DRAFT WSPC Statement Regarding. . : December31,2015 :Amherst's Response to Roux Associates report dated DearMr. Mooring: ‘The Amherst Water Supply Protection Committee (WSPC’ i ; ly has reviewedthedraftrespanse to the Roux Associates memorandum report dated December 31,2015, pepe gy . dated Oct Is We concur with the explanations givenin the Town'sresponse. The Town has beendiligentin monitoring a comprehensive suite of field parameters, inorganic compounds, metals Jand volatile and semi-volatile organic compounds j equi i in use at the time of sampling. vahies have be and followup testinghas bem conducted. The Town monitoring landfill contaminants and protecting the quality andintegnty of 4 water supply wellsin the Lawrence ‘Swamp Aquifer ‘The WSPC has reviewed the quality data and conchides that there is no ev suggest that Ambherst’s wat ‘has been compromased by 1,4 Dioxans or any | leachate constituent. This conclusions supported by the following observations. | 1. The extremely high Jevels of 14 Dicxans observed swells 5-08, 4-08, 3-08, 6-08, 7-08, 9-08 andsurfac SW-6 are considered aberrant anderroneous forthe following reasons: a. These sites are widely distributed two of which, SW and4-08, arenot downgradiert ofthe landiill. b. The valuesreportedare, in many cases, two orders of magnitude largerthan any other levels of 1,4 Dioxanereparted anywhere else. c. These ioe wer cdto MA DEP andMA DEP orderedthe 4. Allresults except SW-1, SW-5,SW. -08 aid well 10168, alfofwhich are | downgradient ofthe landfill, showed levels below detectionlimits upon retest, e. Furthemmore,none Sf the bedrock wells or any well within the Zone IT boundary i showed any ie Dionane in the re years porto the July 2012samplng dats apo the four years afterthe July 2012 sampling. ‘Afthere were 1.4 Rioxane ¢ on, de onrrnatignshoudhavebeenevidet one exalt ansaiat subsequent! ndit was not. c £ eects ‘Zonclusion that canbe reachedisthatthe July 2012 data arein eror either duetolab contamination, a ‘contaminationor chain of custodyissues. A eti the heavy isotopes suggesting it was either recharged whenthe elimatewas much ‘than it is today, meaning it could be Haletcere AACE AULT q disconnected from present flow paths and precipitation, Hh 3. The public water supply wells showno evidence of I 4 Digxang contamination, i Based on these obser ations, there is no evidence that 1.4 Dioxaus o: ansillleaehte Pre | eee Peo eee However, the pub vial rence), SV ae to the current ‘samplingpr