimble Geo7X CM GPS receiver outfitted with a Zephyr-2 external antenna.
3.
The ERI data are processed using AGI EarthImager 2D, commercially licensed software,
to create two-dimensional resistivity models. Apparent resistivity values are calculated with a
forward modeling subroutine, and a smoothness-constrained least-squares optimization routine is
used to invert the data. Both finite-difference and finite-element forward modeling techniques are
available in the software.
Although there are many ways to display the results of 2D resistivity inversions, the
essential element is a plot of the distribution of resistivity as a function of depth and distance
along the survey line. The choice of scales affects the appearance of the plots and further
emphasizes particular aspects of the results, and the choice is most commonly between linear and
logarithmic scales, although others could be made. A resistivity image profile can be made to
highlight either local detail or regional information.
The interpretation of resistivity plots is based on the experience of the interpreter, his/her
knowledge of typical values or ranges of values of resistivity for the types of geologic materials
expected below a survey line. The interpreter uses the measured values to infer what materials are
present - including soil and/or rock types, porosity, permeability, presence or absence of
contamination, the presence of such geological features as faults and fracture zones, and the
presence of such man-made features as tar pits, concrete walls, slurry walls, and former lagoons.
Ideally, the interpretation of resistivity plots is just the correlation of geologic units
between borings with boring logs located along, or near, the survey line. Absent boring
information, the interpretation is based on the following:
pattern recognition
local geology (soils and rock types, stratigraphy, faults, fracture zones)
typical and ranges of the values of resistivity expected for local geologic materials
presence of such man-made features as tar pits, concrete walls, slurry walls, and former
lagoons
known effects of nearby metallic objects, including utilities
the experience and competence of the interpreter.

The interpretation of the resistivity image produced by AGI EarthImager 2D depends on
whether the object of interest is resistive or conductive and its expected geometry.
4.
Limitations of the ERI Method

Rennie Road
File 15J101
February, 2016
HAGER-RICHTER
GEOSCIENCE, INC.
As with any of the electrical geophysical methods, resistivity data are subject to certain
limitations, including site surface and subsurface conditions and structures, electrical and
geological noise, and target depth and size. Interference from such cultural features as
buildings, fencing, and underground and overhead power lines is common at many sites,
particularly at active industrial sites. Thus, for certain applications, the use of the resistivity
method in urban settings might be inappropriate.
The subsurface is three dimensional in character, and although the resistivity data are
acquired along a line, the data are affected by resistivity changes off-line. Therefore, unless there
are parallel survey lines that are spaced appropriately, resistivity changes off-line may be
interpreted as changes below the survey line. This limitation is particularly significant for single
survey lines. A further limitation of the resistivity method arises at the ends of a survey line
where the data density is necessarily reduced.
The target depth, size, and of course, resistivity contrast may pose limitations. These three
parameters, generally characterized as large or small, are important in the survey design8, and
extreme values can limit the usefulness of the resistivity method. For example: a small target, a
granite boulder 2 ft in diameter at a large depth of 20 ft or more, even with very high resistivity
contrast, 105 Ohm-m in a medium of 0.2 Ohm-m, cannot be detected. A target of reasonable size,
a granite boulder 2 ft in diameter at a shallow depth of 6 ft or less, may not be detectable where
the resistivity contrast is low, 105 Ohm-m in a medium of 104 Ohm-m.
The parameters depth and size scale to the electrode spacing. A large depth is any depth greater than 10 times the electrode
spacing. A small depth is any depth less than 3 times the electrode spacing. Depths less than 10 but greater than 3 times the electrode spacing
are termed intermediate depths. A large size is any size greater than 2 times the electrode spacing. A small size is any size less than 1
times the electrode spacing. Sizes less than 2 but greater than 1 times the electrode spacing are termed intermediate sizes. Resistivity contrast
refers to the ratio of the resistivity of one material to that of the second material. A large resistivity contrast is any such ratio of at least 100. A
small resistivity contrast is any such ratio no greater than 0.5. Ratios less than 100 but greater than 0.5 are termed intermediate ratios.
HAGER-RICHTER
GEOSCIENCE, INC.

Rennie Road
File 15J101
February, 2016
APPENDIX 5
GEOLOGIC MAPPING DATA
HAGER-RICHTER
GEOSCIENCE, INC.

Rennie Road
File 15J101
February, 2016
Outcrop
ID
101
101
101
101
102
102
102
102
103
103
103
103
103
103
104
104
105
105
105
106
106
106
106
107
107
107
107
107
108
108
108
109
109
109
110
111
112
113
113
113
113
113
113
113
113
113
113
113
113
113
113
113
113
113
113
Easting Northing Strike

(ft)
(ft)
(MN)
849434.9 456655.5 210
849434.9 456655.5 240
849434.9 456655.5 125
849434.9 456655.5 120
849073.2 457825.8
20
849073.2 457825.8 155
849073.2 457825.8 120
849073.2 457825.8 125
848296.5 457490.0 235
848296.5 457490.0 230
848296.5 457490.0 125
848296.5 457490.0 145
848296.5 457490.0 290
848296.5 457490.0
60
848357.0 457627.9 335
848357.0 457627.9 235
848380.1 457690.6 200
848380.1 457690.6 125
848380.1 457690.6 235
848410.7 457744.9 235
848410.7 457744.9 105
848410.7 457744.9 205
848410.7 457744.9 150
848652.0 456753.2 230
848652.0 456753.2 120
848652.0 456753.2 125
848652.0 456753.2 235
848652.0 456753.2 110
848981.9 456926.2 235
848981.9 456926.2 190
848981.9 456926.2 200
849486.3 455971.2 235
849486.3 455971.2 110
849486.3 455971.2 130
849302.5 455753.0 235
850276.4 459085.7 105
850629.9 457249.0 280
850914.0 459631.6 235
850914.0 459631.6 230
850914.0 459631.6 235
850914.0 459631.6 230
850914.0 459631.6 225
850914.0 459631.6 230
850914.0 459631.6 225
850914.0 459631.6 225
850914.0 459631.6 230
850914.0 459631.6 225
850914.0 459631.6 270
850914.0 459631.6 325
850914.0 459631.6 210
850914.0 459631.6 330
850914.0 459631.6 245
850914.0 459631.6 195
850914.0 459631.6 198
850914.0 459631.6 115
Dip
Dip
Angle Direction
65
NW
80
NW
65
SW
65
SW
75
SE
80
SW
78
SW
65
SW
85
NW
85
NW
80
SW
87
SW
75
NW
75
SE
75
NE
80
NW
85
NW
80
SW
85
NW
75
NW
80
SW
85
NW
80
SW
85
NW
65
SW
75
SW
75
NW
70
SW
85
NW
10
NW
75
NW
85
NW
85
SW
80
SW
85
NW
80
SW
60
NE
80
NW
75
NW
85
NW
90
-85
NW
80
NW
78
NW
80
NW
85
NW
85
NW
57
N
55
NE
65
NW
50
NE
50
NW
18
NW
20
NW
76
SW
Outcrop
ID
114
114
114
114
114
114
114
114
114
201
201
201
202
202
202
203
203
203
203
204
204
204
204
204
204
204
204
204
204
205
205
205
205
205
205
205
205
205
206
206
206
207
207
207
207
207
207
208
208
208
208
208
208
208
208

(ft)
(ft)
(MN)
850979.2 459722.7 230
850979.2 459722.7 235
850979.2 459722.7 230
850979.2 459722.7 225
850979.2 459722.7 300
850979.2 459722.7 320
850979.2 459722.7 310
850979.2 459722.7 290
850979.2 459722.7 210
850274.7 456556.3
91
850274.7 456556.3
87
850274.7 456556.3
92
850404.3 456515.4 223
850404.3 456515.4
1
850404.3 456515.4 225
849856.0 457223.5 236
849856.0 457223.5 230
849856.0 457223.5 229
849856.0 457223.5 304
849238.7 458153.6
68
849238.7 458153.6
63
849238.7 458153.6
65
849238.7 458153.6
66
849238.7 458153.6 234
849238.7 458153.6 194
849238.7 458153.6 134
849238.7 458153.6 185
849238.7 458153.6 315
849238.7 458153.6 320
849036.7 458963.3
57
849036.7 458963.3
58
849036.7 458963.3
52
849036.7 458963.3 195
849036.7 458963.3 188
849036.7 458963.3 190
849036.7 458963.3 188
849036.7 458963.3 323
849036.7 458963.3 316
848837.8 458903.4 228
848837.8 458903.4 230
848837.8 458903.4 231
848560.1 458659.6 235
848560.1 458659.6 237
848560.1 458659.6 230
848560.1 458659.6 233
848560.1 458659.6 108
848560.1 458659.6 329
849710.1 456516.2 264
849710.1 456516.2 254
849710.1 456516.2 301
849710.1 456516.2 178
849710.1 456516.2 177
849710.1 456516.2 147
849710.1 456516.2 142
849710.1 456516.2 189
Dip
Dip
Angle Direction
83
NW
80
NW
85
NW
80
NW
75
NE
80
NE
85
NE
75
NE
60
NW
73
S
50
S
57
S
82
N
15
E
81
N
85
N
89
N
89
N
8
N
74
S
76
S
72
S
73
S
9
N
10
W
8
S
88
E
57
E
70
E
80
S
80
S
82
S
72
W
79
W
80
W
64
W
22
E
23
E
80
N
88
N
89
N
83
N
64
N
77
N
79
N
18
S
6
E
43
N
40
N
48
N
51
W
50
W
84
W
83
W
83
W

Rennie Road
File 15J101
February, 2016
Outcrop
ID
209
209
209
209
209
210
210
211
211
211
211
211
211
212
212
212
212
212
212
212
212
214
214
214
214
214
214
214

(ft)
(ft)
(MN)
849800.8 456246.7 258
849800.8 456246.7 274
849800.8 456246.7 230
849800.8 456246.7 226
849800.8 456246.7 225
849835.4 455792.5 233
849835.4 455792.5 233
850179.1 456126.0
85
850179.1 456126.0
61
850179.1 456126.0
94
850179.1 456126.0
83
850179.1 456126.0 173
850179.1 456126.0 164
850132.1 456260.5 230
850132.1 456260.5 237
850132.1 456260.5 234
850132.1 456260.5 238
850132.1 456260.5 266
850132.1 456260.5 140
850132.1 456260.5 143
850132.1 456260.5 146
852459.9 458167.9 202
852459.9 458167.9 204
852459.9 458167.9 183
852459.9 458167.9 176
852459.9 458167.9 183
852459.9 458167.9
97
852459.9 458167.9 303
Dip
Dip
Angle Direction
89
N
90
N
83
N
83
N
87
W
79
N
79
N
90
S
86
S
90
S
90
S
67
W
73
W
88
N
89
N
89
N
89
N
87
N
90
W
89
W
86
W
87
W
85
W
74
W
85
W
65
W
82
S
76
N
HAGER-RICHTER
GEOSCIENCE, INC.
HAGER-RICHTER
GEOSCIENCE, INC.

Rennie Road
File 15J101
February, 2016
APPENDIX 6
VLF DATA
Profile Plots of the Fraser Filtered Data
HAGER-RICHTER
GEOSCIENCE, INC.

Rennie Road
File 15J101
February, 2016
APPENDIX 7
ELECTRICAL RESISTIVITY IMAGING DATA
Profile Plots
Proactive by Design
APPENDIX C BORING LOGS
LOG KEY
GZA
Geo Environmental, Inc.
BURMISTER SOIL CLASSIFICATION (INORGANIC)

COMPONENT
MAJOR
Minor
NAME
PROPORTIONAL
TERM
GRAVEL, SAND, FINES*

Gravel, Sand, Fines*
*See identification of fines table.
IDENTIFICATION OF FINES
Material
PI
Atterberg Thread Dia.
PERCENT BY
WEIGHT
SILT
>50
35 - 50
20-35
10-20
0-10
and
some
little
trace
SILT & CLAY

CLAY & SILT
Silty CLAY
GRADATION DESIGNATION
Fine to coarse
Medium to coarse
Fine to medium
Coarse
Medium
Fine
Very Soft
Soft
Medium Stiff
Stiff
Very Stiff
Hard
1/8"
1/16"
1/32"
1/64"
>40
PLASTIC SOILS
Consistency
Blows/Ft.
SPT N-Value
All fractions > 10%

<10% fine
<10% coarse
<10% fine and medium
<10% coarse and fine
<10% coarse and medium
1/4"
20-40
CLAY
PROPORTION OF
COMPONENT
Cannot Roll
0
1-5
5-10
10-20
Clayey SILT
GRAVEL & SAND

Density
Blows/Ft.
SPT N-Value
<2
2-4
4-8
8 - 15
15 - 30
>30
Very Loose
Loose
Medium Dense
Dense
Very Dense
<4
4 - 10
10 - 30
30 - 50
> 50
BURMISTER SOIL CLASSIFICATION (ORGANIC)

Fibrous PEAT (Pt) - Lightweight, spongy, mostly visible organic matter, water squeezes readily from sample. Typically near top of deposit.
Fine Grained PEAT (Pt) - Lightweight, spongy, little visible organic matter, water squeezes reqdily from sample. Typically below fibrous peat.
Organic Silt (OL) - Typically gray to dark gray, often has strong H2S odor. Typically contains shells or shell fragments. Lightweight. Usually found near
coastal regions. May contain wide range of sand fractions.
Organic Clay (OH) - Typically gray to dark gray, high plasticity. Usually found near coastal regions. May contain wide range of sand fractions. Need
organic content test for final identification.
UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM (USCS) (ASTM D 2487)
Group Symbols
MAJOR DIVISIONS
Coarse Grained Soils
More than 50% of material
larger than No. 200 sieve
Gravel
More than 50%
larger than No. 4 sieve
Sand
More than 50%
smaller than No. 4 sieve
Fine Grained Soils

More than 50% of material
smaller than No. 200 sieve
Clean Gravels
(Little or no fines)
GW
GP
Gravels with Fines

(Appreciable amount of fines)
GM
GC
Clean Sands
(Little or no fines)
SW
SP
Sands with Fines

(Appreciable amount of fines)
SM
SC
Silts and Clays Liquid Limit <50
ML
CL
Silts and Clays Liquid Limit >50
OL
MH
CH
OH
Highly Organic Soils
Pt
ABBREVIATIONS
MR = Mud Rotary
HSA = Hollow Stem Auger
SSA = Solid Stem Auger
SS = Split Spoon Sampler
U = Undisturbed Sample (Shelby Tube)
MC = Modified California Sampler
V = Vibracore
M = Macrocore
R = Refusal
USCS = Unified Soil Classification System (ASTM D2487)
NYCBC = New York City Building Code
WOR = Weight of Rods
WOH= Weight of Hammer
SPT = Standard Penetration Test (ASTM D1586)
N-Value = Cumulative number of uncorrected blows for the middle two 6-inch intervals (blows/foot).
Tv = Field Vane Shear Test (Torvane)

PP = Pocket Penetrometer
PI = Plasticity Index
MC = Moisture Content
CO = Consolidation
UC = Unconfined Compression Test
SI = Sieve Analysis
DS = Direct Shear
PID = Photoionization Detector
ppm = Parts Per Million
REC = Recovery
RQD = Rock Quality Designation
= Measured Water Level
TEST BORING LOG

Rennie Farms
Hanover Center Road
Type of Rig: Mobile
Rig Model: B-53
Drilling Method: Drive &
Wash
Hammer Type: Automatic Hammer

Hammer Weight (lb.): 140
Hammer Fall (in.): 30
Auger or Casing O.D./I.D Dia (in.): 4
Sampler Type: SS
Sampler O.D. (in.): 2.0
Sampler Length (in.): 24
Rock Core Size: NX
Casing
Depth Blows/
(ft) Core No.
Rate
Sample
Depth Pen. Rec. Blows SPT
(ft.) (in) (in) (per 6 in.) Value
Boring Location: See Plan

Ground Surface Elev. (ft.): 1,007.9
Final Boring Depth (ft.): 94
Date Start - Finish: 1/22/2016 - 1/28/2016
Sample Description
Modified Burmister
Field
Test
Data
Stratum
Description
Stab. Time
12 hrs.
16 hrs.
Equipment Installed
Standpipe
Sand
9'
OVERBURDEN
10
2" ID Solid Sch

40 PVC Well
Riser
15
Bentonite
19
2
20
REMARKS
GZ-9D GZ-12L GZ-14U GZ-17L.GPJ; GZA TEMPLATE TEST BORING W/ EQUIP.; GZA TEMPLATE 0210.GDT; LIBRARY.GLB; 4/28/2016; 2:12:14 PM
V. Datum: NAVD 88
Cement
1'
See GZ-9L for soil descriptions.
04.0190030.02 - RENNIE FARM
H. Datum: --
Groundwater Depth (ft.)

Time
Water Depth
0800
20' bgs
0830
15.3'
Date
1/26/16
1/28/16
Elev.
(ft.)
Logged By: C. Melby

Drilling Co.: New England Boring Company
Foreman: Manleah Thompson
Depth
(ft.)
EXPLORATION NO.: GZ-9D

SHEET:
1 of 5
PROJECT NO: 04.0190030.02
REVIEWED BY: JMW
Remark
GZA
GeoEnvironmental, Inc.
988.9
BEDROCK
(SCHIST)
1 - Soil cuttings were screened for total volatile organic compounds (VOCs) using a MiniRae PID equipped with a 10.6 eV bulb referenced to an isobutylene-in-air
standard. Total VOCs detected are reported in parts per million (ppm) in the "Field Test Data" column. "ND" indicates no VOCs detected.
2 - Roller bit advanced to 21 feet below ground surface. Advancement slows at 19 feet below ground surface. Casing advanced to 19 feet below ground surface.
See Log Key for explanation of sample description and identification procedures. Stratification lines represent
approximate boundaries between soil and bedrock types. Actual transitions may be gradual. Water level readings have
been made at the times and under the conditions stated. Fluctuations of groundwater may occur due to other factors
than those present at the times the measurements were made.
Exploration No.:
GZ-9D
TEST BORING LOG

Rennie Farms
Hanover Center Road
Type of Rig: Mobile
Rig Model: B-53
Wash

Sampler Type: SS
Rock Core Size: NX
Casing
Depth Blows/
(ft) Core No.
Rate
1:30
Sample
21-26
60
60
C-1: Moderately hard,

moderate to severe weathering,
coarse grained, SCHIST,
severely fractured, sub-vertical
to vertical fractures.
RQD = 21/60 = 35%
C-2
26-31
60
60

to vertical fractures.
RQD = 34/60 = 57%
1:45
2:25
Stratum
Description
Stab. Time
12 hrs.
16 hrs.
Equipment Installed
2:50
2:55
BEDROCK
(SCHIST)
3:15
1:45
C-3
31-36
60
60

to vertical.
RQD = 11/60 = 18%
C-4
36-41
60
60

moderate weathering, coarse
grained, SCHIST, moderately
fractured, sub-vertical.
RQD = 36/60 = 60%
2:05
2:15
2:20
Bentonite
2:20
2:05
2:15
2:15
2:15
40
3 - Begin coring at 21 feet below ground surface.
REMARKS
04.0190030.02 - RENNIE FARM
3:10
35
V. Datum: NAVD 88

Time
Water Depth
0800
20' bgs
0830
15.3'
Date
1/26/16
1/28/16
Field
Test
Data
H. Datum: --
2:30
2:30
30
Sample Description
Modified Burmister
C-1
1:35
25

Elev.
(ft.)
Logged By: C. Melby

Depth
(ft.)

SHEET:
2 of 5
PROJECT NO: 04.0190030.02
REVIEWED BY: JMW
Remark
GZA
Exploration No.:
GZ-9D
TEST BORING LOG

Rennie Farms
Hanover Center Road
Type of Rig: Mobile
Rig Model: B-53
Wash

Sampler Type: SS
Rock Core Size: NX
Casing
Depth Blows/
(ft) Core No.
Rate
2:15
2:40
Sample

Sample Description
Modified Burmister
C-5
41-46
60
60
C-5: Moderately hard, slightly

weathered, coarse grained,
SCHIST, moderately fractured,
sub-vertical.
RQD = 72/60 = 120%
C-6
46-51
60
60
C-6: Moderately hard, slight

weathering, coarse grained,
SCHIST, slightly fractured.
RQD = 57/60 = 87%
2:15
2:20
Field
Test
Data
H. Datum: -V. Datum: NAVD 88

Time
Water Depth
0800
20' bgs
0830
15.3'
Date
1/26/16
1/28/16
Stratum
Description
Elev.
(ft.)
Logged By: C. Melby

Depth
(ft.)

SHEET:
3 of 5
PROJECT NO: 04.0190030.02
REVIEWED BY: JMW
Remark
GZA
Stab. Time
12 hrs.
16 hrs.
Equipment Installed
2:25
45
2:30
2:15
2:10
2:25
50
BEDROCK
(SCHIST)
2:35
3:00
C-7
51-56
60
60

SCHIST, slightly fractured,
sub-vertical.
RQD = 47/60 = 78%
C-8
56-61
60
60

SCHIST, slightly fractured,
sub-vertical.
RQD = 60/60 = 100%
2:50
3:05
Bentonite
2:50
55
3:00
2:00
2:00
1:55
1:55
60
REMARKS
04.0190030.02 - RENNIE FARM
2:20
4 - Replaced core cutting bit and catcher due to poor core recoveries.
5 - Losing 5 to 10 galls per 5-minute run. Between 66-71', lost approximately 50 to 60 gallons.
Exploration No.:
GZ-9D
TEST BORING LOG

Rennie Farms
Hanover Center Road
Type of Rig: Mobile
Rig Model: B-53
Wash

Sampler Type: SS
Rock Core Size: NX
Casing
Depth Blows/
(ft) Core No.
Rate
2:10
2:10
C-9
Sample

Sample Description
Modified Burmister
61-66
60
60

RQD = 60/60 = 100%
2:30 C-10 66-71
60
60

Quartz-rich SCHIST, slightly
fractured.
RQD = 60/60 = 100%
2:05
2:10
Field
Test
Data

Time
Water Depth
0800
20' bgs
0830
15.3'
Date
1/26/16
1/28/16
Stratum
Description
Elev.
(ft.)
Logged By: C. Melby

Depth
(ft.)

SHEET:
4 of 5
PROJECT NO: 04.0190030.02
REVIEWED BY: JMW
Remark
GZA
Stab. Time
12 hrs.
16 hrs.
Equipment Installed
2:10
65
2:30
3:15
4:30
70
BEDROCK
(SCHIST)
4:15
2:50 C-11 71-76
60
60
3:40
4:00

Quartz-rich SCHIST, slightly
fractured.
RQD = 60/60 = 100%
Bentonite
4:40
75
5:05
4:05 C-12 76-81
4:10
4:10
7
60
60

RQD = 44/60 = 73%
4:20
80
REMARKS
04.0190030.02 - RENNIE FARM
2:20
6 - Water has brown tint to the normal gray wash water color.
7 - When pulling out C-11, barrel got stuck at 37 feet below ground surface, likely due to rock caving/slipping into core hole. Begin roller bit advancement after C-11
completed.
Exploration No.:
GZ-9D
TEST BORING LOG

Rennie Farms
Hanover Center Road
Type of Rig: Mobile
Rig Model: B-53
Wash

Sampler Type: SS
Rock Core Size: NX
Casing
Depth Blows/
(ft) Core No.
Rate
5:35
Sample
5:45 C-13 81-85
50
50
7:10
7:05

Sample Description
Modified Burmister

RQD = 38/50 = 76%
4:35
85
1:45 C-14 85-90

4:30
4:35
4:00 C-14 90-94

3:50
5:45
Stab. Time
12 hrs.
16 hrs.
Equipment Installed
Bentonite
82'
83'
60
56

RQD = 83/60 = 88%
BEDROCK
(SCHIST)
Sand
2" ID Slotted
Sch 40 PVC
Well Screen
(0.01" Slot)
4:15
48
36

RQD = 32/48 = 66%
93'
5:50
94
End of exploration at 94 feet.
913.9
10
94'
95
100
REMARKS
Stratum
Description
4:30
90
V. Datum: NAVD 88
4:25
04.0190030.02 - RENNIE FARM
Field
Test
Data
H. Datum: --

Time
Water Depth
0800
20' bgs
0830
15.3'
Date
1/26/16
1/28/16
Elev.
(ft.)
Logged By: C. Melby

Depth
(ft.)

SHEET:
5 of 5
PROJECT NO: 04.0190030.02
REVIEWED BY: JMW
Remark
GZA
8 - Core speed slower due to rig speed, too much rig chatter for higher rotational speed, advancement slower.
9 - Drill speed rotation increased at 84 feet below ground surface.
10 - Roller bit advanced to 94 feet below ground surface.
Exploration No.:
GZ-9D
TEST BORING LOG

Rennie Farms
Hanover Center Road
GZA
Logged By: C. Melby

Type of Rig: Mobile

Rig Model: B-57
Drilling Method: HSA/D&W Final Boring Depth (ft.): 14

Auger or Casing O.D./I.D Dia (in.): 3.25 / 4
Sampler Type: SS
Rock Core Size: NX
S-2
2-2.5
S-3
4-6
24
14
2:15
2:15
2:20
2:35
1 1
2 1
C-1
6-7.3
9-14
16
60
14
60
3 13
100/4"
S-2: Brown, gray, fine SAND

and Clayey Silt.
ND
ND
S-4: Very dense, brown-gray,

fine to medium SAND and
Clayey Silt. Wet.
ND
3
Stab. Time
18 hrs.
Equipment Installed
Standpipe
Cement
1'
Sand Backfill
2" ID Solid Sch
40 PVC Well
Riser
S-3: Very loose, brown, fine to

medium SAND and Clayey Silt.
V. Datum: NAVD 88
SAND AND
CLAYEY SILT
4'
Bentonite
7.5
1073.1
BEDROCK
(SCHIST)

moderate to moderately
severely weathered. Coarse
fractured, sub-vertical fractures.
RQD = 32/16" = 53%.
8'
9'
Filter Sand
2" ID Slotted
Sch 40 PVC
Well Screen
(0.01" Slot)
2:30
14'
15
20
REMARKS
S-4
10
5 50/0"
Stratum
Description
Elev.
(ft.)
Rate
Field
Test
Data
1 ND
Depth
(ft.)
S-1
Sample
Sample Description
Modified Burmister
0-2
24 14
4 2
S-1: Medium dense, brown,
8 5
fine to medium SAND, little
10 Clayey Silt.
H. Datum: --

Time
Water Depth
0910
3.1' bgs
Date
1/18/16
Remark
Casing
Depth Blows/
(ft) Core No.
04.0190030.02 - RENNIE FARM
EXPLORATION NO.: GZ-12L

SHEET:
1 of 1
PROJECT NO: 04.0190030.02
REVIEWED BY: JMW
1 - Soil samples were screened for total volatile organic compounds (VOCs) using a MiniRae PID equipped with a 10.6 eV bulb referenced to an isobutylene-in-air
2 - Rock encountered at 2.5 feet below ground surface. Auger advanced slowly/rig chatter. Moved drill location 2 feet south. Rock encountered at 3.5 feet below ground
surface. Moved drill location 5 feet north of original location. Rock encountered at 3 feet below ground surface. Advanced auger to 4 feet below ground surface in rock.
Final location is south of GZ-14L and southwest of GZ13L.
3 - Bedrock encountered at 7.3 feet below ground surface at final drill location.
Exploration No.:
GZ-12L
TEST BORING LOG

Rennie Farms
Hanover Center Road
GZA
Logged By: C. Melby

Type of Rig: Mobile

Rig Model: B-57

Sampler Type: SS
Rock Core Size: NX
S-1
S-2
2-4
24
24
5 6
7 7
13
S-3
4-6
24
20
S-4
6-6.2
50/2"

Clayey Silt.
ND
S-3: Loose, brown, fine to

medium SAND and Clayey Silt.
Bottom 4 inches weathered
Bedrock Schist. Spoon is wet.
S-4: Weathered Bedrock
Schist.
ND
Elev.
(ft.)
Stratum
Description
SAND AND
CLAYEY SILT
10
1:25
1:30
1:55
2:45
S-5
8-8.2
C-1
10-15
60
52
100/2"
S-5: Weathered Bedrock

Schist.
V. Datum: NAVD 88
Stab. Time
2.5 hrs.
Equipment Installed
Standpipe
Cement
1'
Sand Backfill
2" ID Solid Sch
40 PVC Well
Riser
4'
5.5
1075.4
2
ND
WEATHERED
BEDROCK SCHIST
8
ND
Bentonite
1072.9
BEDROCK
(SCHIST)

severely weathered. Coarse
fractured, sub-vertica fractures.
RQD = 4/60 = 7%.
10'
11'
Filter Sand
2" ID Slotted
Sch 40 PVC
Well Screen
(0.01" Slot)
2:50
15
15'
20
REMARKS
3 3
6 46
Field
Test
Data
1 ND
Depth
(ft.)
Rate
Sample
Sample Description
Modified Burmister
0-2
24 16
2 2
2 7
medium SAND, little Gravel,
4
trace Clayey Silt.
H. Datum: --

Time
Water Depth
1600
3.4' bgs
Date
1/14/16
Remark
Casing
Depth Blows/
(ft) Core No.
04.0190030.02 - RENNIE FARM

SHEET:
1 of 1
PROJECT NO: 04.0190030.02
REVIEWED BY: JMW
2 - Spoon advancement slows at 5.5 feet below ground surface, weathered bedrock assumed.
Exploration No.:
GZ-13L
TEST BORING LOG

Rennie Farms
Hanover Center Road
GZA
Logged By: C. Melby

Type of Rig: Mobile

Rig Model: B-57

Sampler Type: SS
Rock Core Size: NX
S-1
S-2
2-4
24
18
3 3
3 8

medium SAND, little Clayey Silt.
ND
ND
16

Gravel, little Clayey Silt.
S-3
4-6
24
20
4 8
8 10
6-6
50/0"
S-4: No Recovery.
S-5
8-8.5
50 0/6"
S-5: Very dense, brown-gray,

SAND and Gravel, little Clayey
Silt. Potential weathered
Bedrock. Wet.
4:35
2:30
2:45
15
C-1
11-16
V. Datum: NAVD 88
Elev.
(ft.)
Stab. Time
18 hrs.
25 hrs.
Equipment Installed
Standpipe
Cement
1'
Sand Backfill
2" ID Solid Sch
40 PVC Well
Riser
SAND (FILL?)
4'
1073.5
WEATHERED
BEDROCK
ND
10
2
2:25
Stratum
Description
S-4
10

severely weathered, coarse
fractured, sub-vertical fractures.
RQD = 25/60 = 42%.
Bentonite
1069.5
BEDROCK
(SCHIST)
11.5'
Filter Sand
12.5'
2" ID Slotted
Sch 40 PVC
Well Screen
(0.01" Slot)
2:15
16'
20
REMARKS
Field
Test
Data
1 ND
Depth
(ft.)
Rate
Sample
Sample Description
Modified Burmister
0-2
24 8
12 4
5 3
medium SAND, little Silt.
9
H. Datum: --

Time
Water Depth
0900
2.5' bgs
1600
2.5' bgs
Date
1/14/16
1/14/16
Remark
Casing
Depth Blows/
(ft) Core No.
04.0190030.02 - RENNIE FARM

SHEET:
1 of 1
PROJECT NO: 04.0190030.02
REVIEWED BY: JMW
2 - HSA advanced to 10 feet below ground surface. Boring advanced using 4-inch Drive & Wash to 11 feet. Began bedrock core at 11 feet below ground surface.
3 - Core barrel jammed at 14.5 feet below ground surface.
Exploration No.:
GZ-14L
TEST BORING LOG

Rennie Farms
Hanover Center Road
Type of Rig: Mobile
Rig Model: B-57
Wash

Sampler Type: SS
Rock Core Size: N/A
Casing
Depth Blows/
(ft) Core No.
Rate
Sample

Final Boring Depth (ft.): 7.8
Sample Description
Modified Burmister
Field
Test
Data

Time
Water Depth
0900
3.4' bgs
Date
1/18/16
Stratum
Description
Elev.
(ft.)
Logged By: C. Melby

Depth
(ft.)
EXPLORATION NO.: GZ-14U

SHEET:
1 of 1
PROJECT NO: 04.0190030.02
REVIEWED BY: JMW
Remark
GZA
See GZ-14L boring log for soil

descriptions.
Stab. Time
60+ hrs.
Equipment Installed
Standpipe
Cement
1'
Sand Backfill
2'
Bentonite
2.5'
2" ID Solid Sch
40 PVC Well
Riser
3.8'
2" ID Slotted
Sch 40 PVC
Well Screen
(0.01" Slot)
End of exploration at 7.8 feet.
7.8'
10
15
20
REMARKS
04.0190030.02 - RENNIE FARM
Filter Sand
Exploration No.:
GZ-14U
TEST BORING LOG
Type of Rig: Riech Drill

Rig Model: T-650W
Drilling Method:
6" Rotary/Air Hammer
Hammer Type: Air

Hammer Weight (lb.): NA
Hammer Fall (in.): NA
Sampler Type: NA
Sampler O.D. (in.): NA
Sampler Length (in.): NA
Rock Core Size: NA
Depth GPM
(ft)
No.
Sample
Depth Pen. Rec. Blows
(ft.) (in) (in) (per 6 in.)

H. Datum: -Ground Surface Elev. (ft.): 1,089.5
V. Datum: NAVD 88
Date
Sample Description and Identification

(Modified Burmister Procedure)

Time
Water Depth
Field
Test
Data
1
2
3
2
8
Stab. Time
Stratum
Description
Elev.
(ft.)
Logged By: Christopher Melby

Drilling Co.: Capital Well
Foreman: Joe Dragon

SHEET:
1 of 3
PROJECT NO: 04.0190030.02
REVIEWED BY:
Depth
(ft.)
Rennie Farm
Hanover Center Road
Remark
GZA
OVERBURDEN
1087.5
WEATHERED
BEDROCK
1081.5
10
20
S-1
20-40 NA NA
NA
S-1: Gray, weathered SCHIST.
S-2
40-60 NA NA
NA
S-2: Gray, SCHIST.
30
40
~3
BEDROCK
(SCHIST)
60
S-3
S-4
60-80 NA NA
NA
S-3: Gray, SCHIST.
NA
S-4: Gray, SCHIST.
70
80
80100
NA NA
90
100
REMARKS
04.0190030.02 - RENNIE FARM
GZ-16D WSW-1.GPJ; GZA TEMPLATE AIR HAMMER; GZA TEMPLATE 0210.GDT; LIBRARY.GLB; 4/28/2016; 2:39:08 PM
50
1 - "GPM" indicates gallons per minute.

2 - Bedrock encountered at 2 feet below ground surface. Roller bit advanced to 18 feet. Set casing at 18 feet below ground surface. Air
hammer used to advance boring from 18 feet to bottom of boring.
3 - Stratum descriptions based on drill cuttings.
Exploration No.:
GZ-16D
TEST BORING LOG

Rig Model: T-650W
Drilling Method:
Hammer Type: Air

Sampler Type: NA
Rock Core Size: NA

V. Datum: NAVD 88
Date
Sample
100- NA NA
NA
S-5: Gray, SCHIST.
120
Depth GPM
(ft)
No.
~20
S-5
20
S-6
120140
NA NA
NA
S-6: Gray, SCHIST.
20
S-7
140160
NA NA
NA
S-7: Gray, SCHIST.

Time
Water Depth
Field
Test
Data
Stab. Time
Stratum
Description
Elev.
(ft.)

Foreman: Joe Dragon

SHEET:
2 of 3
PROJECT NO: 04.0190030.02
REVIEWED BY:
Depth
(ft.)
Rennie Farm
Hanover Center Road
Remark
GZA
110
120
130
140
160
BEDROCK
(SCHIST)
20
S-8
160180
NA NA
NA
S-8: Gray, SCHIST.
20
S-9
180200
NA NA
NA
S-9: Gray, SCHIST.
170
180
190
200
4 - Several potential fractures from 100-120 feet (105', 115', 120') assumed based on drill behavior.
REMARKS
04.0190030.02 - RENNIE FARM
150
Exploration No.:
GZ-16D
TEST BORING LOG

Rig Model: T-650W
Drilling Method:
Hammer Type: Air

Sampler Type: NA
Rock Core Size: NA

V. Datum: NAVD 88
Date
Sample
No.
>30 S-10 200- NA NA
NA
S-10: Gray, SCHIST.
220
Depth GPM
(ft)

Time
Water Depth
Field
Test
Data
Stab. Time
Stratum
Description
Elev.
(ft.)

Foreman: Joe Dragon

SHEET:
3 of 3
PROJECT NO: 04.0190030.02
REVIEWED BY:
Depth
(ft.)
Rennie Farm
Hanover Center Road
Remark
GZA
210
220
>30 S-11
220240
NA NA
NA
S-11: Gray, SCHIST.
230
240
BEDROCK
(SCHIST)
>30 S-12
240260
NA NA
NA
S-12: Gray, SCHIST.
260
260
829.5
270
280
290
300
5 - At approximately 200 feet, groundwater flow increases to approximately 30 GPM. Potential fractures assumed based on drill behavior.
REMARKS
04.0190030.02 - RENNIE FARM
250
Exploration No.:
GZ-16D
TEST BORING LOG

Rennie Farms
Hanover Center Road
Type of Rig: Mobile
Rig Model: B-57
Wash

Sampler Type: SS
Rock Core Size: NX
Casing
Depth Blows/
(ft) Core No.
Rate
S-1

Ground Surface Elev. (ft.): 968.9
Sample
Sample Description
Modified Burmister
24 12
1 1
0-2
S-1: Loose, brown, SILT and
2 5
fine Sand, trace Gravel. Top 3
3
inches Forest Mat.
Field
Test
Data
1 ND

Time
Water Depth
0930
+2.3' above gs
Date
1/21/16
Stratum
Description
Elev.
(ft.)
Logged By: C. Melby

Depth
(ft.)

SHEET:
1 of 3
PROJECT NO: 04.0190030.02
REVIEWED BY: JMW
Remark
GZA
Stab. Time
Equipment Installed
Standpipe
Cement
1'
Sand
S-2
4-6
24
8 11
14 15
25
ND
S-2: Very stiff, brown, CLAYEY

SILT, trace fine Sand.
5'
2" ID Solid Sch

40 PVC Well
Riser
2
10
S-3
10-12
24
19
15 42
49 45
91
S-4
14-15
12
12
15
S-5
20
REMARKS
04.0190030.02 - RENNIE FARM
19-21
24
19
27
100/5.5"
19 25
27 45
S-3: Hard, olive-brown, SILT,

trace Sand, trace Gravel.
ND
S-4: Hard, gray, SILT, trace

fine Sand, trace Gravel.
ND
S-5: Hard, olive-gray/brown,

SILT, trace Gravel, trace fine
ND
GLACIAL TILL
2 - Casing refusal at 9 feet; approximate 6-inch boulder.
Exploration No.:
GZ-17L
TEST BORING LOG

Rennie Farms
Hanover Center Road
Type of Rig: Mobile
Rig Model: B-57
Wash

Sampler Type: SS
Rock Core Size: NX
Casing
Depth Blows/
(ft) Core No.
Rate

Sample
Sample Description
Modified Burmister
52 Sand.
Field
Test
Data

Time
Water Depth
0930
+2.3' above gs
Date
1/21/16
Stratum
Description
Elev.
(ft.)
Logged By: C. Melby

Depth
(ft.)

SHEET:
2 of 3
PROJECT NO: 04.0190030.02
REVIEWED BY: JMW
Remark
GZA
Stab. Time
Equipment Installed
GLACIAL TILL
23
S-6
25
2425.1
14
10
39 50/2"
R
945.9
S-6: Hard, orange-gray, SILT

(weathered rock).
1:30
28
C-1
28-33
60
60

moderately severely weathered,
severely fractured, vertical
fractures.
RQD = 0/20 = 0%
C-2
33-38
60
60

fractures.
RQD = 4/36 = 11%
1:45
30
2:30
2:45
Bentonite
940.9
3:15
2:15
2:15
35
2:15
2:00
BEDROCK
(SCHIST)
4:30
1:20
C-3
38-43
60
60
1:30
40

3 - Boring advanced by core drilling methods.
REMARKS
04.0190030.02 - RENNIE FARM
WEATHERED
BEDROCK
Exploration No.:
GZ-17L
TEST BORING LOG

Rennie Farms
Hanover Center Road
Type of Rig: Mobile
Rig Model: B-57
Wash

Sampler Type: SS
Rock Core Size: NX
Casing
Depth Blows/
(ft) Core No.
Rate
1:55
Sample

Sample Description
Modified Burmister
Field
Test
Data

Time
Water Depth
0930
+2.3' above gs
Date
1/21/16
Stratum
Description
Elev.
(ft.)
Logged By: C. Melby

Depth
(ft.)

SHEET:
3 of 3
PROJECT NO: 04.0190030.02
REVIEWED BY: JMW
Remark
GZA
Stab. Time
Equipment Installed
fractures.
RQD = 10/60 = 17%
1:50
2:05
1:55
C-4
43-48
60
60
2:10
45
2:15
2:10

fractures.
RQD = 20/60 = 33%
BEDROCK
(SCHIST)
1:55
2:00
50
2:15
2:05
C-5
48-53
60
60
47'
48'

fractures.
RQD = 18/60 = 30%
Sand
2" ID Slotted
Sch 40 PVC
Well Screen
(0.01" Slot)
2:20
53
915.9
53'
55
60
REMARKS
04.0190030.02 - RENNIE FARM
2:10
Exploration No.:
GZ-17L
TEST BORING LOG

Rig Model: T-650W
Drilling Method:
Hammer Type: Air

Sampler Type: NA
Rock Core Size: NA
Depth GPM
(ft)
No.
S-1
Sample
0-22

V. Datum: NAVD 88
Date

S-1: Overburden, brown, fine to medium SAND.

Time
Water Depth
Field
Test
Data
Stratum
Description
1
2
10
20
Stab. Time
Elev.
(ft.)

Foreman: Joe Dragon
EXPLORATION NO.: WSW-1

SHEET:
1 of 6
PROJECT NO: 04.0190030.02
REVIEWED BY:
Depth
(ft.)
Rennie Farm
Hanover Center Road
Remark
GZA
OVERBURDEN
S-2
20-40
S-2: Gray, weathered SCHIST.
22
1016.5
30
40
S-3
40-60
S-3: Gray, SCHIST and CLAY.
S-4
60-80
S-5
80100
60
WEATHERED
BEDROCK
70
80
90
100
REMARKS
04.0190030.02 - RENNIE FARM
50
100
938.5
1 - "GPM" indicates gallons per minute.

2 - Sample and stratum descriptions based on air hammer and roller bit cuttings.
3 - Top of bedrock encountered approximately 22 feet below ground surface.
4 - Roller bit advancement is relatively fast; occasional rig chatter.
Exploration No.:
WSW-1
TEST BORING LOG

Rig Model: T-650W
Drilling Method:
Hammer Type: Air

Sampler Type: NA
Rock Core Size: NA
Depth GPM
(ft)
No.
S-6

V. Datum: NAVD 88
Date
Sample
100S-6: Gray, SCHIST.
120

Time
Water Depth
Field
Test
Data
Stab. Time
Stratum
Description
Elev.
(ft.)

Foreman: Joe Dragon

SHEET:
2 of 6
PROJECT NO: 04.0190030.02
REVIEWED BY:
Depth
(ft.)
Rennie Farm
Hanover Center Road
Remark
GZA
110
120
2-3
S-7
120140
S-7: Gray, SCHIST.
10
S-8
140160
S-8: Gray, SCHIST.
130
140
160
10
S-9
160180
S-9: Gray, SCHIST.
10
S-10
180200
S-10: Gray, SCHIST.
SCHIST
170
180
190
200
REMARKS
04.0190030.02 - RENNIE FARM
150
5 - From 100-120 feet, roller bit advancement slowed.

6 - Water-bearing fracture assumed at approximately 155 feet based on drill behavior.
Exploration No.:
WSW-1
TEST BORING LOG

Rig Model: T-650W
Drilling Method:
Hammer Type: Air

Sampler Type: NA
Rock Core Size: NA
Depth GPM
(ft)
10

V. Datum: NAVD 88
Date
Sample
No.
S-11 200S-11: Gray, SCHIST.
220

Time
Water Depth
Field
Test
Data
Stab. Time
Stratum
Description
Elev.
(ft.)

Foreman: Joe Dragon

SHEET:
3 of 6
PROJECT NO: 04.0190030.02
REVIEWED BY:
Depth
(ft.)
Rennie Farm
Hanover Center Road
Remark
GZA
210
220
10
S-12
220240
S-12: Gray, SCHIST.
13
S-13
240260
S-13: Gray, SCHIST.
230
240
260
SCHIST
13
S-14
260280
S-14: Gray, SCHIST.
13
S-15
280300
S-15: Gray, SCHIST.
270
280
290
300
7 - Potential water-bearing fracture at approximately 260 feet below ground surface. Groundwater flow rate increases.
REMARKS
04.0190030.02 - RENNIE FARM
250
Exploration No.:
WSW-1
TEST BORING LOG

Rig Model: T-650W
Drilling Method:
Hammer Type: Air

Sampler Type: NA
Rock Core Size: NA
Depth GPM
(ft)
13

V. Datum: NAVD 88
Date
Sample
No.
320

Time
Water Depth
Field
Test
Data
Stab. Time
Stratum
Description
Elev.
(ft.)

Foreman: Joe Dragon

SHEET:
4 of 6
PROJECT NO: 04.0190030.02
REVIEWED BY:
Depth
(ft.)
Rennie Farm
Hanover Center Road
Remark
GZA
310
320
13
S-17
320340
S-17: Gray, SCHIST.
13
S-18
340360
S-18: Gray, SCHIST.
330
340
360
SCHIST
13
S-19
360380
S-19: Gray, SCHIST.
13
S-20
380400
S-20: Gray, SCHIST.
370
380
390
400
REMARKS
04.0190030.02 - RENNIE FARM
350
Exploration No.:
WSW-1
TEST BORING LOG

Rig Model: T-650W
Drilling Method:
Hammer Type: Air

Sampler Type: NA
Rock Core Size: NA
Depth GPM
(ft)
13

V. Datum: NAVD 88
Date
Sample
No.
420

Time
Water Depth
Field
Test
Data
Stab. Time
Stratum
Description
Elev.
(ft.)

Foreman: Joe Dragon

SHEET:
5 of 6
PROJECT NO: 04.0190030.02
REVIEWED BY:
Depth
(ft.)
Rennie Farm
Hanover Center Road
Remark
GZA
410
420
13
S-22
420440
S-22: Gray, SCHIST.
13
S-23
440460
S-23: Gray, SCHIST.
430
440
460
SCHIST
13
S-24
460480
S-24: Gray, SCHIST.
15
S-25
480500
S-25: Gray, SCHIST.
470
480
490
500
REMARKS
04.0190030.02 - RENNIE FARM
450
Exploration No.:
WSW-1
TEST BORING LOG

Rig Model: T-650W
Drilling Method:
Hammer Type: Air

Sampler Type: NA
Rock Core Size: NA
Depth GPM
(ft)
15

V. Datum: NAVD 88
Date
Sample
No.
520

Time
Water Depth
Field
Test
Data
Stab. Time
Stratum
Description
Elev.
(ft.)

Foreman: Joe Dragon

SHEET:
6 of 6
PROJECT NO: 04.0190030.02
REVIEWED BY:
Depth
(ft.)
Rennie Farm
Hanover Center Road
Remark
GZA
510
520
15
S-27
520540
S-27: Gray, SCHIST.
560
S-28
540560
S-28: Gray, SCHIST.
>40 S-29
560580
S-29: Gray, SCHIST.
530
540
SCHIST
560
570
580
580
458.5
590
600
REMARKS
04.0190030.02 - RENNIE FARM
550
8 - Water-bearing fracture at approximately 570 feet. Groundwater flow increases from approximately 15 GPM to greater than 40 GPM.
Hydrogen sulfide-like odor observed at 570 feet.
Exploration No.:
WSW-1
Proactive by Design
APPENDIX D LABORATORY REPORTS
Proactive by Design
APPENDIX E SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS
Proactive by Design
Former Animal Carcass Burial Area Sketch
Proactive by Design
Table 2 from GZAs April 23, 2012 Report
Table 2
Chemical Parameters Soil Quality Data Summary
Rennie Farm
Etna, New Hampshire
NH Env-Or
600
Standard (4)
Parameter(2)
VOCs(3) (mg/kg)
(EPA Method 8260B)
Total
TCLP VOCs (mg/L)

(EPA Method 8260B)
Total
Semi-VOCs (mg/kg)
(EPA Method 8270C)
Total
TCLP Semi-VOCs (g/L)

(EPA Method 8270D)
Total
Arsenic
Barium
Cadmium
Chromium
TCLP Metals (mg/L)
Lead
Mercury
Selenium
Silver
Aroclor
4,4'-DDD
4,4'-DDT
Aldrin
Dieldrin
Endosulfan I
Endosulfan II
Endosulfan sulfate
Endrin
Organochlorine Pesticides
Endrin aldehyde
& PCBs
Endrin ketone
Heptachlor
(mg/kg)
Heptachlor epoxide
Methoxychlor
Toxaphene
alpha-BHC
beta-BHC
delta-BHC
gamma-BHC (Lindane)
4,4'-DDE
Chlordane (technical)
Endrin
gamma-BHC (Lindane)
Heptachlor
TCLP Pesticides (g/L)
Heptachlor epoxide
Methoxychlor
Chlordane (technical)
Toxaphene
2,4,5-TP
TCLP Herbicides (mg/L)
(EPA Method 8151A)
2,4-D
Soil Location
Plot 34
Plot 35
Plot 36
Plot 37
Plot 38
Plot 39
Plot 40
Plot 41
Plot 42
Plot 43
Sample Date (1)

Env-Hw
403.06
Standard (4)
18-Dec-11
18-Dec-11
18-Dec-11
18-Dec-11
18-Dec-11
18-Dec-11
18-Dec-11
18-Dec-11
18-Dec-11
18-Dec-11
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
BC
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
5
100
1
5
5
0.2
1
5
ND
0.4580
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.00381
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
J 0.000401
0.00256
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.00208
P 0.0574
ND
0.471
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.00222
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
J 0.000321
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
J 0.00123
ND
ND
0.479
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
J 0.0111
ND
ND
0.00172
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
J 0.000371
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
J 0.000817
ND
ND
0.501
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
J 0.00124
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
J 0.000763
ND
ND
0.405
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.00403
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
J 0.000600
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
J 0.00129
ND
ND
0.396
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.0071
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
J 0.000418
0.00268
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.00369
0.0561
ND
0.3630
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
J 0.012
ND
ND
0.00263
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.00204
ND
ND
0.329
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.3560
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
BC
BC
BC
NE
6
4
0.09
0.06
NE
NE
NE
8
NE
NE
0.2
0.1
130
1
0.06
0.06
NE
0.09
4
4
J 0.000720
(Toluene(5))
J 0.0077
(Tetrachloroethyle
(5)
)
J 0.0241
(Naphthalene(5))
ND
0.3810
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.00232
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.00124
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.00302
0.0278
0.02
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.4
0.008
0.008
10
0.03
0.5
1
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
10
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Notes:
1. Samples collected by Clym Environmental Services personnel on the data indicted in the table.
2. Samples analyzed by GEL Laboratores, LLC of Charleston, SC.
3. VOC indicates volatile organic compound.
4. NH Env-Or 600 Standard indicates New Hampshire Soil Remedication Standard as defined in State of New Hampshire Code of Administrative Rules Env-Or 600 Table 600-2; and Env-Hw 403.06 Standards indicates New Hampshire Toxicity Characteristics for characteristic hazardous wastes as
defined in State of New Hampshire Code of Adminstrative Rules Env-Hw 403.
5. Toluene, Tetrachlorethylene and Naphtalene were analyzed by two methods (VOC and SVOC analyses) . All detections by either method were below the applicable standards of 100 mg/kg, 0.7 mg/L and 5 mg/kg, respectively.
6. g/L indicates micrograms per liter, g/kg indicates micrograms per kilogram, mg/L indicates milligrams per liter, and mg/kg indicates milligrams per kilogram.
7. ND indicates not detected above analytical laboratory reporting limit; NA indicates not applicable; BC indicates standards are by compound; NE indicates no standard established; NT indicates not tested; J indicates laboratory value is estimated; and P indicates laboratory notation for organics where
Prepared by: GZA GeoEnvironmental, Inc.

Prepared for: Dartmouth College
P:\09 Jobs\0025600s\09.0025698.00\Work\NHDES Letter Report\Summary Data Report - Chem only\draft 09 25698 00 TABLE 1 041812.xlsx
Proactive by Design
APPENDIX F PHASE II - SUPPLEMENTAL HYDROGEOLOGIC

INVESTIGATION WORK PLAN
WORK PLAN
Phase II - Supplemental Hydrogeologic Investigation
Groundwater Management Zone Delineation and Water Supply Investigation
This work plan describes proposed Phase II Supplemental Hydrogeologic
Investigation activities recommended in Section 5.0. Objectives of the proposed
tasks include:
Installation and sampling of monitoring wells to further delineate the limits of
1,4-dioxane in groundwater necessary to establish a Groundwater Management
Zone and prepare a Groundwater Management Permit Application for the Site
The proposed monitoring wells are intended to provide future compliance
monitoring locations.
Supplemental investigations within the source area to further characterize the
1,4-dioxane source and support a remedial feasibility evaluation.
Access to the properties identified on the Town of Hanover Tax Map as Map 16 as
Block 7, Lot 1 and on Map 13 as Block 19, Lot 1 will be needed to complete certain
tasks as described below. The proposed work will be completed as allowed by
access.
The following describe the proposed tasks.
TASK 1 - 1,4-DIOXANE/GMZ DELINEATION
Subtask 1.1 - Well Installation
Installation and sampling of five groundwater monitoring well triplets is proposed to
provide additional 1,4-dioxane concentration and hydraulic head data needed to
evaluate the distribution and transport of 1,4-dioxane downgradient of the Site.
Proposed well triplet installation locations are illustrated on Figure E.2, and were
selected based on the conceptual model described in Section 3.0. The following
summarize the rationale for the selection of the individual locations.
GZ-18U/L/D is located on site at the intersection of potential fracture zone (PFZ) 4
and PFZ 9. PFZ 9 transects the area immediately downgradient of the source area.
GZ-20U/L/D is located along the anticipated axis of 1,4-dioxane transport based on
the distribution of 1,4-dioxane on site and predominant northeasterly striking
fracture set.
Copyright 2016 GZA GeoEnvironmental, Inc.

An Equal Opportunity Employer M/F/V/H
May 5, 2016
New Hampshire Department of
Environmental Services
04.0190030.02
Page | 2
GZ-21U/L/D is also located along the anticipated axis of 1,4-dioxane transport based on the distribution of
1,4-dioxane on site and predominant northeasterly striking fracture set, but at a location northeast of the
proposed location of GZ-20U/L/D and within the topographic center of the lowland area to the east of the Site.
GZ-22U/L/D is located along PFZ 6 and is proximate to 9 Rennie Road.
GZ-23U/L/D is located at the intersection of two photo-lineaments (see Figure 4) and was selected to provide a
monitoring location east of 9 Rennie Road.
Drilling and monitoring well installation methods will be consistent with the drilling methods described in
Section 2.3.1 and consistent with Env-Or 610.04 (Groundwater Monitoring Wells). Except as noted below, GZA
anticipates that three separate wells with well screens installed at depths of 10 feet, 50 feet, and 100 feet below
ground surface (well triplets), will be constructed at each of the target drill locations described above. The upper
well of each well triplet will likely be installed in overburden. Actual well depths will be based on the conditions
encountered with well screen depths selected to intersect potential water bearing fractures.
If practicable GZ-22U/L/D may be drilled using air rotary drilling methods similar to those described in
Section 2.3.2 to provide an open borehole for the purpose of performing borehole geophysical logging. Borehole
logging and, if 1,4-dioxane is detected (see sampling methods described in Subtask 1.2), zone sampling within the
borehole would be performed consistent with the methods described in Task 4 and Task 5 of GZAs December 2,
2015 work plan.
Following completion of geophysical logging and, if applicable, zone sampling of the borehole, a multilevel PVC
monitoring well will be constructed within the borehole and bentonite and Portland cement and bentonite grout
seals constructed within the borehole to limit the potential for vertical transport within the borehole.
Subtask 1.2 - Well Development, Survey, and Sampling
Each of proposed bedrock groundwater monitoring wells constructed with 2-inch inner-diameter (ID) PVC screen
and riser sections will be developed by GZA using manual inertia pump and surge block methods. If open-hole
bedrock wells are installed, groundwater will be sampled using the methods used to sample wells WSW-1 and
GZ-16D described in Section 2.4, with purged groundwater containerized until water quality data are available
and the purge water disposed of at an appropriate location in the event that 1,4-dixoane is detected in the samples
from the well. If open-hole bedrock wells are installed and 1,4-dioxane is not detected in the initial sampling of
the wells, the wells will be developed by over pumping using an electric submersible pump and groundwater
discharged to the ground surface.
The location and reference point elevations of each of the proposed bedrock wells will be surveyed by a New
Hampshire Licensed surveyor.
Each of the proposed sampling locations will be sampled a minimum of two weeks after installation (initial
sampling round), and resampled after a further minimum two week period (confirmatory sampling round).
Sampling and analytical methods will be as described in Section 2.4.
May 5, 2016
04.0190030.02
Page | 2
TASK 2 SUPPLEMENTAL SOURCE AREA CHARACTERIZATION
Additional hydrogeologic and 1,4-dioxane concentration data are needed to delineate and characterize the source
area including:
Bedrock surface elevation;
Concentration of 1,4-dioxane in overburden and bedrock groundwater;
Overburden hydraulic conductivity and head;
Bedrock hydraulic yield and connectivity;
These data will be used to evaluate;
The mass of 1,4-dioxane within overburden groundwater in the source area;
1,4-dioxane transport within overburden and hydraulic connections to the fractured bedrock groundwater
system; and
Potential source area remedial alternatives including: hydraulic control and treatment; excavation; and
electrical heating.
TASK 2.1 GROUND PENETRATING RADAR SURVEY

A ground penetrating radar (GPR) survey is proposed to evaluate the depth to the bedrock surface within the
former animal carcass burial area (source area). The GPR survey would be completed within the area shown on
Figure E.1. GPR data will be acquired along a series of parallel traverses with a spacing of approximately 2.5 feet
between each traverse. The boring logs for GZ-12L, GZ-13L, and GZ-14L will be used to calibrate the GPR
equipment.
To the extent possible, the GPR data will be used to prepare a plan illustrating the depth to the top of bedrock
within the source area including contours of the bedrock surface elevation.
TASK 2.2 GROUNDWATER SCREENING
To delineate the extent of 1,4-dioxane in overburden groundwater, GZA proposes collection of groundwater
samples throughout the area shown on Figure E.1 for laboratory analysis of 1,4-dioxane using EPA Method 8260B
SIM. To the extent allowed by subsurface conditions groundwater samples will be collected on a regular grid with
an approximate 20-foot spacing between sampling locations. Based on the area of the source area and proposed
grid spacing, GZA estimates that approximately 36 groundwater samples will be collected.
Groundwater samples will be collected using a direct push drill rig equipped with groundwater sampling tooling.
One groundwater sample will be collected from between approximately 6 feet to 8 feet below ground surface,
with the intent of collecting groundwater samples from the vertical center of the saturated overburden. Two
duplicate samples will be collected during the sampling program for quality assurance purposes.
May 5, 2016
04.0190030.02
Page | 2
The results of the analyses of the groundwater samples will be summarized in a table and on a figure.
TASK 2.3 GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL INSTALLATION AND SAMPLING
GZA proposes installation of up to four additional overburden/shallow bedrock monitoring well couplets within
the source area. The well couplets are proposed to provide additional long-term 1,4-dioxane concentration and
hydraulic head monitoring locations, and provide data to further evaluate 1,4-dioxane transport between
overburden and bedrock. The proposed well couplets may also be used to provide remedial performance
monitoring locations in the event that active source area remediation is practicable.
The well couplets would be constructed consistent with the methods used to construct source area well couplet
GZ-14U/L. The locations of the proposed well couplets will be selected based on the results of Task 2.1 and
Task 2.2.
Groundwater and soil from drilling the borings and development and sampling of the wells will be placed on the
ground surface adjacent to the boring/well within the source area.
Well Development, Survey, and Sampling
Each of proposed groundwater monitoring well couplets will be developed by GZA using manual inertia pump and
surge block methods.
The location and reference point elevations of each of the proposed bedrock wells will be surveyed by a New
Hampshire Licensed surveyor.
Each of the proposed sampling locations will be sampled a minimum of 2 weeks after installation (initial sampling
round), and resampled after a further minimum two week period (confirmatory sampling round). Sampling and
analytical methods will be as described in Section 2.4.
TASK 2.4 SOURCE AREA HYDRAULIC TESTING
Hydraulic testing will be performed by GZA within overburden and shallow fractured bedrock within the source
area to provide data needed to evaluate the technical feasibility and estimate the practicability of hydraulic
control (groundwater extraction) and treatment as a remedial alternative for the source area. The data would
also be used to evaluate the practicability of dewatering to manage groundwater if soil excavation and dewatering
were used to remove 1,4-dixoane from the source area. The extent of testing will be determined based on the
results of the preceding tasks.
GZA assumes that a minimum, of two constant head withdrawal tests utilizing each of the monitoring wells within
the source area. Groundwater will be pumped using either an electric submersible pump or suction pump.
Groundwater will be containerized in an 8,000-gallon portable tank. The duration of the withdrawal tests and
target drawdown levels will be determined based on the observed flow rates and storage capacity within the
portable tank.
May 5, 2016
04.0190030.02
Page | 2
The constant head tests will be performed sequentially with an approximate 2-day interval between tests to allow
groundwater levels to return to static conditions between the tests. Each test will be completed within one day.
Groundwater levels will be monitored manually within selected wells within the source area, with monitoring
locations and frequencies adjusted based on the water level responses in the wells. Pressure transducers will be
installed within up to eight source area monitoring wells (including the wells selected as withdrawal wells) to
provide frequent measurement and record water levels in selected monitoring wells.
This task includes long-term monitoring of hydraulic head using a pressure transducer and data logger installed in
monitoring well couplet GZ-14U/L to further evaluate the hydraulic connection between overburden and bedrock
at this location, including monitoring of the vertical component of the hydraulic head gradient.
Containerized groundwater will be sampled following the completion of the withdrawal tests and analyzed for
VOCs by EPA Method 8260B. The results of the analysis will be used to develop recommendations for disposal of
the water.
TASK 3 DATA EVALUATION AND REPORTING
Data collected during the completion of Task 1 and Task 2 will evaluated relative to the project and task objectives.
The work performed, results, and GZAs conclusions and recommendation will be summarized in a report. The
report will include figures and tables summarizing the data collected. The report will include:
An updated Conceptual Site Model;
A remedial feasibility summary including evaluation of the following potential remedial alternatives:
groundwater extraction and treatment; source area soil excavation and dewatering; in-situ electrical heating;
monitored natural attenuation; and combinations of these alternatives;
Conclusions; and
Recommendations including:
A proposed GMZ and revised groundwater monitoring program designed to support an application for
GMP if approved by NHDES;
A proposed remedial approach for the source area and downgradient plume area; and
Reference the geospatial model will be refined with all the data from these studies.
JMW/SRL/RAB:kr
P:\04Jobs\0190000s\04.0190030.00\04.0190030.02\Report\Supplemental Hydrogeologic Investigation Phase I\Appendices\Appendix F - Phase II Work Plan\DRAFT 04 0190030 02 GMZ Investigation Work
Plan Phase II 050516.docx
Attachment: Figures
LEGEND:
nn
Re
ACTIVE DUG WELL
(
!
ABANDONED DUG WELL
V
!
WATER SUPPLY WELL

ie
(
!
V
!
P
LYM
E
HAN
OVE
R
V
!
P
H
!
SPRING
GZ-20U/L/D
V
!
P

@
A
GZ-1
V
!
P
H

SAMPLING PLANNED
V
!
V
!
P
Rd
V
!
P
PROPOSED GMZ DELINEATION / COMPLIANCE WELL

LOCATION
!
>

V
!
P
H
V
!
P
INFERRED DIRECTION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW BASED

V
!
P
V
!
P
H
POTENTIAL GMZ BOUNDARY
!
> GZ-21U/L/D
POSSIBLE FRACTURE ZONES MAPPED BY HAGER-RICHTER
GZ-4
GZ-5U
GZ-11L
GZ-11U
GZ-7U
600

GIS CLEARINGHOUSE.

!
(
P
300
GENERAL NOTES:
V
!
P
GZ-7L

150
SCALE IN FEET
GZ-1
V
!
P
@
@
A
A
GZ-5L
@
A
V
!
P
@
A
@
A
!
H
GZ-2
!
(
P
@
A
@
A
@
A
@
@
A
A
@
A
GZ-23U/L/D
V
!
P
@
@
A
A
!
>
GZ-3
GZ-10U
@
@
A
A
v
no R
a
H ter
n
Ce
GZ-6
GZ-22U/L/D
e
d r
!
>
GZ-8U
H
H

BE OBTAINED.
5) VLF DATA ACQUIRED USING A GSM-19 WALKING MAG-VLF SYNCED WITH

DGPS. RELATIVE REAL COMPONENT RESPONSE SHOWN.
10
V
!
V
!

H
!
(
P
DATE
V
!
P
BY
V
!
P
ISSUE / DESCRIPTION
V
!
P
NO.
GMZ DELINEATION WORK PLAN SUMMARY

PREPARED BY:

www.gza.com
PROJ MGR:
JMW
DESIGNED BY: JMW
DATE:
H
H
05-05-2016
REVIEWED BY: TWK

DRAWN BY:
PROJECT NO.
MJD
04.0190030.02
PREPARED FOR:
DARTMOUTH COLLEGE
CHECKED BY:
RAB

REVISION NO.
FIG
F.1
GZ-10L
P:\04Jobs\0190000s\04.0190030.00\04.0190030.02\Figures-CAD\April Figures\MXD\Figure E.2 - GMZ Delineation Work Plan Summary.mxd, 5/5/2016, 2:59:37 PM, matthew.deane
GZ-9L
GZ-8L
GZ-9U
!
>
GZ-19U/L/D
RELATIVE RESPONSE REAL COMPONENT OF THE VLF FIELD
!
>
GZ-20U/L/D
@
A
LEGEND:
ACTIVE DUG WELL
(
!
ABANDONED DUG WELL
V
!
WATER SUPPLY WELL
(
!
GZ-9D
GZ-9L
@
A
@
A

H
!
SPRING
V
!
@A
@ GZ-9U
A
STREAM - 1
GF
GZ-9D

GZ-1
@
A
@
A
@ GZ-8L
A
GZ-8U

GF

GZ-10L
@A
A
@
GZ-10U
APPROXIMATE DIRECT PUSH GROUNDWATER

GRAB SAMPLING LOCATION
!
(
STREAM - 1
!
(
APPROXIMATE LIMITS OF ANIMAL

CARCASS BURIAL AREA
@
A
GZ-6
GZ-5U
H
!
@
A
@ GZ-5L
A
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
P:\04Jobs\0190000s\04.0190030.00\04.0190030.02\Figures-CAD\April Figures\MXD\Figure E2 - Source Area Work Plan Summary.mxd, 5/5/2016, 3:02:37 PM, matthew.deane
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
@!(A
@
A
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
@
A
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
@
A
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
GZ-13L
GZ-1
GZ-7L
@
A
!
(
!
(
!
(
@
A
HUMAN BURIAL AREA
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
@
A
GZ-4
GZ-3
@
A
@
A
GZ-7U
@ GZ-2
A
GZ-14U
GZ-14L
GZ-12L
GZ-11U A
@A
@ GZ-11L
4
25
50
V
!
100
SCALE IN FEET
GENERAL NOTES:

GIS CLEARINGHOUSE.
NO.
ISSUE / DESCRIPTION
BY
DATE

SOURCE AREA WORK PLAN SUMMARY

PREPARED BY:

www.gza.com
PROJ MGR:
JMW
DESIGNED BY: JMW

DATE:
05-05-2016
REVIEWED BY: SRL

DRAWN BY:
PROJECT NO.
MJD
04.0190030.02
PREPARED FOR:
DARTMOUTH COLLEGE
CHECKED BY:
JMW

REVISION NO.
FIG
F.2

Rennie Farm Supplemental Hydrogeologic Investigation Report

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Rennie Farm Supplemental Hydrogeologic Investigation Report

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

DES Waste Management Division

29 Hazen Drive; PO Box 95

5 Commerce Park North, Suite 201

Date of Report: May 6, 2016

PHASE I - SUPPLEMENTAL HYDROGEOLOGIC

NHDES SITE NO. 201111109, DES PROJECT NO. 277737

5 Commerce Park North, Suite 201 Bedford, NH 03110-6984

Mr. Paul Rydel, P.G.

Dear Mr. Rydel:

An Equal Opportunity Employer M/F/V/H

James M. Wieck, P.G.

Ronald A. Breton, P.E.

Steven R. Lamb, P.G., C.G.W.P.

Ms. Maureen O'Leary, PhD, MBA, CBSP, Dartmouth College

PHASE I - SUPPLEMENTAL HYDROGEOLOGIC INVESTIGATION ..............................................................3

STRUCTURAL GEOLOGIC MAPPING ..................................................................................................3

SURFICIAL GEOPHYSICAL SURVEYS...................................................................................................6

SUBSURFACE EXPLORATIONS ...........................................................................................................6

WATER QUALITY MONITORING..................................................................................................... 11

CONCEPTUAL SITE MODEL ................................................................................................................15

SITE LOCATION USE AND PHYSIOGRAPHY..................................................................................... 15

SURFACE WATER ........................................................................................................................... 16

PREVIOUS SITE INVESTIGATION AND REMEDIATION .................................................................... 16

CONTAMINANT SOURCE ............................................................................................................... 19

CONTAMINANT DISTRIBUTION, TRANSPORT, AND FATE.............................................................. 21

IDENTIFIED AND POTENTIAL RECEPTORS ...................................................................................... 24

WATER WELL BOARD INFORMATION SUMMARY

MONITORING WELL CONSTRUCTION SUMMARY

1,4-DIOXANE CONCENTRATION DATA SUMMARY

FIELD SCREENING DATA SUMMARY

WATER SUPPLY WELL DATA SUMMARY

GROUNDWATER ELEVATION AND REFERENCE POINT DATA SUMMARY

LOCUS PLAN/WATER RESOURCES PLAN

SITE PLAN/MONITORING LOCATION PLAN

WATER SUPPLY WELL SAMPLING PLAN

BEDROCK GEOLOGIC MAPPING SUMMARY

VLF SURVEY SUMMARY

HYDRAULIC HEAD DATA SUMMARY

WATER QUALITY DATA SUMMARY

SECTION A-A AND B-B

FEBRUARY 2016 REPORT BY HAGER RICHTER

PHASE II - SUPPLEMENTAL HYDROGEOLOGIC INVESTIGATION WORK PLAN

Expanded bedrock outcrop mapping and supplemental review of lineaments;

PHASE I - SUPPLEMENTAL HYDROGEOLOGIC INVESTIGATION

STRUCTURAL GEOLOGIC MAPPING

SURFICIAL GEOPHYSICAL SURVEYS

Soil Sample Number

WATER QUALITY MONITORING

Three surface water sampling locations (Stream-1, Stream-2, and Stream-3);

On-site water supply well WSW-1.

CONCEPTUAL SITE MODEL

SITE LOCATION USE AND PHYSIOGRAPHY

PREVIOUS SITE INVESTIGATION AND REMEDIATION

Referenced to NAVD 88.

CONTAMINANT DISTRIBUTION, TRANSPORT, AND FATE

IDENTIFIED AND POTENTIAL RECEPTORS

Continued groundwater monitoring for 1,4-dioxane as described in the following table.

GZ-2, GZ-9L, GZ-9D, GZ-10D,

GZ-3, GZ-5U/L, 7 Rennie Road,

GZ-6, GZ-7U, GZ-7L, Stream-3

Depth to Bedrock (ft)

Depth to Bottom (ft)

Flow Rate (GPM)

Address Where Sampled by GZA