1987 EPA-700 8-87-011
Hazardous Waste Ground-Water
Task Force
Evaluation of
Ashland Petroleum
Catlettsburg, Kentucky
vvEPA
l!,8. Protection
Region 5, Library (Pi.-12J)
7? West JacKson Boulevard, 12trt
Cf'i:af. ^ 60604-3590
US Environmental Protection Agency
Kentucky Department for Environmental Protection
-------
GROUND WATER MONITORING EVALUATION
ASHLAND PETROLEUM
CATLETTSBURG, KENTUCKY
UPDATE
The Hazardous Waste Ground Water Task Force evaluated the Ashland Petro-
leum facility in Catlettsburg, Kentucky for compliance with the 40 CFR Part 265
Subpart F regulations during the week of July 15-19, 1986. Several deficiencies
pertaining to the RCRA ground water monitoring systems were noted during the
evaluation. S.E. Matthews, project coordinator for the evaluation, complied a
report that detailed these deficiencies and summarized the results from water
quality samples collected from the RCRA monitoring wells at the facility.
This update chronicles activities at the Ashland Petroleum facility follow-
ing the Task torce evaluation and actions taken by the Kentucky Division of
Waste Management and EPA Region IV regarding RCRA ground water monitoring at
the facility.
In late July, KYDWM commented on the ground water monitoring plan sub-
mitted in March 1986 for the Viney Branch surface impoundments. In August, a
meeting was held to discuss the deficiencies of the monitoring plan. Ashland
then submitted a revised ground water monitoring plan in September. KYDWM also
amended the original Demand for Remedial Measures and Penalty Assessment of
February 19 to reflect a $2,000 penalty.
Ashland Petroleum submitted ground water monitoring data to KYDWM in
September 1986 indicating the presence of organics in both the up and down
gradient wells at the Route 3 Landfill. In October, KYDWM evaluated this
data and deemed no further action was necessary.
KYDWM commented on the revised monitoring plan for the Viney Branch
surface impoundments in October 1986. Ashland submitted the third revision of
this plan to KYDWM in November. The fourth quarter January 1987 monitoring
results for Viney Branch indicated contamination in down gradient well SI-1.
Fourth quarter results for the Route 3 Landfill showed a statistical increase
for pH and TOG. Hazardous constituents were also detected above background
level. KYDWM then submitted a third Notice of Deficiency to EPA Region IV for
review.
In February 1987, KYDWM directed Ashland to implement an assessment plan
and to amend the Part B permit application to reflect compliance monitoring.
In March, EPA Region IV, KYDWM and Ashland met to discuss the implications of
the hazardous consitiuents detected in the monitoring wells at both Viney
Branch and the Route 3 Landfill.
In April 1986, EPA Region IV issued a 3008(a) Order to Ashland for ground
water monitoring deficiencies. EPA Region IV is now drafting a proposed compli-
ance schedule and Consent Agreement that would direct the facility to install
eight well clusters at the Route 3 Landfill consisting of twenty wells for the
purpose of collecting additional geologic and hydrologic data from the landfill,
as well as water-quality data from these wells.
The Consent Agreement and Final Order was signed and became effective on
June 15, 1987. The Order sets forth a compliance schedule for installation of
wells and continued hydrogeologic investigations. Ashland has, at this time,
complied with the dates in this Order and their submittals are under review.
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
HAZARDOUS WASTE GROUND-WATER TASK FORCE
GROUND WATER MONITORING EVALUATION
ASHLAND PETROLEUM COMPANY
CATLETTSBURG, KENTUCKY
JUNE, 1987
SHARON E. MATTHEWS
PROJECT COORDINATOR
REGION IV, US-EPA
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
INTRODUCTION 1
Background 2
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 3
COMPLIANCE WITH INTERIM STATUS REQUIREMENTS 5
Inadequate Hydrogeological Characterization 5
Improper Monitoring System 5
Inadequate Ground Water Sampling and Analysis Plan 6
Laboratory Evaluation 6
Monitoring Data Analysis 6
TECHNICAL REPORT
INVESTIGATIVE METHODS 7
Records/Documents Review and Evaluation 7
Facility Inspection 8
Laboratory Evaluation. 8
Ground Water Sampling and Analysis 8
WASTE MANAGEMENT UNITS AND OPERATIONS 9
Viney Branch Surface Impoundments Description 9
Route 3 Landfill Description 10
Solid Waste Management Units 11
FACILITY OPERATIONS/WASTE CHARACTERISTICS 12
REGIONAL GEOLOGY/HYDROGEOLOGY 14
Geology 14
Hydrogeology of the RCRA Facility Area 16
Ground Water Flow Direction 16
Adequacy of Hydrogeologic Characterization 17
GROUND WATER MONITORING PROGRAM DURING INTERIM STATUS 17
Regulatory Requirements. 17
*401 KAR 35:060 Ground Water Monitoring (IS) 18
Compliance History 18
Monitoring Well Data 29
Ground Water Sampling - Detection/Assessment 31
Ashland Sample Collection and Handling Procedures 33
TASK FORCE SAMPLE COLLECTION AND HANDLING PROCEDURES 35
LABORATORY EVALUATION 36
MONITORING DATA ANALYSIS 36
REFERENCES
APPENDICES
A - Task Force Analytical Results
B - Monitoring Well Logs
C - Ashland's Sampling and Analysis Procedures
-------
-2-
FIGURES
1 - Facility Location Map
2 - Location of Viney Branch Surface Impoundments and Route 3 Landfill
3 - Viney Branch Surface Impoundments Well Locations
4 - Route 3 Landfill Well Locations
5 - Block Flow Diagram of the Catlettsburg Refineries
6 - Block Flow Diagram of the Catlettsburg Refineries
7 - Catlettsburg Refinery Wastewater Treatment System
8 - Location of 1984 Rock Borings
9 - Generalized Geologic Section Showing Features of Stress-Relief
Fracturing
10 - Block Diagram of Generalized Geologic Section Showing Features
of Stress-Relief Fracturing
11 - Permeability Test Results - Boring 86-1
12 - Permeability Test Results - Boring 86-2
13 - Permeability Test Results - Boring 86-3
TABLES
1 - Generalized Stratigraphic Column
2 - RCRA Ground Water Monitoring Parameters
3 - Monitoring Well Construction Data
4 - Wells Designated for Ground Water Monitoring During Interim
Status at the Ashland Petroleum Facility
5 - Sample Collection Data
6 - Order of Sample Preservation, Bottle Type and Preservative List
7 - Analytical Data Summary
-------
GROUND WATER MONITORING COMPLIANCE EVALUATION
ASHLAND PETROLEUM
CATLETTSBURG, KENTUCKY
ESD PROJECT #86-314
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
INTRODUCTION
Task Force Effort
Operations at hazardous waste treatment, storage and disposal (TSD)
facilities are regulated by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. Regu-
lations promulgated pursuant to RCRA (40 CFR Parts 260 through 265, effective
on November 19, 1980 and subsequently modified) address hazardous waste site
operations including monitoring of ground water to ensure that hazardous
waste constituents are not released to the environment. The regulations for
TSD facilities are implemented (for EPA administered programs) through the
hazardous waste permit program outlined in 40 CFR Part 270.
The Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) establish-
ed a Hazardous Waste Ground Water Task Force (Task Force) to evaluate the
level of compliance with ground water monitoring requirements at commercial
off-site and selected on-site TSD facilities and address the cause of non-
compliance. The Task Force is comprised of personnel from the EPA Headquarters
Core Team, Regional Offices and the States.
There will be eight Task Force evaluations conducted in Region IV during
FY-86 and FY-87. Evaluations nave been conducted at the region's two off-site
commercial facilities. Six evaluations will be conducted at private, on-site
facilities. The evaluation of Ashland is the third private on-site investiga-
tion in Region IV and was conducted the week of July 15, 1986.
Objectives of the Evaluation
The Agency and Ashland Petroleum have entered a period unique in the life
of the RCRA program — the period in which the Part B application is under
review and has not been permitted.
The existence of this transition period is significant because it is the
only time in the life of the RCRA program that land disposal facilities will
be bound by the interim status ground water regulations (Part 265) and the
permit application regulations (Part 270).
However, for all practical purposes, the requirements governing well
placement are the same for both Part 265 and Part 264 detection monitoring.
Whereas the regulatory language differs slightly, a network designed to meet
the Part 265 standard should be substantially the same (in terms of well
location and depths) as one designed to meet the Part 264 standard.
-------
-2-
Both programs include a performance standard for up and downgradient well
placement that requires a sufficient number of wells installed at appropriate
locations and depths, to yield representative water quality samples from the
uppermost aquifer. A minimum of three downgradient wells should be installed
hydraulically downgradient of the RCRA unit at the limit of the waste manage-
ment area. The wells should be of sufficient number and placed so as to immedi-
ately detect hazardous waste or hazardous waste constituents migrating from the
regulated unit into the uppermost aquifer.
The principal objective of the inspection at Ashland was to determine
compliance of the RCRA Viney Branch surface impoundments and Route 3 landfill
with the requirements of 40 CFR Part 265, Subpart F - Ground Water Monitoring
and to determine compliance with related requirements of the Part 265 interimn
status regulations and the state's counterpart regulations. The ground water
monitoring program described in the RCRA Part B permit application was also
evaluated for compliance with Part 270.14(c) and potential compliance with Part
264. Recent amendments to RCRA require that facilities seeking a RCRA permit
also address solid waste management units at the facilities, therefore, any
ground water monitoring information associated with these units was to be
reviewed.
The Ashland inspection was coordinated by the Region IV United States
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Environmental Services Division and
included participation by the EPA Headquarters Core Team, Region IV EPA Waste
Management Division, and the Kentucky Division of Waste Management (KYDWM). In
general, the evaluation involved a review of State, Federal and facility re-
cords, a facility inspection, a laboratory evaluation and ground water sampling
and analysis. The Kentucky Division of Waste Management concurs with all tech-
nical conclusions of this report.
BACKGROUND
Locale/General
The Ashland Petroleum Company (a Division of Ashland Oil, Inc.,) operates
a refinery in Boyd County, Catlettsburg, Kentucky (see Figure 1). It is loca-
ted on the west bank of the Big Sandy River about 5.8 miles south of Ashland,
Kentucky. In the production processes, various wastes result, some of which
are classified as hazardous under 40 CFR Part 261. Hazardous wastes are cur-
rently contained in the Viney Branch surface impoundments and the Route 3
Landfill. For purposes of the Task Force inspection, the ground water moni-
toring systems at the Viney Branch surface impoundments and the Route 3 Land-
fill were evaluated for compliance with the 40 CFR Part 265 Subpart F, 270.14
(c) and Part 264 regulations (See Figure 2 for RCRA unit locations).
The facility produces petroleum products by the use of topping, cracking,
lube oil manufacturing processes and petro chemical operations. Typical wastes
that result from these processes are shown on the next page.
-------
-3-
Hazardous Waste Number Hazardous Waste
K048 Dissolved air-flotation float (second-
ary oil/solids/water separation sludge)
K049 Slop oil emulsion solids.
K050 Heat exchanger bundle cleaning sludge.
K051 API separator sludge (primary oil/
solids/water separation sludge).
K052 Leaded tank bottoms.
The Viney Branch surface impoundments (EPA ID //KYD000615906) and the Route
3 Landfill (EPA ID # KYD000615898) both have interim status. The Catlettsburg
refinery had interim status, as a protective filer, up until September 27,
1983. In October 1983, the facility initiated closure activities at the Viney
Branch surface impoundments. The Part B for the Route 3 Landfill was submitted
October 1984. A request to withdraw the Part A application for the refinery
was submitted to EPA Atlanta in December 1982.
The Part B has been reviewed by both the Kentucky Division of Waste Manage-
ment and EPA-Atlanta. The facility has received three NOD's regarding the
deficiencies of the Part B and Letters of Warning to remedy the inadequate
ground water monitoring systems at Viney Branch and the Route 3 Landfill. The
first NOD was issued May 1985 by KYDWM for Part B deficiencies. In August 1985
a Letter of Warning was issued by KYDWM for inadequate ground water monitoring
system at the Route 3 Landfill. KYDWM iscued a second NOD for Part B deficien-
cies in January 1986 and a Letter of Warning for an inadequate ground water
monitoring system at Viney Branch in February 1986. Also in February, KYDWM
issued a "Demand for Remedial Measures and Penalty Assessment" for Part B
deficiencies with a penalty of $2,000. In March 1986, the penalty was amended
to $1,500. In April 1986, EPA issued a "Complaint and Compliance Order" with a
penalty of $54,000 for deficiencies in ground water monitoring, security, free
liquids, and inadequate run-on/run-off diversion ditches at the Route 3 Land-
fill. At the time of the Task Force inspection this order was still under
discussion. In June 1986, KYDWM fined the facility $3,000 for ground water
violations. Since the Task Force inspection, KYDWM has issued a third NOD in
September 1986 for Part B deficiencies.
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
The Task Force investigated the interim status ground water monitoring
program implemented by Ashland. The consensus opinion of the Task Force was
that this program is not fully in compliance with 40 CFR Part 265 Subpart F and
the Kentucky Waste management Regulations.
-------
-4-
Regulations require that an owner/operator install a ground water monitor-
ing system capable of immediately detecting hazardous waste or hazardous waste
constituents which are migrating into the uppermost aquifer. On the upgradient
side of the waste management area this means that there must be enough wells
(at least one) to characterize background ground water quality in the uppermost
aquifer. A facility that uses only one well for background values, however,
will be unable to estimate spatial variability in water quality, and increases
the risk of false indication of contamination.
Analytical data and well logs, from the Route 3 Landfill indicate that
the upgradient well, HHF-3 is not screened in the same water-bearing zone as
the downgradient wells. Therefore, the background water-quality data cannot be
used to make a statistical comparison of the effect the regulated unit has on
water-quality.
Analytical results of ground water samples collected from the RCRA monitor-
ing system at the Viney Branch surface impoundments were of limited value.
Upgradient well SI-3 could not be sampled due to a very slow recovery rate;
therefore, results from this well were not available to compare to the downgrad-
ient wells.
Regulation does not require placement of ground water monitoring wells
inside the waste management area. This is further discussed in the May 19,
1980 preamble, where it is stated that there should be no suggestion that the
wells should be drilled through any natural or artifical barrier that may
contain waste. The problem of migration of leachate will be reduced by placing
monitoring wells outside any containment barrier.
Downgradient wells HHF-4, HHF-2, and HHF-1 at the Route 3 Landfill are
drilled through the runoff sediment pond's dam. Both HHF-1 and HHF-4 appear to
be under the influence of mounding, and thus may not be monitoring the upper-
most quifer. The water elevation data for the downgradient wells strongly
support this fact.
Monitoring well HHF-2 appears to have connected five discrete waterbearing
zones by filling the annulus with a 65-foot sand pack around a 10-foot screen.
This causes contaminant concentrations to be diluted and also provides a con-
duit for contaminants to reach lower water-bearing zones.
As stated in 40 CFR Part 265.91(2), the downgradient wells should be so
constructed and located as to "immediately detect any statistically significant
amounts of hazardous waste or hazardous waste constituents that migrate from
the waste management area to the uppermost aquifer." There is not a sufficient
number of downgradient wells at the Route 3 Landfill to insure immediate detec-
tion of contaminants.
The sediment/sludge sample taken from the sedimentation basin below the
Route 3 Landfill had measured concentrations of extractable and purgeable
organic compounds. This indicates that the sedimentation basin is catching
organic runoff from the landfill or is intercepting an organic plume originat-
ing from the landfill.
-------
-5-
Ashland must identify the uppermost aquifer and identify the extent of
interconnection between aquifers. Flow direction and rate must be defined in
the uppermost aquifer so as to establish the hydraulic downgradient limit of
the regulated unit.
The following is a more detailed summary of the inspection findings and
conclusions.
COMPLIANCE WITH INTERIM STATUS REQUIREMENTS
Inadequate Hydrogeological Characterization (40 CFR Part 265.90)
Ashland has not adequately characterized the hydrogeology of the site. It
is the consensus of the Task Force that Ashland should be required to:
(1) Adequately characterize the geology of the site:
a. prepare a detailed stratigraphic section, fence diagram, etc. to
define the site-specific (not regional) geology underlying the
surface impoundments and the landfill.
b. define the effects of stress-relief fracturing on this area.
(2) Adequately characterize the ground water hydrology of the site:
a. construct additional borings to define perched water tables,
aquifers, aquicludes, confining units, etc.; delineate con-
tinuity, thickness, etc.
b. conduct pumping tests, slug tests, etc. to determine hydraulic
characteristics (transmissivity, porosity, permeability,
storage coefficient, etc.)
c. install a series of piezometers to determine the potentiometic
surface at the surface impoundment and landfill.
Improper Monitoring System (40 CFR Part 265.91)
Historical water quality data has indicated that the upgradient wells at
the Viney Branch surface impoundment and the Route 3 Landfill are not adequate
to provide representative background ground water from the uppermost aquifer
underlying the facility.
There has also been much discussion on the adequacy of the downgradient
wells both at Viney Branch and the Route 3 Landfill. KYDWM and EPA contend
that the existing ground water monitoring system at Viney Branch is not adequ-
ate to determine if clean closure would be successful. Two of the downgradient
wells are unacceptable because they are not located at the limit of the waste
management area. As stated in 40 CFR Part 265.91(2), the downgradient wells
should be so constructed and located as to "immediately detect any statistic-
ally significant amounts of hazardous waste or hazardous waste constituents
that migrate from the waste management area to the uppermost aquifer".
-------
-6-
The location of the downgradient wells at the Route 3 Landfill has also
been discussed. EPA Region IV contends that these wells are inadequatly con-
structed, improperly located, and of insufficient number to immediately detect
contaminants. KYDWM contends that the wells meet the interim status require-
ments of the Kentucky Waste Management Regulations and are adequate as RCRA
monitoring wells.
Inadequate Ground Water Sampling and Analysis Plan (40 CFR Part 265.92)
There does not appear to be one document that contains all of the items
required by 40 CFR Part 265.92(a). These requirements state that the sampling
and analysis must contain procedures and techniques for:
1. sample collection
2. sample preservation and shipment
3. analytical procedures; and
4. chain-of-custody control.
The BCM proposal for the RCRA Analytical Program prepared in December 1981
for Ashland, covers items 2 and 3, along with laboratory Quality Assurance/Qual-
ity Control (QA/QC). The analytical procedures listed are from 1974 EPA Methods
and 14th edition standard methods.
The April 1986 revised Part B subraittal, section E-4b covers items 1 and
4, and to a limited extent item 3. The analytical procedures listed there are
from EPA SW-846 and "Methods for Chemical Analyses of Water and Wastes" EPA
March 1979. No QA/QC for field work is defined.
All of this information should be available in one document. The actual
analytical procedures now being used in the lab should be stated.
Laboratory Evaluation
Not available at this time.
Monitoring Data Analysis
All data from analysis of samples collected during the task force inspec-
tion was evaluated and considered reliable except for phenols (4AAP) results and
the chloride result for upgradient well HHF-3 at the Route 3 Landfill.
Analytical results of ground water samples collected from the RCRA moni-
toring system at the Viney Branch surface impoundments are of limited value.
Upgradient well SI-3 was not sampled due to a very slow recharge rate; there-
fore, results from this well were not available to compare with results from
the downgradient wells. However, results do indicate that wells SI-1, SI-2 and
SI-4 may not be monitoring the same water-bearing zone. Concentrations for
some inorganic elements/compounds and the conventional parameters were notice-
ably different for these three wells.
-------
-7-
Analytical results for the Route 3 Landfill RCRA wells indicate that up-
gradient well HHF-3 is not screened in the same water-bearing zone as the
three upgradient wells. Samples from this well showed noticeably higher con-
centrations of several constituents than the downgradient wells.
The sediment/sludge sample taken from the sedimentation basin below the
landfill had the only measured concentrations of extractable and purgeable
organic compounds. This indicates that the sedimentation basin is catching
organic run-off from the landfill or is intercepting an organic plume origi-
nating from the landfill.
TECHNICAL REPORT
INVESTIGATIVE METHODS
The Task Force evaluation of Ashland consisted of:
o A review and evaluation of records and documents from EPA Region
IV, KYDWM and Ashland.
o A facility on-site inspection conducted July 15-19, 1986.
o An off-site analytical laboratory evaluation.
o Sampling and subsequent analysis and data evaluation for the ground
water monitoring systems at the Viney Branch surface impoundments
and the Route 3 Landfill.
RECORDS/DOCUMENTS REVIEW AND EVALUATION
Records and documents from EPA Region IV and the KYDWM offices, compiled
by an EPA contractor (PRC), were reviewed prior to the on-site inspection. The
first day of the inspection (July 15, 1986), the Task Force met with Mr. Jay
Hill, Environmental 'and Health Affairs, Ashland and several other Ashland
personnel, Mr. Ron Yost and Mr. Craig Avery of Fuller, Mossbarger, Scott
and May, consultants to Ashland. A series of eight volumes of material on
the ground water monitoring systems at the Viney Branch surface impoundments
and the Route 3 Landfill had been compiled for Task Force review. A set of
these documents was given to each member of the Task Force for future refer-
ence.
The next two days were spent with Ashland personnel and the consultants.
Members of the Task Force were supplied with copies of letters, reports, etc.
On July 16, 1986, members of the Task Force were given a tour of the facility
by Mr. Hill and other Ashland personnel.
-------
—8—
FACILITY INSPECTION
The facility inspection, conducted July 15-17, 1986, included identifica-
tion of waste management units, identification and assessment of waste manage-
ment operations and pollution control practices, and verification of the loca-
tions of ground water monitoring wells.
Ashland personnel were interviewed to identify records and documents of
interest, answer questions about the documents and explain (1) facility opera-
tions (past and present), (2) site hydrogeology, (3) ground water monitoring
system rationale, (4) the ground water sampling and analysis plan and (5) lab-
oratory procedures for obtaining data on ground water quality. Because ground
water samples are analyzed by an off-site laboratory, personnel from the faci-
lity were interviewed regarding sample handling and analysis and document
control.
LABORATORY EVALUATION
The off-site laboratory facility handling ground water sampling will be
evaluated regarding its respective responsibilities under the Ashland ground
water sampling and analysis plan. Analytical equipment and methods, quality
assurance procedures and documentation will be examined for adequacy. Lab-
oratory records will be inspected for completeness, accuracy and compliance
with State and Federal requirements. The ability of the laboratory to produce
quality data for the required analyses will be evaluated.
GROUND WATER SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS
Sampling Locations
Ground water samples were collected during the period July 15-19,
1986 from wells SI-1, SI-2, and SI-4 at the surface impoundments and wells
HHF-1, HHF-2, HHF-3, and HHF-4 at the landfill. A sludge/sediment sample was
taken at the sedimentation basin located below the landfill. The upgradient
well, SI-3 at the surface impoundment was not sampled because of an inadequate
amount of water. The wells were sampled to provide areal coverage both up
and downgradient at the surface impoundments and the landfill. Well locations
are identified on Figures 3 and 4.
Samples were taken by an EPA contractor (Versar) and sent to EPA labora-
tories for analysis. EPA Region IV requested and received four sample splits.
The facility split for all samples and KYDWM split for three samples. Data
from sampling analyses were reviewed to further evaluate the Ashland ground
water monitoring program and identify possible contaminants in the ground
water. Analytical results from the samples collected for the Task Force are
presented in Appendix A.
-------
-9-
WASTE MANAGEMENT UNITS AND OPERATIONS
Viney Branch Surface Impoundments Description
The surface impoundments are located on the western side of the U. S.
Highway 23, in a hollow (Viney Branch) along the southern end of the refinery
property (see Figure 3). The impoundments are being treated by removing and
reprocessing as much hydrocarbon as possible and mixing the unusable material
with spent limestone. The mixture is then disposed of in the hazardous waste
landfill as part of closure. The five surface impoundments were utilized for
the storage of refinery oily sludge from various sources (tank bottoms, API
separator sludge, etc.). The waste streams listed on the Part A are:
K048 - dissolved air flotation (DAF) float from the refining industry
K049 - slop oil emulsion solids from the refining industry
K050 - heat exchanger bundle cleaning sludge
K051 - API separator sludge from the refining industry
K052 - tank bottoms from the petroleum refining industry
Small quantities of contaminated material resulting from the cleanup of
minor spills of the chemicals listed in 40 CFR 261.33 are also disposed of
occasionally at the existing facilities. These include:
PI10 - plumbate, tetraethyl (tetraethyl lead)
U019 - benzene
U055 - cumene (isopropyl benzene)
U125 - furfural
U159 - methyl ethyl ketone (MEK)
U165 - naphthalene
U220 - toluene
U239 - xylene
Pond #1 has not been used since January 1983. Because this impoundment
received hazardous waste after July 26, 1982, it is referred to as a regulated
unit and is subject to certain state and federal ground water monitoring re-
quirements.
Of the three impoundments remaining, only Pond #1 was actively utilized
after November 19, 1980. Ashland continued to add oily waste to this impound-
ment until mid-January 1983. Closure of this impoundment began in October
1983. Water drained from Pond #1 was directed to Pond #4, and from there to
the Refinery's oil sewer system for treatment prior to discharge. This prac-
tice was discontinued in October 1985. Since that time, water removed from
Pond #1 and Pond #4 has been sent directly to the oil sewer. Because of its
use as a surge basin, Pond #4 was considered to be a hazardous waste surface
impoundment due to the mixtures rule. Closure of pond #4 began in October,
1985. Completion of closure for these two impoundments was expected by October,
1986 but as of February 1987, a certification of closure had not been submitted
to KYDWM for review.
-------
-10-
\
There are four wells at the surface impoundments: upgradient well SI-3
and downgradient wells SI-(|), SI-2, and SI-4. The downgradient wells were
sampled during the Task Force inspection. The upgradient well was purged to
dryness and allowed to recover overnight. The well was deleted from sampling
due to insuficient volume recovery for Task Force purposes.
The ground water monitoring wells were installed during August 1981,
before the regulatory deadline of November 19, 1981. The first quarterly
sampling episode was March 1982. The wells are located in an area which has
ground surface elevations ranging from about 593 to 740 feet above mean sea
level - from the lowest downgradient monitoring well to the upgradient well.
The hill and valley terrain in which the impoundments are located necessitated
the placing of the upgradient well on top of the hill overlooking the impound-
ments at a ground elevation of 741.9 feet.
Historical water quality anlayses from these wells have shown some signi-
ficant increases in pH that could be attributed to a statistical "false posi-
tive." Chromium, lead, cadmium, mercury, arsenic, and barium have exceeded
the NIPDWS in one or more wells since sampling began. Some organics (toluene
and MEK) were detected in fourth quarter 1983, but the facility contends this
was a reporting error. The facility did not re-sample to determine if a
reporting error had occurred.
On February 10, 1986, a Letter of Warning was issued to Ashland Petroleum
concerning the ground water monitoring system at the Viney Branch surface
impoundments. The Kentucky Natural Resources and Environmental Protection
Cabinet contends that the present system is inadequate to determine clean
closure. The facility was directed to submit a proposal for a monitoring
plan within 30 days. This proposal was submitted to KYEWM for review and
also found to be inadequate. After negotiations, the facility has submitted
another proposal that Kentucky intends to approve Spring 1987.
Route 3 Landfill Description
The landfill is located about one-half mile west of the refinery and is
accessed by Kentucky Route 3 (see Figure 4). It is in a hollow which ranges
in elevation from 560 feet above mean sea level at the catch basin dam, to
850 feet at the head of the hollow. The catch basin for the landfill is loca-
ted about 100 feet from Route 3. The landfill measures 2,640 feet long on
the west side, 1,940 feet long on the east side, 1,160 feet wide on the south
side, and 1,000 feet along the north side. This head-of-hollow landfill has
an estimated remaining life of +_ 70 years. When completed, it will have a
disturbed area of about 37 acres and a fill volume of about 8,000,000 yd-*.
It is not lined and does not employ a leachate collection system. It serves
only Ashland Oil facilities, and a vast majority of the wastes taken there
are generated by the Catlettsburg Refinery. Run-on and run-off are con-
trolled by diversion ditches and a sedimentation basin, all of which the facil-
ity contends are designed for a 25-year, 24-hour rainfall event. The site
requires a NPDES permit for discharge of collected runoff.
-------
-11-
The landfill receives filter cake, HF alkylation sludge, and construction
and demolition debris from the refinery. The filter cake generally consists of
bio-solids from an activated sludge treatment system, API separator bottoms,
and other miscellaneous sludges. The waste streams for this unit are the same
as those listed on the Part A for the surface impoundments (see page 9).
Because this landfill receives hazardous wastes, it is subject to certain
state and federal ground water monitoring requirements. The system consists of
four monitoring wells installed during August 1981, before the regulatory
deadline of November 19, 1981. The first quarterly sampling episode was March
1982. The Cumberland Plateau in which the landfill is located necessitated the
placement of the upgradient well on top of the hill overlooking the landfill.
A new upgradient well was installed July 1983 to replace the other upgradient
well which was dry and could not be utilized for sampling.
Historical water quality analyses from these wells have shown some para-
meters did exceed the NIPDWS, particularly in upgradient well number 3. Some
of the parameters include lead, chromium, arsenic, cadmium, gross alpha, and
gross beta.
In April 1986, EPA issued an order to Ashland Petroleum concerning the
inadequacy of the present ground water monitoring system to meet the 40 CFR 265
Subpart F requirements. This is presently under negotiation between EPA Region
IV and Ashland.
There are four wells at the landfill: upgradient well HHF-3 and downgradi-
ent wells HHF-1, HHF-2, and HHF-4. All wells were sampled during the Task Force
inspection. A sediment/sludge sample was taken at the sedimentation basin
below the landfill.
Solid Waste Management Units (SMU's)
There has been much discussion between Ashland, the Kentucky Division of
Waste Managment and EPA Region IV as to whether or not there are solid waste
management units (SMU's) at this facility. The following units were inspected
during the Task Force evaluation:
Dump Hollow Landfill - Unit #010.05, Leach Kentucky
According to Ashland personnel, this landfill accepted construction debris
and confiscated liquor. It was closed in 1976 by covering the site with soil
and rock. The area was then used for parking and equipment storage. In a memo
dated February 3, 1982, from R. Len Grey to Leslie Moberly (Kentucky Division
of Waste Management personnel) it is stated that "I feel that this site should
be considered properly closed and that the bond be released." All operations
were moved from this unit to unit #010.09, the Route 3 Landfill. No studies
have been done to determine if there have been any releases from this unit.
-------
-12-
Laydown Materials Area
According to Ashland personnel, this site only has those materials which
are to be used in construction operations around the site.
Landfarm
This landfarm is five miles away from the facility and has four ground
water monitoring wells. Background data has been collected from the wells.
The wells are now capped and locked but not backfilled. According to Ashland
personnel and KYDWM files, the landfarm was never used for waste disposal at
any time.
The status of these sites as solid waste management units is pending. EPA
contends that these units are solid waste management units until more informa-
tion has been submitted for review.
FACILITY OPERATIONS/WASTE CHARACTERISTICS
The Ashland Petroleum Company, a Division of Ashland Oil, Inc. operates
a 220,000 BBL/Day crude oil refinery in Boyd County, Catlettsburg, Kentucky.
The facility produces petroleum products by the use of topping, cracking, lube
oil manufacturing processes and petro chemical operations. A block flow
diagram of the Catlettsburg Refinery is given as Figures 5 and 6. Typical
wastes that result from these processes are shown below:
Hazardous Waste Number Hazardous Waste
K048 Dissolved air floatation float
(secondary oil/solids/water separ-
ation sludge).
K049 Slop oil emulsion solids.
K050 Heat exchanger bundle cleaning
sludge.
K051 API separator sludge (primary
oil/solids/water separation
sludge).
K052 Leaded tank bottoms.
Dissolved Air Flotation (DAT) Float (K048): This waste is generated during
treatment of API separator effluent. The process uses dissolved air to bring
finely divided oil and solid particles to the effluent water surface where
they are skimmed for removal. This waste has been listed as hazardous be-
cause the DAF float contains chromium and lead.
-------
-13-
Slop Oil Emulsion Solids (K049): This waste is generated during skimming of
the API separator. The skimmings generally consist of three phase mixtures:
(1) an oil layer which is sent to storage prior to reprocessing;
(2) a water layer which is sent to the wastewater treatment plant;
and
(3) an emulsified layer referred to as the slop oil emulsion solids.
Chromium and lead found in the solid phase are the reason this waste is
listed as hazardous.
Heat Exchanger Bundle Cleaning Sludge (K050); These wastes are generated
during the occassional cleaning of the surface of bundles of heat exchanger
tubes. The surfaces may be cleaned by washing, scraping, or sandblasting,
depending on the physical form of the deposits on the outside of the tubes.
The solids are principally silt particles and scale deposits. Chromium in
the solids is the reason this is a listed hazardous waste.
API Separator Sludge (K051); This waste is generated during primary settling
of the wastewater that enters the plant's oil water sewer. The waste streams
that enter this sewer include process wastewater, boiler blowdown and de-
salter water. When these waste streams enter the API separator, they are
separated into three phases:
(1) hydrocarbons which float to the surface are periodically skimmed
off for recovery;
(2) aqueous phase in the middle which is sent to an air floatation
unit; and
(3) grit which settles to the bottom to form the API separator sludge.
The sludge is largely oil-covered sand and coarse silt, but may contain
chromium and lead which is the reason the sludge is listed as hazardous.
These materials (except for K050) are oily sludges that consist mostly
of sand and grit. They are considered hazardous because of their chromium
and lead content. The source of the chromium is cooling water additives used
to inhibit corrosion of process coolers, and the lead comes from the additives
used to boost the octane of regular gasoline. Three of the materials, K048,
K050 and K051, are mixed with waste biological solids from the activated
sludge secondary treatment process and dewatered in a high pressure filter
prior to the land disposal. Lime is added to the sludge as a conditioner prior
to dewatering, and fly ash or catalyst fines are used as a filter precoat
material.
Small quantities of contaminated material resulting from the clean-up
of minor spills are also disposed of occasionally at the existing facilities.
These wastes include:
-------
-14-
Hazardous Waste Number Hazardous Waste
P110 tetraethyl lead
U019 benzene
U055 cumene
U125 furfural
U159 methyl ethyl ketone
U165 napthalene
U220 toluene
U239 xylene
A block flow diagram of the Catlettsburg Refinery Waste Water Treatment
System is shown in Figure 7.
REGIONAL GEOLOGY/HYDROGEOLOGY
Site-specific work had been initiated but not completed at the Ashland
facility at the time of the Task Force evaluation. According to FMSM/KENVT-
RONS, consultants to Ashland, an extensive hydrogeologic study was carried out
the summer - fall of 1986. In October 1986, a report on the geology and hydro-
geology of the Route 3 Landfill was submitted for review and included piezomet-
ric data, cores with geologic logs, hydraulic testing to determine permeability,
porosity, etc., cross-sections, water quality analyses and additional well
installation.
The hydrogeological and ground water flow discussions in this Task Force
report are based on findings reported by past and present Ashland consultants,
Environmental Services Corporation and FMSM/KENVIRONS, and from the Part B
for this facility (submitted October 22, 1984 and subsequently revised).
Geology
The site is located in the Cumberland Plateau physiographic province,
which is characterized by irregular steep-sided ridges and narrow-shaped valleys
which were formed by the erosional dissection of the regional sedimentary
rocks. The relief ranges from ridges tops at about elevation 880 feet to the
alluvial plain of Chadwick Creek at about elevation 540 feet. Surface drainage
-------
-15-
generally follows a dendritic pattern, towards Chadwick Creek, a primary
tributary of the Big Sandy River, via an unnamed intermittent stream.
The site is located in the upper Pennsylvanian Conemaugh formation and
the Breathitt formation of the middle Pennsylvanian period (See Table 1).
Sediments in the area are believed to have been deposited in the alluvial
plain of an ancient river, immediately above its upper delta plain. This
plain was characterized by peat marshes, sand bars, sand-filled channels and
cyclic depositional sequences of sand and silty clay. Periodic rises in the
sea level would backflood the plain creating short-term marine environments.
As these sediments become buried and subsequently indurated, cyclic sequences
of sandstones, shales, and coals were formed. As many of the sandstones were
deposited in channels, they tend to be lenticular bodies rather than continuous
sheetlike strata. The brief marine intrusions are represented by thin,
discontinuous beds of limestone.
Four rock borings were done in August 1984 (See Figure 8 for locations).
Lithologic logs from these cores indicate that the underlying rocks are
composed of sandstone and shale with lesser amounts of sandy shales, lime-
stone, fireclay, and thin coal seams. (See Appendix B for rock boring logs).
The associated soils are silty clays, silty sands, clayey silts, sandy
clays, and clayey sands. Colluvial soils on the upper slopes of the site are
residual soils while the floodplain soils are alluvial.
The most significant structural feature encountered during the borings
was the secondary porosity system of fractures and joints. Water-stained,
near vertical joints were encountered in each of the four core borings. Each
of the cractures was stained with an iron-oxide deposit indicating movement
of water through the fractures.
It has been suggested that these fractures were formed as the stress was
released by the erosional process that created the valley - generally known
as stress-relief fracturing (See Figure 9). As material is eroded from a
valley, its walls are subject to unequal horizontal stress. That stress
results in vertical tension fractures and horizontal bedding-plane fractures.
Strata in the valley walls creeps toward the valley center and fractures
subvertically, and eventually slips down-slope along bedding plane fractures.
The fractures become less frequent inward from the rock outcrop.
Vertical-compressional stress on rocks of a valley floor is relieved
where heavy overlying rock is eroded. The weight of the rocks in the hills
flanking the valley causes the midvalley strata to bow upward, separating
along bedding planes and cracking vertically (See Figure 10). In addition,
soft shales are subject to the formation of slickenside zones as movement and
some minor sloughing occur. The horizontal and vertical fracture systems are
interconnected and become conduits for ground water movement.
-------
-16-
Hydrogeology of the RCRA Facility Area
FMSM/KENVIRONS were retained as consultants for Ashland in the summer of
1983. Since that time a hydrogeologic investigation was initiated in August
1984 and completed in February 1985. Data was collected from the four rock
borings and piezometers. The data indicated a general response of the piezo-
meters to recharge from precipitation. The ground water flow was found to be
controlled by the secondary porosity within the bedrock. Within the interior
of the hills, the ground water is stored and transmitted in intergranular pore
spaces of the sandstone bedrock. These sandstones are generally saturated but
produce very little water. More rapid ground water movement occurs near the
valley slopes and hillsides as the water approaches the fractures and openings
along the bedding planes. The shale and fireclay could serve as an effective
confining unit that limits the vertical movement of the ground water and pro-
motes the lateral flow to the slopes of the hillsides, where it could be dis-
charge as a spring or seep.
In June-July 1986, the consultants began a more comprehensive assessment
of the geology/hydrology of the Ashland facility. At the time of the Task force
inspection, three deep boreholes had been drilled at the landfill. An inspec-
tion of the cores indicated a cyclic sequence of sandstone, shales and coal.
The fractures/joints in the upper 20 feet of the core were infrequent and
water-stained. Those deeper in the borehole were backfilled with calcite or
limonite. The sequence was very tight and competent in structure. Preliminary
analyses show ranges of permeability from 1 x 10~3 to 1 x 10~8 cm/sec (See
Figures 11, 12, 13).
Ground Water Flow Direction
According to FMSM/KENVIRONS, the ground water gradients at this site are
controlled by structure, topography, lithology and elevation of recharge and
discharge areas. Ground water elevations were determined by using a weighted
steel tape to measure the water level relative to the facility's measuring
point (usually top of casing). Directions of ground water flow were determined
between wells by comparing the ground water elevation at those locations. Ground
water elevation will fluctuate with seasonal and rainfall variations and with
changes in the water level in adjacent drainage features.
FMSM/KENVIRONS potentiometric data from the Route 3 Landfill indicated a
north, northwest flow direction. Ground water flow direction at the Viney
Branch surface impoundments indicates flow to the west, southwest.
Hydraulic gradients and porosity data were not noted in the literature
available at the time of the inspection. As stated before, preliminary analyses
show ranges of permeability from 1 x 10~3 to 1 x 10~8 cm/sec.
-------
-17-
Adequacy of Hydrogeologic Characterization
The major sources of hydrogeologic information pertaining to the Ashland
facility are the RCRA Part B applications (originals and revisions), hydrologic
reports prepared by Environmental Services Corporation and FMSM/KENVIRONS,
monitoring well logs, and historical water quality data. Collectively, these
sources address the hydrogeology in both a general and a site-specific manner.
While some work has been done to define the physical properties of the aqui-
fer(s) and associated confining units (i.e. vertical and horizontal hydraulic
properties, detailed lithology and stratigraphy), much more work is needed to
define the complex hydrogeology of the Ashland site - both at the Viney Branch
surface impoundments and the Route 3 Landfill.
It is the consensus opinion of the Task Force that at the time of the
inspection Ashland had not fully characterized the hydrogeology of the site,
and that the following steps should be taken by the facility to provide the
necessary data to resolve the hydrogeologic issues:
1. Construct additional borings to define perched water tables, aquifers,
aquicludes, confining units, etc. Delineate continuity, thickness,
etc.
2. Prepare a detailed stratigraphic section, fence diagram, etc. of the
site-specific (not regional) geology underlying the surface impound-
ments and landfill.
3. Adequately characterize the ground water hydrogeology of the site
with pump t^sts, slug tests, etc. to determine hydraulic characteris-
tics (transmissivity, porosity, permeability, storage coefficient,
etc.)
4. Install a series of piezometers to determine the potentiometric
surface(s) at the surface impoundments and landfill.
GROUND WATER MONITORING PROGRAM DURING INTERIM STATUS
Ground water monitoring at the Ashland facility has been conducted under
the state interim status regulations. The following is an evaluation of the
monitoring program between November 1981, when the ground water monitoring
provisions of the RCRA regulations became effective, and July 1986 when the
Task Force investigation was conducted.
Regulatory Requirements
Ground water monitoring at this site is now regulated by the Kentucky Waste
Management Regulations at Title 401 Kentucky Administrative Regulations which
are the state equivalent of 40 CFR Part 265, Subpart F and were implemented
November 19, 1981.
-------
-18-
The State of Kentucky received RCRA Phase I interim authorization April
1, 1981. At that time, the State regulations became enforceable in lieu of
the Federal regulations. The State interim status ground water monitoring
requirements are found in 401 KAR 35:060 Ground Water Monitoring (IS).
401 KAR 35:060 Ground Water Monitoring (IS)
RCRA ground water monitoring at the site was regulated by the Kentucky
equivalent regulations to 40 CFR Part 265, Subpart F. Table 2 outlines the
parameters to be sampled and analyzed for. All the parameters were to be moni-
tored quarterly for one year to establish background concentrations for each
parameter. During the period, four replicate measurements were to be taken
for Category 3 parameter for the upgradient well during each sampling event.
After the first year, Category 3 parameters were to be monitored semi-
annually, while Category 2 parameters were to be monitored annually.
Compliance History
The compliance history for Ashland regarding the Route 3 Landfill, Viney
Branch surface impoundments and their ground water monitoring systems is
extensive. The following is a summary, in chronological order, of the
correspondence, reports, etc., that were available for the Task Force's use.
This should not be interpreted as a complete record.
7-20-70: Kentucky Department for Natural Resources and Environmental Protec-
tion (KYDNREP) advises Ashland to apply for a permit for landfill
operations.
7-21-70: Ashland will submit the necessary information to apply for a permit.
12-9-70: KYDNREP issues an operations permit to Ashland for the Leach,
Kentucky site.
8-19-75: KYDNREP inspection report of the industrial landfill.
9-9-75: KYDNREP issues the permit for the landfill.
3-16-75: Ashland's Surety Bond for the landfill (#010.05)
3-26-76: Premium for the Ashland Bond.
6-24-76: Ashland's preliminary permit application for the Route 3 Landfill.
9-7-76: Permit renewal for the #010.05 landfill.
9-20-76: Permit application for the Route 3 Landfill.
11-4-76: KYDNREP deems the application permit complete.
-------
-19-
1-4-77: Ashland must send a prepaid bond to KYDNREP to receive the landfill
permit.
1-20-77: Surety Bond for the Route 3 Landfill.
1-24-77: KYDNREP issues permit for Route 3 Landfill.
2-3-77: KYDNREP will not agree to let Ashland dispose of STP sludge in the
landfill because of cyanide, lead and cadmium content.
4-7-77: KYDNREP1 s inspection report for the #010.05 landfill.
5-10-77: KYDNREP's inspection report for the #010.05 landfill.
6-9-77: KYDNREP issues permit renewal for Route 3 Landfill.
7-23-77: KYDNREP's inspection report for the #010.05 landfill. The site is
being closed out and the operation moved to the #010.09 landfill.
8-9-77: KYDNREP issues permit renewal for Route 3 Landfill.
3-15-79: Bond for #010.05 landfill is paid.
7-11-79: Ashland submits an application to KYDNREP for permission to dispose
of special and/or hazardous waste at the Route 3 Landfill.
8-13-79: KYDNREP will not re-permit operations at the landfill (Site #010.09);
also questions the status of the old landfill (Site #010.05).
9-12-79: KYDNREP rejects the application to dispose of special and/or hazardous
waste at a permitted disposal site because of high concentrations
of cadmium, lead and pH.
10-12-79: Ashland submits application forms to KNDNREP for permission to dis-
pose of special and/or hazardous waste at a permitted disposal site
(with analyses), #010.09.
10-19-79: More analyses to be included with the above.
10-22-79: KYDNREP grants permission for disposal at landfill.
10-24-79: KYDNREP requests more information on the treatment of the HF alkyla-
tion unit lime sludge to be disposed of in landfill.
1-4-80: Ashland submits an explanation of the HF alky sludge treatment to
KYDNREP for review.
1-15-80: Permit renewal for #010.09 landfill.
4-1-80: Bond for #010.05 landfill is paid.
10-29-80: KYDNREP requests a ground water monitoring plan by January 1, 1981.
-------
-20-
11-5-80: KYDNREP requests an application fee of $1,000 for registration as an
existing hazardous waste surface impoundment facility.
11-5-80: KYDNREP requests an application fee of $7,000 for registration as an
existing waste treatment, surface impoundment and landfarming
facility.
11-18-80: Ashland submits to EPA the Part A for the Catlettsburg refinery, the
Route 3 Landfill, the Viney Branch surface impoundments and the
Louisville refinery.
1-81: Proposal to perform engineering and hydrogeologic services for the
Route 3 Landfill and Viney Branch are submitted by Environmental
Services Corporation (ESC).
4-14-81: Ashland submits first quarter Hazardous Waste Reports to Kentucky
Department of Waste Management (KYDWM).
5-81: Closure/post-closure plans for Ashland - prepared by ESC.
5-29-81: Comments on the May 28th meeting concerning ground water monitoring.
6-81: Waste Analysis Plan, Operational and Contingency Plans for the Route
3 Landfill and Viney Branch - prepared by ESC.
6-2-81: Summary of the May 28th meeting on ground water monitoring.
7-30-81: Revised Part A's for the Ashland facilities submitted.
7-30-81: Permit-by-rule for Viney Branch.
7-30-81: Ashland submits second quarter Hazardous Waste Reports to KYDWM.
8-4-81: Ashland retains mid-Eastern GeoTech, Inc. to install the ground
water monitoring wells on 8-10-81.
8/9-81: Geologic well logs for the HHF, SI and LF wells.
10-22-81: Ashland submits third quarter Hazardous Waste Reports to KYDWM.
11-17-81: KYDWM inspects Ashland - in compliance.
12-11-81: Ashland requests a variance from the 40 CFR 265 ground water moni-
toring requirements.
12-15-81: Ashland's insurance company requests a release of the surety bond
for #010.05 landfill.
12-28-81: BCM Lab's proposal for a RCRA analytical program for Ashland.
1-20-82: KYDWM inspects Ashland - in compliance.
-------
-21-
1-27-82: KYDWM asks EPA if Ashland can waive the 40 CFR 265 GWM requirements.
1-27-82: Ashland submits fourth quarter Hazardous Waste Reports to KYDWM.
2-2-82: Ashland elects to discontinue using Viney Branch.
2-3-82: KYDWM states that the #010.05 landfill is properly closed.
2-5-82: Ashland will be late in submitting first quarter GWM results because
of pump problems.
4-14-82: KYDWM inspects Ashland - in compliance.
4-28-82: Ashland submits first quarter Hazardous Waste Reports to KYDWM.
5-7-82: First quarter GWM analyses submitted - no radiation or pesticides
included.
5-11-82: Dun & Bradstreet report for Ashland.
5-18-82: First quarter GWM analyses submitted - no radiation or pesticides
included.
6-8-82: KYDWM requests the closure plans for Viney Branch.
7-2-82: KYDWM inspects Ashland - in compliance.
7-20-82: Ashland submits second quarter Hazardous Waste Reports to KYDWM.
7-29-82: Ashland requests a 40 CFR 265 GWM variance.
7-30-82: Second quarter GWM analyses submitted - no radiation or pesticides
included.
8-24-82: KYDWM agrees to delete certain 40 CFR 265 GWM parameters but this
must be approved by EPA.
8-24-82: KYDWM submits Ashland's GWM waiver request to EPA for review.
9-16-82: Ashland sumbits records of private wells in the facility's vicinity.
10-81: Ground water quality assessment plan (GWQAP) outline for Route 3
landfill and Viney Branch - prepared by ESC.
10-1-82: KYDWM acknowledges that the upgradient well is dry - a new well
may be required.
10-4-82: ISS GWM plan for Viney Branch approved by KYDWM.
10-7-82: Financial test for Ashland.
-------
-22-
10-15-82: EPA does not concur with KYDWM to waive the 40 CFR 265 GWM require-
ments.
10-18-82: Revised closure/post closure plans for Route 3 Landfill and Viney
Branch submitted.
10-27-82: KYDWM inspects Ashland - in compliance.
10-29-82: Third quarter GWM analyses - no radiation or pesticides included.
11-17-82: Revised Part A for Viney Branch submitted.
11-22-82: KYDWM sends EPA's denial of the 40 CFR 265 GWM requirements to
Ashland.
12-2-82: Ashland requests withdrawal of Part A for Catlettsburg refinery.
12-16-82: EPA acknowledges Ashland's request to withdraw the Part A.
1-7-83: Fourth quarter GWM analyses - no radiation or pesticides included.
1-12-83: KYDWM inspects Ashland - in compliance.
2-8-83: Ashland submits revised Part A's for Route 3 Landfill and Viney
Branch to EPA - also states that the Viney Branch impoundments
were taken out of service 1-25-83.
2-18-83: Fourth quarter pesticide and radiation analyses.
2-28-83: Ashland submits 1982 Hazardous Waste Annual Reports to KYDWM.
4-1-83: Consultant's analysis of HHF #3 situation.
4-27-83: KYDWM inspects Ashland - in compliance.
6-4-83: KYDWM informs Ashland to send all information to them because they
have been granted Phase I and II Interim Authorization.
6-7-83: Radiation and pesticide analyses for first quarter 1983 and fourth
quarter 1982.
7-20-83: Ashland explains the HHF #3 situation to KYDWM.
7-29-83: Ashland notifies of a significant increase at Viney Branch.
8-8-83: KYDWM submits closure info to EPA HQ for review.
8-9-83: GWQAP for Viney Branch to be submitted to KYDWM for review.
9-2-83: Application for NPDES permit.
9-27-83: KYDWM has received the request to withdraw the Part A for the
Catlettsburg refinery and it's under review.
-------
-23-
10-25-83: KYDWM inspects Ashland - in compliance.
12-20-83: Additional GWM analyses for Viney Branch - Third quarter 1983 Ashland
returns to the "indicator monitoring program".
12-21-83: Ashland notifies of a significant increase at Viney Branch.
1-6-84: KYDWM inspects Ashland - in compliance.
1-10-84: Third quarter 1983 GWM analyses for Route 3 Landfill.
1-26-84: Ashland submits 1983 Hazardous Waste Annual Report to KYDWM.
1-30-84: H. C. Nutting's appraisal of Viney Branch closure.
2-3-84: Fourth quarter 1983 GWM results for Route 3 Landfill.
2-3-84: H. C. Nutting's appraisal of Viney Branch closure.
3-5-84: Ashland notifies of a significant change at Viney Branch.
3-6-84: H. C. Nutting's appraisal of Viney Branch closure.
3-9-84: KYDWM inspects Viney Branch - nothing in the impoundments since
12-16-82.
3-20-84: KYDWM calls for Part B - due September 1984.
4-11-84: First quarter 1984 GWM analyses for Viney Branch shows significant
change.
4-23-84: First quarter 1984 GWM analyses for Route 3 shows possible contamina-
tion.
4-27-84: H. C. Nutting's appraisal of Viney Branch closure.
5-10-84: GWM analyses for Route 3 landfill to be submitted.
5-29-84: Ashland questions why more parameters were "suddenly" added to their
quarterly sampling.
6-4-84: First quarter 1983 GWM results for Viney Branch.
6-19-84: Second quarter 1984 GWM results for Route 3 Landfill.
6-20-84: H. C. Nutting's appraisal of Viney Branch closure.
6-20-84: Ashland submits Second quarter 1984 sampling results - high pH is
"false positive".
-------
-24-
7-17-84: KYDWM approves closure plan for Route 3 Landfill.
7-18-84: KYDWM inspects Ashland - in compliance.
8-1-84: H. C. Nutting's appraisal of Viney Branch closure.
8-6-84: EPA ISS overview inspection summary.
8-17-84: H. C. Nutting's appraisal of Viney Branch closure.
8-21-84: KYDWM could not find an acceptable test method for furfural.
9-14-84: Ashland requests time extension for Part B submittal.
9-18-84: KYDWM preliminary assessment report for the Viney Branch impound-
ments.
9-27-84: H. C. Nutting's appraisal of Viney Branch closure.
9-28-84: Status of Viney Branch closure.
10-2-84: Ashland request time extension for Part B submittal.
10-9-84: KYDWM states all information required for Part B must be submitted.
10-22-84: RCRA Part B application for Route 3 Landfill submitted.
10-26-84: KYDWM inspects Ashland - in compliance.
10-30-84: H. C. Nuttings appraisal of Viney Branch closure.
12-6-84: H. C. Nuttings appraisal of Viney Branch closure.
12-10-84: KYDWM requests information on financial test.
12-13-84: EPA acknowledges Part B receipt - several GWM deficiencies noted.
12-26-84: Ashland submits third quarter 1984 results - high pH due to "false
positive".
1-85: EPA's checklist for Part B review.
1-2-85: KYDWM summary of the October 1984 inspection.
1-4-85: H. C. Nutting's appraisal of Viney Branch closure.
1-14-85: Dingell sheet for Ashland.
-------
-25-
1-14-85: EPA urges KYDWM to proceed with enforcement action for Part B
deficiencies.
1-16-85: KYDWM's ISS inspection - in compliance.
2-5-85: H. C. Nutting's appraisal of Viney Branch closure.
2-5-85: Ashland contends that third quarter 1984 GWM results are high
because of a reporting error.
2-11-85: EPA requests that Kentucky fill out the Dingell sheets more com-
prehensively.
2-15-85: Fourth quarter 1984 GWM results for Viney Branch shows significant
change.
2-28-85: Ashland submits 1984 Annual Reports for KYDWM.
2-26-85: Ground water elevations for Route 3 Landfill.
3-6-85: H. C. Nutting's appraisal for Viney Branch closure.
4-16-85: EPA notifies Ashland of 1984 HSWA amendments.
4-23-85: KYDWM inspects Ashland - in compliance.
4-26-85: H. C. Nutting's appraisal of Viney Branch closure.
4-30-85: H. C. Nutting's appraisal of Viney Branch closure.
5-5-85: Application for delisting Route 3 Landfill.
5-6-85: EPA Skinner memo on regulation of refinery impoundments.
5-9-85: First quarter 1985 GWM analyses for Viney Branch shows significant
changes.
5-15-85: First NOD for Part B deficiencies.
6-25-85: H. C. Nutting's appraisal of Viney Branch closure.
6-26-85: Second quarter 1985 for Viney Branch.
6-28-85: Revised Part B submitted.
7-1-85: H. C. Nutting's appraisal for Viney Branch closure.
7-9-85: KYDWM inspects Ashland - in compliance.
-------
-26-
7-10-85: Ashland's operating requirements at Route 3 Landfill.
7-15-85: H. C. Nutting's appraisal for Viney Branch closure.
7-16-85: GWQAP for Route 3 Landfill.
7-23-85: KYDWM notifies Ashland of violations noted during the July inspec-
tion - runon/runoff system failed. "Notice of Violation" issued -
no penalty assessed.
8-2-85: KYDWM notifies Ashland that because of the 1984 HSWA amendments,
Viney Branch must submit a GWM plan and closure plan within
30 days.
8-8-85: KYDWM issues Letter of Warning for inadequate GWM at the Route 3
Landfill.
8-27-85: H. C. Nutting's appraisal of Viney Branch closure.
8-29-85: KYDWM states that the GWM system at Viney Branch is in compliance.
9-3-85: Revised Part A and Closure plan for Viney Branch.
9-6-85: KYDWM takes sediment samples from Ashland's discharge point.
9-9-85: KYDWM inspection of landfill after NOV issued.
9-9-85: EPA's response to a concerned citizen about Ashland's disposal
practices.
9-23-85: PA/SI and 3004(u) questionnaire from KYDWM to EPA concerning Ashland
indicates a release of hazardous waste or constituents into surface
water and soil but shows no ground water contamination.
10-14-85: KYDWM's sediment sample analyses.
10-18-85: H. C. Nutting's appraisal of Viney Branch closure.
11-4-85: H. C. Nutting's appraisal for Viney Branch closure.
11-6-85: GWM analyses - Route 3 Landfill.
11-7-85: Ashland submits the Exposure Information report for the Route 3
Landfill.
11-14-85: Third quarter 1985 GWM results for Viney Branch.
11-18-85: Third quarter 1985 GWM results for Route 3 Landfill - significant
changes noted.
-------
-27-
11-22-85: Fourth quarter 1985 GWM results for Viney Branch - significant changes
noted.
11-25-85: KYEWM sends EPA the second draft Part B NOD for the Ashland Route 3
Landfill.
11-27-85: KYDWM assures EPA that the runon/runoff situation at Ashland is
being corrected.
12-9-85: H. C. Nutting's appraisal of Viney Branch closure.
12-12-85: Ashland's response to KYDWM on 3004(u) questionnaire.
12-13-85: Citizen complaint on Ashland.
12-30-85: EPA Atlanta sends Ashland a copy of ESD, Athens, EPA Region IV report.
12-31-85: EPA wants to clean up discolored soil at the refinery under a
3008(h) order.
12-31-85: Financial test for Ashland.
1-7-86: KYEWM inspects Ashland - in compliance.
1-14-86: RCRA ISS inspection at Ashland - indicates order needed with
penalty.
1-14-86: Second NOD for Part B deficiencies.
2-6-86: H. C. Nutting's appraisal for Viney Branch closure.
2-10-86: KYEWM issues "Letter of Warning" regarding the inadequate ground
water monitoring system at Viney Branch.
2-12-86: Ashland submits the 1985 Hazardous Waste Generator Annual Report
for Catlettsburg refinery.
2-18-86: Ashland submits the 1985 Hazardous Waste Annual Report for Viney
Branch.
2-25-86: EPA sends a copy of the August 1985 CME report by ESD, Athens EPA
Region IV. Kentucky is to issue an order within 10 days or EPA
will take the lead.
2-26-86: KYEWM issues a "Demand for Remedial Measures and Penalty Assessment"
for Part B deficiencies; penalty is $2,000.
3-13-86: Ashland submits a GWM plan for Viney Branch to KYDWM for review.
-------
-28-
3-17-86: KYDWM states EPA's request for enforcement action would be a "waste
of our resources" at this time.
3-17-86: KYDWM internal memo - do the allegations of non-compliance noted
by EPA exist?
3-21-86: "Demand for Remedial Measures and Penalty Assessment" revised and
penalty amended to $1,500.
4-9-86: Revised closure plan for Viney Branch submitted.
4-11-86: EPA requests information on Route 3 Landfill.
4-14-86: H. C. Nutting's appraisal of Viney Branch closure.
4-14-86: KYDWM issues "Letter of Warning" for violation noted during the
April inspection.
4-24-86: Ashland's consultant FMSM/Kenvirons submits Part B revisions to
KYDWM for review.
4-28-86: KYDWM forwards the above to EPA for review.
4-30-86: EPA issues "Complaint and Compliance Order"; penalty is $54,000.
5-3-86: H. C. Nutting's appraisal of Viney Branch closure.
5-6-86: First quarter 1986 sampling results for Viney Branch.
5-7-86: First quarter 1986 sampling results for Route 3 Landfill.
5-12-86: KYDWM sends EPA a summary of why there are differences in the
5-8-86 CME inspection.
5-16-86: Maps of Route 3 Landfill to EPA.
5-28-86: Ashland answers the EPA complaint and compliance order received
5-6-86.
5-30-86: First quarter 1985 data shows significant change - Route 3 Landfill.
6-17-86: KYDWM issues a "Demand for Remedial Measures and Penalty Assessment1
for GWM deficiencies - penalty was $3,000.
6-24-86: H. C. Nutting's appraisal of Viney Branch closure.
6-86: Geologic descriptions of cores.
-------
-29-
During the inspection, the Task Force was told of an intensive hydro-
logic investigation that was being carried out by FMSM/KENVIRONS for Ashland.
Results were sent to EPA and KYDWM October 21, 1986 for review.
MONITORING WELL DATA
Viney Branch Surface Impoundments
The interim status monitoring program was instituted at this site in
1981. Four ground water monitoring wells were installed in August - September
1981. SI-3 served as the upgradient well and SI-1, SI-2, and SI-4 were the
downgradient wells.
The wells were drilled using the rotary air hammer method. Final con-
struction consisted of a 3-inch I.D. PVC casing with a 10-foot section of
3-inch PVC slotted screen at the bottom of the well. The hole was back-
filled with sand around and below the screen and a bentonite seal was placed
above the sand. The wells were backfilled with cuttings, and a protective
well-house cement-grouted in place. The wells were developed by surging and
pumping. The wells were capped and locked. Surveying of the ground elevations
was performed by Ashland Engineering.
The location of the screened interval was selected to monitor the ground
water in the uppermost water-bearing zone. All wells were screened in a
sandstone unit. Depth of the screens varies widely. Copies of the monitoring
wells logs have been included in Appendix B. Monitoring well construction
data is in Table 3.
In February 1986, the Kentucky Division of Waste Management informed
Ashland that the existing Interim Status ground water monitoring system was
not adequate to determine if the attempt for a clean closure of the surface
impoundments would be successful. Downgradient wells (SI-4 and SI-2) are un-
acceptable because they are not located at the limit of the Waste Management
Area. The adequacy of upgradient well SI-3 was questioned due to the slow
recovery rate.
In a March 13, 1986 submittal, Ashland stated that two new downgradient
wells would be installed at the limit of the waste management area and that
a new upgradient well would be installed. All wells were to be completed
as to intercept the same water-bearing formation as SI-1. The plan was re-
viewed by KYDWM and found to be deficient. Ashland was directed to submit a
revised ground water monitoring plan for Viney Branch. This plan is currently
being reviewed by KYDWM.
-------
-30-
Route 3 Landfill
The four monitoring wells installed around the Route 3 Landfill were
drilled in August-September 1981. Well HHF//3 served as the upgradient well and
HHF#1, HHF#2, and HHF#4 were the downgradient wells. Ground water monitoring
was initiated the first quarter of 1982. After the first quarter of monitoring,
the upgradient well was found to be dry. Following discussions with the Ken-
tucky Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Cabinet (KNREPC), a new
well was installed and placed in operation July 1, 1983.
The original four wells were drilled using the air rotary drilling method.
The new HHF#3 was drilled with a water rotary rig. Final construction consist-
ed of a 3-inch I.D. PVC casing with a 10-foot section of 3-inch PVC slotted
screen at the bottom of the well. The hole was backfilled with sand around and
below the screen and a bentonite seal was placed above the sand. The wells
were backfilled with cuttings, and a protective well-house cement-grouted in
place. The wells were developed by surging and pumping. The wells were capped
and locked. Surveying of the ground elevations was performed by Ashland En-
gineering.
The location of the screened interval was selected to monitor the ground
water in the uppermost water-bearing zone. All wells were screened in a sand-
stone unit, except for HHF#4, which was screened in a sandy shale. Depth of
the screens varied widely. Copies of the monitoring well logs have been includ-
ed in Appendix B. Monitoring Well Construction data is in Table 3.
After reviewing the monitoring well data, several deficiencies were
noted. The following is a summary of these deficiencies:
Viney Branch
The upgradient well, SI-3, was not sampled due to an insufficient
volume of water for the Task Force samples. A review of past monitoring data
for this well shows that a significant amount of recovery time is required in
order to obtain an adequate amount of water for sampling. The well could be
improperly constructed/completed or is screened across a low permeability
zone. The well is screened in a different stratigraphic unit than the down-
gradient wells. A new upgradient well has been requested by KYDWM.
Kentucky Division of Waste tonagement personnel contend that wells SI-
4 and SI-2 are inadequate because they are not located at the limit of the
Waste Manageament area. At least two new downgradient wells should be installed
at the limit of the waste management area.
Route 3 Landfill
HHF#3 appears to be located in a different geological formation than
the downgradient wells. To obtain proper background well data, this well
should be screened in the same water-bearing formation as the downgradient
wells.
-------
-31-
Downgradient wells are of an insufficient number to immediately detect
contamination and also improperly located and constructed. Monitoring well
HHF-2 has a 65-foot filter pack which connects five discreet water-bearing
zones. The downgradient wells are completed through the berm of the sedimen-
tation pond and may be influenced by mounding from the pond.
According to drilling logs, the sand packs for these wells vary from
eight to sixty-five feet. The longer sand packs could conceivably open
several discrete stratigraphic zones to monitoring. This could serve as a
conduit for contaminants to move up or down the borehole and causes dilution
of contaminant concentrations.
Some deficiencies and inadequacies were noted pertaining to monitoring
well construction for wells at the surface impoundments and the landfill.
PVC is not recommended when organics are a contaminant. All Ashland wells
are constructed of PVC. Type and length of well development was not specified.
Cuttings were used as backfill in the wells. If the cuttings were contamin-
ated, sampling results could be skewed. Backfill should be cement/bentonite
slurry. Sieve analyses should be run on sand packs in wells. Screens should
be threaded, not glued to casing.
The monitoring wells at the Viney Branch surface impoundments and the
Route 3 Landfill are not adequate for 40 CFR Part 265 Subpart F 264 or 270
requirements.
GROUND WATER SAMPLING - DETECTION/ASSESSMENT
Viney Branch Surface Impoundments
The facility began their quarterly RCRA ground water monitoring program
in March 1982 for wells SI-l,SI-2, SI-3, and SI-4 (See Table 4). Quarterly
samples were taken in March, May, August and November 1982. The facility did
not sample for all of the 40 CFR Part 265.92(b) (1) (2) and (3) parameters
during these four quarters. The facility did not analyze for radium, gross
alpha, gross beta, endrin, lindane, methoxychlor, toxaphene, 2,4-D and
2,4,5-TP Silvex until December 1982. Ashland had requested a waiver from the
radiation and pesticides analyses. KYDWM approved the waiver but EPA Region
IV did not concur with KYDWM1s decision. The facility was directed to perform
all analyses as required by 40 CFR Part 265.92(b)(1)(2) and (3).
During the first year of sampling the NIPDWS were exceeded by one or
more of the wells for lead, arsenic, mercury, barium, cadmium and chromium.
The facility notified the State on numerous occassions of statistically
significant differences for pH, specific conductance and TOH in the Viney
Branch wells.
-------
-32-
In August 1983, Ashland submitted a ground water quality assessment plan
that was approved by KYDWM and began sampling on a quarterly basis for
chromium, lead, napthalene, toluene, methyl ethyl ketone, benzene, cumene and
xylenes. One or more of the wells have shown detectable concentrations of
toluene and methyl ethyl ketone.
KYDWM issued a "Letter of Warning" to Ashland on February 2, 1986
stating that the ground water monitoring system at Viney Branch was inade-
quate to determine clean closure because of an inadequate upgradient well and
no wells at the limit of the waste management area. Kentucky directed Ashland
to submit a proposal for an adequate ground water monitoring plan. Ashland
submitted this plan to KYDWM March 13, 1986. This plan was reviewed by KYDWM
and found to be deficient. Late July - early August, KYDWM directed Ashland to
submit a revised plan within 30 days. This plan is currently under review by
KYDWM.
Route 3 Landfill
As at the Viney Branch surface impoundments, quarterly sampling began
in March 1982. Wells HHF#1, HHF//2, HHF#3, and HHF/M were sampled in March,
May, August and November 1982 for most of the 40 CFR Part 265.92 (b)(l)(2)
and (3) parameters. The facility did not analyze for radiation and pesti-
cides until December 1982. Ashland had requested a waiver from these para-
meters, which was approved by Kentucky. The request was denied by EPA Region
IV and Ashland was required to monitor for the parameters in question.
During the first quarter of sampling, the NIPDWS was exceeded for arsenic,
chromium, lead, barium, cadmium and coliform bacteria in one or more of the
wells. The upgradient well, HHF#3, showed measurable concentrations of arsenic,
barium, chromium and coliform bacteria that exceeded the NIPDWS during the
March 1982 sampling episode. This well was not sampled during the following
four sampling episodes because of an inadequate amount of water in the well. A
new upgradient well, HHF#3, was installed summer of 1983 about fifty feet from
the original well and drilled approximately twice as deep as the old upgradient
well. This well has exceeded the NIPDWS for gross alpha, cadmium and lead in
one or more sampling episodes. Ashland has not addressed the problem of contam-
ination in this upgradient well.
The facility has notified KYDWM on numerous occassions of statistically
significant differences for pH and specific conductance in the Route 3 Land-
fill wells. First quarter of 1986, toluene was measured in downgradient
well HHF#1.
A Ground Water Quality Assessment Plan was submitted to KYDWM by Ashland
in July 1985. The wells were to be sampled on a quarterly basis for the
following parameters:
pH chloride benzene
specific conductance sulfate methyl ethyl ketone
TOG chromium napthalene
TOX lead toluene
-------
-33-
KYDWM requested the following parameters be added to the list for sampling:
chromium (hexavalent) iron
chromium (total) manganese
xylene phenolics
cumene sodium
Since sampling began in Iferch 1982, Ashland has written several times
to KYEWM on the topic of a "false positive" for pH. The facility contends
that the increase in pH is not statistically significant but is due to a
"false positive". Ashland has not submitted any documentation to prove their
contention.
It appears from all available historical water quality data that con-
tamination of the ground water has occurred at both the Viney Branch surface
impoundments and the Route 3 Landfill. The repeated statistically significant
differences for pH, specific conductance and TOH; the exceedance of the
National Interim Primary Drinking Water Standards for lead, arsenic, mercury,
barium, cadmium, chromium, coliform bacteria and gross alpha; and measured
concentrations of toluene and methyl ethyl ketones in one or more of the moni-
toring wells over eighteen sampling episodes validates this. Results from
Task Force data also indicate the ground water quality has been impacted.
Ashland Sampling Collection and Handling Procedures
During the inspection, samples were collected from seven wells for ana-
lysis by the EPA contractor laboratory. After the Task Force sampling, the
facility went through it's sampling procedures at one of the dowagradient
wells at the Route 3 Landfill. The Task Force observed the sample collection
and handling procedures.
Ashland personnel closely followed the protocol established in Section
E-4b of the April 1986 revised Part B submittal and the "Proposal to Ashland
Petroleum Company for RCRA Analytical Program" December 1981 prepared by BCM
Laboratories Division. A copy is included as Appendix C in this report.
The following is a summary of the sampling protocol followed by Ashland
personnel:
a. Measure water level in well prior to pumping; use electronic
sounder to measure depth to water; determine number of casing
volumes to be removed; rinse sounder with dilute hydrochloric
and follow with distilled water rinse;
b. Used dedicated teflon bailers for each well; new nylon cord used
each time; PVC gloves worn by sampling personnel; new gloves worn
at each well;
c. Specific conductivity, pH, and temperature monitored as the wells
were sampled;
-------
-34-
d. Samples were capped; placed on ice, and kept in coolers during ship-
ment to analytical laboratory;
f. After use, bailers are thoroughly cleaned and stored for next
sampling program.
An example of the field data sheet, chain-of-custody, etc., is
included in Appendix C of this report.
Some comments on the sampling protocol utilized by Ashland are:
1. The Hazardous Waste Ground Water Task Force protocol recommends
removing at least three well volumes for purging - not just
one well volume.
2. If a pump is used for purging, a description of the pump and
associated tubing should be included.
3. Task Force protocol recommends the following cleaning procedure:
1. wash with phosphate free soap;
2. rinse with tap water;
3. rinse with a reagent grade distilled/deionized water;
4. rinse with acetone;
5. rinse with pesticide grade hexane;
6. if unable to air dry, rinse with organic free water;
7. wrap with aluminum foil.
The procedures utilized by Ashland for RCRA ground water monitoring appear
adequate for sampling purposes. However, the RCRA ground water sampling and
analysis plan (SAP) is incomplete.
There does not appear to be one report that contains all of the items
required by 40 CRF Part 265.92(a). These requirements state that the SAP
must contain procedures and techniques for:
1. sample collection
2. sample preservation and shipment
3. analytical procedures; and
4. chain-of-custody control.
The BCM proposal for the RCRA Analytical Program (December 1981) covers
items 2 and 3, and laboratory Quality Assurance/Quality Control. The ana-
lytical procedures are not from SW-846, but 1974 Methods and 14th edition
standard methods.
The April 1986 revised Part B submittal, section E-4b covers items 1
and 4 and to a certain extent item 3. The analytical procedures listed there
are from EPA SW-846 and "Methods for Chemical Analysis of Water and Wastes"
EPA March 1979. These are not the same procedures listed in the BCM report.
No QA/QC for field work is mentioned.
-------
-35-
This information should be submitted as one complete document.
TASK FORCE SAMPLE COLLECTION AND HANDLING PROCEDURES
This section describes the well evacuation and ground water sampling
procedures followed by Task Force personnel during the July 1986 site inspec-
tion. Samples were collected by an EPA contractor (Versar) to determine if
the ground water contains hazardous waste constituents or other indicators
of contamination. Ashland and Kentucky split samples with the Task Force.
Water samples were collected from wells SI-1, SI-2, and SI-4 at the
Viney Branch surface impoundments and from wells HHF#1, HHF#2, HHF#3, and
HHF//4 at the Route 3 Landfill (See Table 5). The selection of these wells
was based on location to provide areal coverage both up and downgradient at
the RCRA units.
EPA Region IV requested and received split samples for the wells HHF//3,
HHF#2, SI-1, and the sludge sample taken from the sedimentation basin at the
Route 3 Landfill. Kentucky and Ashland also split samples on the wells (See
Table 5).
A trip blank and two equipment blanks were poured several days before
the sampling actually began. A field blank was poured at the Route 3 Land-
fill and the Viney Branch surface impoundments during sampling. A duplicate
was taken from HHF#2 and SI-7 for quality assessment/quality control (QA/QC)
purposes:
All sample bottles and preservatives were provided by an EPA contractor
laboratory (I-Chem). Samples were collected by the EPA sampling contractor
using the following protocol:
a) Total depth of well determined by using a stainless steel tape with a
weighted bottom piece. Depth of well also determined by using a
Watermarker water level indicator.
b) Height and volume of water column calculated.
c) Calculated three water column volumes.
d) Purged the well three well volumes or to dryness using a pre-cleaned
teflon bailer.
e) Upon initial opening of the well, the EPA sampling contractor monitored
the open well for chemical vapors using a Photovac tip, and monitored
for radiation using a Ludlum survey meter.
f) Collected a sample aliquot and made field measurements (water
temperature, specific conductance and pH).
g) EPA contractor filled VGA vials, then filled the remaining sample
containers in the order shown on Table 6.
h) EPA contractor placed samples on ice in an insulated container
immediately after filling the bottles.
-------
-36-
The first step in the ground water well sampling procedure was to measure
the depth from a reference point at the well head. At Ashland, that reference
is a known elevation at a mark at the top of the well casing. The EPA sam-
pling contractor used a Watermarker water level to measure the depth to water.
The tape was rinsed with hexane applied on a Kimwipe , then rinsed with organic
free HPLC water. Water level measurements were made to within 0.01 foot.
The volume of water to be purged was then calculated. The column volume
of a well is the volume of standing water in the well and is calculated using
the depth-to-water measurement, total well depth (determined in the field with
a well sounder) and casing radius.
For purposes of the Task Force, the column volume is multiplied by three
to compute the purge volume. In all cases, standard field measurements
(temperature, pH, specific conductivity) were taken intermittantly prior to
sampling.
The wells were purged by the EPA sampling contractor using a pre-cleaned
Teflon bailer that was lowered into the well with teflon-covered stainless
steel cable. The purge water was evacuated into a 35-gallon drum. The facility
then disposed of the purge water into the sedimentation basin.
Before sampling, chemical vapors and radiation readings were taken from
the wells. All readings at Viney Branch were noted as "background". The
readings at the Route 3 Landfill were also noted as "background" with the
exception of HHF#2. The Photovac tip reading was 0.20 ppm at this well.
Samples for metals, TOG, p'lenols, cyanide, ammonia and nitrate were pre-
served in the field. Samples were packaged and shipped to the EPA Contract
Laboratory on a daily basis. The EPA Region IV samples were released to EPA
Region IV Environmental Services Division personnel for transport. All sam-
ples were shipped according to applicable Department of Transportation regu-
lations (40 CFR Part 171-177). All water samples from monitoring wells were
considered "environmental" for shipping purposes.
LABORATORY EVALUATION
To be submitted as an addendum at a later date.
MONITORING DATA ANALYSIS
Acceptability and Validity of Data
The samples collected during this evaluation were analyzed by Compu-Chem
Laboratories, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, and Centec Laboratories,
Salem, Virginia. Compu-Chem performed the organic analyses and Centec per-
formed the inorganic analyses. The results were compiled and tabulated by Life
-------
-37-
Systems, Inc. and forwarded to the Task Force for evaluation. The OSWER func-
tional guidelines for evaluating contract laboratory program data, as well as
the Region IV EPA protocols were used to assess the validity of the data. All
data was considered valid except for the results of analyses for phenols (4AAP)
and one chloride analyses. Some data was qualified, as indicated in the data
summary tables, as estimated in concentrations or as presumptive evidence of
material.
Discussion of Results
Results indicate that the Viney Branch downgradient wells, SI-1, SI-2, and
SI-4, may not be monitoring the same water-bearing zone. Results .also indicate
that upgradient well HHF-3, at the Route 3 Landfill, is not monitoring the same
water-bearing zone at the three downgradient wells. The sediment/ sludge
sample taken from the sedimentation basin below the landfill shows evidence of
organic constituents. Table 7 summarizes the data from samples collected from
the RCRA ground water monitoring wells at Viney Branch, the Route 3 Landfill,
and the sediment/sludge sample. These data are discussed in the following
sections.
VINEY BRANCH
Inorganic Elements/Compounds
Ten inorganic elements and compounds were detected in samples collected
from monitoring wells in this area. Values for barium ranged from 110 ug/1 in
SI-1 to 880 ug/1 in SI-4. Aluminum concentrations ranged from estimated 2,900
ug/1 in SI-1 to estimated 3,900 ug/1 in SI-4. Concentrations for manganese,
zinc, calcium, magnesium, and iron were higher in SI-1 than SI-4 or SI-2. This
well is the shallowest of the three downgradient wells. The Secondary Drinking
Water Standards for iron and manganese were exceeded in all three downgradient
wells.
Extractable Organic Compounds
No extractable organic compounds were detected in any of the Viney Branch
downgradient wells.
Purgeable Organic Compounds
No purgeable organic compounds were detected in any of the Viney Branch
downgradient wells.
Conventional/Indicator Parameters
Six conventional/indicator parameters were detected in the downgradient
wells at Viney Branch. Sulfate concentrations ranged from 13 mg/1 in SI-4 to
242 (average) mg/1 in SI-1. Values for chloride ranged from 30 mg/1 in
-------
-38-
SI-4 to 42 mg/1 in SI-2. The ammonia concentration in SI-4 was 1.2 mg/1 and
undetected in the other wells. Cyanide was 0.02 mg/1 in SI-1 and undetected in
the other wells. Nitrate-Nitrite Nitrogen was 0.53 mg/1 in SI-4 and undetected
in the other wells. The analytical results for the presence of phenols were
unreliable.
ROUTE 3 LANDFILL
Inorganic Elements/Compounds
Twelve inorganic elements and compounds were detected in samples col-
lected from monitoring wells in this area. Of these twelve, chromium, lead,
aluminum, manganese, calcium, magnesium, sodium and potassium were found in
noticeably higher concentrations in upgradient well HHF-3 than in the down-
gradient wells. Significant concentrations of calcium, magnesium and sodium
were also detected in HHF//3.
Extractable Organic Compounds
No extractable organic compounds were detected in any of the Route 3
Landfill wells. Nine extractable compounds were detected in the sediment/
sludge sample. Concentrations ranged from a presumed value of 2.0 ug/1 for
pyrene to an estimated 90 ug/1 for five unidentified compounds.
Purgeable Organic Compounds
No purgeable organic compounds were detected in any of the Route 3
Landfill wells. There was one purgeable compound detected in the sediment/
sludge sample of an estimated 3.5 ug/1 for ethyl benzene.
Conventional/Indicator Parameters
Nine conventional/indicator parameters were detected in the Route 3
Landfill well samples. Of these, chloride, cyanide, sulfate and POC were
noticeably higher in upgradient well HHF-3. The sediment/sludge sample had
the highest concentrations for POC and TOH.
-------
REFERENCES
1. Eight volumes of information copied for the Task Force by Ashland
Petroleum personnel, July 1986.
2. Revised Part B for the Route 3 Landfill; prepared for Ashland by
FMSM/KENVIRONS, Consulting Engineers, April 24, 1986.
3. "Revised Draft Protocol for Ground Water Inspections at Hazardous Waste
Treatment, Storage and Disposal Facilities" by the EPA Hazardous Waste
Ground Water Task Force, April 1986.
4. "Viney Branch Surface Impoundments Ground Water Monitoring Plan" Ashland
Petroleum Company, March 1986.
5. "Exposure Information Report" Route 3 Landfill, Ashland Petroluem,
November 7, 1985.
6. "Comprehensive Ground Water and Environmental Investigation - Ashland
Oil Company" prepared by BSD Athens, EPA Region IV; August, 1985.
7. "RCRA Part B Application" Ashland Petroleum Company, October 22, 1984.
8. Wyrick, G. G. and Borchers, J. W., Hydrologic Effects of Stress-Relief
Fracturing in an Appalachian Valley; USGS WSP 2177, 1981.
-------
\
Ashland Petroleum Co.
Figure 1
Facility Location Map
Ashland Petroleum Company
Catlettsburg, Kentucky
-------
' I
•;•" ', ' --;•. -u; / '.(.,' '[?•}?
{.':/) L*~*> V^A&'-jT's^i
i f^&^^^m
I Ifr^n^-^ V V.^J.:U-4*-
KPOES DISCHARGE POINT
Viney Branch Surface Impoundments
Figure 2
Location of
RCRA Units
Figure 2
Location of Viney Branch Surface Impoundments
and Route 3 Landfill
Catlettsburg, Kentucky
after Ashland
-------
SI-4
Figure 3
Viney Branch Surface Impoundments
Well Locations
Approx. surface
areas (sq.ft.)
1=25,650
2=18,400
3=59,300
4=10,400
5=17,100
D^guard
building
US 23
track
• well location
Ashland Petroleum Company
Catlettsburg, Kentucky.
-------
I I
'-::.""/; -
• -';';;''
')•..[•; /;
i .;•/•'. \
*•*-•'•/',. ' \ ;i M1 7
I!':;/1 A >/Aiii(A/W,
/.-'«/; '
^//lj/; ,
®\w
-
\ :
* i.-('if> —
•->; \ vo
: M VC-'_J .; "^
' ' /•""—"-~^-l' <
- ^N ,/l* ^ _-, I ^^ r \.
=^~^:^. \v "- ' j xvx r^^-r-r-'--1'-''''/'/"^-^^ '-
" "^tr-jryV ' / ' -" ''*+ / ' ' . '^^^-^ ^ ~v-.~^.
^-:- / / > '. , -^ •- >-•?• < ~~^ ->
i \ :U c^J- —
J ^X_ ~~
11 I ' / '/'
I//////,
?^f^4/^e
t*z=^7J \ \ f ( fi\ S cv V-
\\\\Wl •'
1 i!_/\ h
i ;////"'* ''"-''<-"'
'./'//// ^•'--'^'
• well location
Figure 4
Route 3 Landfill Well Locations
after Ashland
-------
-------
. T»LE»uun-
i^jj^aif
Figure 6
Block Flow Diagram of
the Catlettsburg Refineries
-------
Figure 7
Catlettsburg Refinery
Wastewater Treatment System
after Ashlatu
-------
Figure 8
Location of 1984, 1986 Borings
Route 3 Landfill
Surface
coverage area
Existing cell^ \84-2
A
1 i
h
-------
Compressional Stress
Resultant Stress
Compression Fractures
Alluvium
~":.\\:: i^r'N''-^'/-'-^-^;:^-^:::-
•V*r4i^:'6'b'eh:'.-BeadinaV-Plani4i
I)ue/;»o>-'Archinjj-.-.•.'.-.'••.'••'•.-.'•'. •".
.after Wyrick and Borchers
Figure 9
Generalized Geologic Section Showing
Features of Stress-Relief Fracturing
-------
after.Wyrick and Borchers
Figure 10
Block Diagram of Generalized Geologic Section
Showing Features of Stress-Relief Fracturing
-------
Practically
Impermeable
1Q_a 1Q_7 1Q_6 1Q
-5
1CT2 1O
PERMEABILITY COEFFICIENT (k)
CM/SEC
PERMEABILITY TEST RESULTS, BORING 86-1
FIGURE 11
after Ashland
-------
PF
IMF
s~\
LJ
LU
LL
Z
o
h-
<
>
LJ
_l
LLJ
1
PERME/
?ACTJCALLY VERY '
>ERM£ABALE LOW LOW MEDIUM
850
8OO
75O
7OO
65O
GOO
55O
500
4-5O
4-OO
350
3OO
••^•MHBK
m^*~—*
»i«B«B«.
— — •«.
— — —
' ' -«
— — «.
«—. —
•^— — «
T
= •
i^"
•i^
HIGH
•»"•
1O~8 10~7 1O~tf 10"9 1O"4 10~3 10~a 10"1 1
^ERMEABILITY COEFFICIENT (k)
CM/SEC
\BILTY TEST RESULTS, BORING 86-2"
FIGURE 12
"
after Ashland
-------
r-
LJ
U
Lu
Z
o
h-
<
>
u
_l
LJ
Practically
Impermeable
1O~8 1O
-7
~6 1O
-5
1O
10
—1
PERMEABILITY COEFFICIENT (k)
CM/SEC
PERMEABILITY TEST RESULTS. BORING 86-3
FIGURE 13
after Ashland
-------
c
o
0)
o
O
(X
o
ec
o:
<
O
_
CO
Z
Z
UJ
CL
a
-------
TABLE 2
RCRA GROUND WATER MONITORING PARAMETERS
*Category 1
Arsenic
Barium
Cadmium
Chromium
Fluoride
Lead
Mercury
Nitrate (as N)
Selenium
Silver
Endrin
Lindane
Methoxychlor
Toxaphene
2, A-D
2,4,5-TP Silvex
Radium
Gross Alpha
Gross Beta
Turbidity
Coliform Bacteria
**Category 2
Chloride
Iron
Manganese
Phenols
Sodium
Sulfate
***Category 3
Specific Conductance
Total Organic Carbon
Total Organic Halogen
*EPA Interim Primary Drinking Water Standards
**Ground Water Quality Parameters
***Ground Water Contamination Indicator Parameters
-------
TABLE 3
MONITORING WELL CONSTRUCTION DATA
Well GSE
No. (ft, MSL)
Viney Branch
SI-1 (7) 609.5
SI-2 (6) 614.7
SI-3 (5) 741.9
SI-4 (8) 593.4
Route 3 Landfill
HHF-1 589.9
HHF-2 591.6
HHF-3 (old) 849.5
HHF-4 588.4
Total
Depth
Drilled (ft)
40
100
200
76
40
105
174
32
Well
Depth
(ft)
40
58
89
76
40
79
65
32
Casing/
Screen
Material
PVC
PVC
PVC
PVC
PVC
PVC
PVC
PVC
Screened
Interval
(ft)
32-40
48-58
79-89
66-76
32-40
69-79
55-65
21-31
Sand Pack
Interval
(ft)
32-40
10-?
19-?
33-?
32-40
40-105
28-65
21-32
Date
Completed
8-2JT-81
8-25-81
9-8-81
8-27-81
8-18-81
8-13-81
9-8-81
8-17-81
HHF-3 (new)
838
137
137
PVC
125-135
72-135
7-1-83
-------
TABLE 4
WELLS DESIGNATED FOR GROUND WATER MONITORING
DURING INTERIM STATUS AT THE ASHLAND PETROLEUM FACILITY
Well
Viney Branch
SI-K7)
SI-2(6)
81-3(5)
SI-4(8)
Date of
Active Monitoring
March 1982
to
present
Monitoring
Designation
downgradient
downgradient
upgradierft
downgradient
Route 3 Landfill - old system
HHF-1
HHF-2
HHF-3
HHF-4
March 1982
to
present
downgradient
downgradient
upgradient
downgradient
new system
HHF-1 (same)
HHF-2 (same)
HHF-3 (new)
HHF-4 (same)
July 1983
to
present
downgradient
downgradient
upgradient
downgradient
-------
TABLE 5
SAMPLE COLLECTION DATA
Traffic
No.
Q0777
Q0778
Q0779
Q0781
Q0782
Q0783
Q0784
Q0785
Q0786
Q0787
Q0788
Q0789
Q0790
Q0791
Q0792
Sample
Point
HHF-4
sedimentation
basin
HHF-1
field blank
(landfill)
HHF-3
trip blank
equipment blank
equipment blank
SI-K7)
HHF-2
HHF-2 (duplicate)
SI-K7)
(duplicate)
SI-4(8)
SI-2(6)
field blank
(Viney Branch)
SI-3(5)
Date
7-15-86
7-15-86
7-16-86
7-16-86
7-16-86
7-9-86
7-9-86
7-10-86
7-17-86
7-16-86
7-16-86
7-17-86
7-17-86
7-18-86
7-18-86
not sampled
Time
1231
1427
1012
1140
1137
1235
1340
1340
1235
1615
1117
1033
Splits
EPA Kentucky Ashland
X X
X X
X X
X X
X X
XX X
X X
X
X
X
X
X
Remarks
clear
hydrocarbon odor
S
slight -b'rown color;
slight sulfuric odor
!
dark grey; silty; '
strong sulfuric odor
•
slightly silty and;
discolored
cloudy; grey
very dusty due to
traffic
clear to cloudy
white
insufficient volume
for Task Force
collection.
-------
TABLE 6
ORDER OF SAMPLE COLLECTION
BOTTLE TYPE AND PRESERVATIVE LIST
Parameter
Bottle
Preservative
Volatile Organic Analysis (VGA)
Purge and trap
Direct inject
Purgeable Organic Carbon (POC)
Purgeable Organic Halogens (POX)
Extractable Organ!cs
Total Metals
Dissolved Metals
Total Organic Carbon (TOG)
Total Organic Halogens (TOX)
Phenols
Cyanide
Nitrate/ammonia
Sulfate/chloride
2 60-ml VOA vials
2 60-ml VOA vials
1 60-ml VOA vial
1 60-ml VOA vial
4 1-qt. amber glasses
1 qt. plastic HN03
1 qt. plastic HN03
4 oz. glass H2S04
1 qt. amber glass
1 qt. amber glass ^804
1 qt. plastic NaOH
1 qt. plastic H2S04
1 qt. plastic
-------
PAGE
TABLET
ASHLAND PETROLEUM COMPANY
CATLETTSBURG, KENTUCKY
HUGUTF
ANALYTICAL DATA SUMMARY
S. BASIN
RUU1E 3 RUU1E 3
07/15/86 07/15/86
HHF-1
ROU1E 3
07/16/66
HHF-3
ROU1E3
07/16/66
HHF-2
ROU1E3
07/16/86
HHF-2
(dup)
07/16/86
SI-1
VINEY BR
07/16/86
SI-1
(dup)
07/17/86
SI-4
VINEY BR
07/17/86
SI-2
VINEY BR
07/18/86
,~
HCRA HASTE CHARACTERISTICS
BROMIDE
NITRITE-NITROGEN
INORGANIC ELEMENT/COMPOUND
ARSENIC
BARIUM
CHROMIUM
LEAD
ZINC
ALUMINUM
MANGANESE
CALCIUM
MAGNESIUM
IRON
SODIUM
POTASSIUM
EKTRACTABLE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS
ACENAPHTHENE
aUORENE
PYRENE
METHYLBENZOIC ACID (8 ISOMERS)
C2 ALKYLNAPHTHALENE (2 ISOMERS)
PNTHRACENEDIOME
5 UNIDENTIFIED COMPOUNDS
PETROLEUM PRODUCT
2-METHYLNAPHTHALENE
PURGEABLE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS
MG/L
O.OS
0.46
UG/L
260
140J
1700J
MG/L
MG/L
0.06
0.83
UG/L
14
39
H67L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L HG/L
— — — — 0.35 0.37 — —
0.80 0.50 ______
UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L
350
12
120J —
MG/L
1400J
MG/L
100
21J
8
45
5900J
2200J
150
BJ
—
27
2300J
490J
170
—
6
49
4300J
600J
110
—
3
19
2900J
1700J
110
—
2
18
3100J
1900J
880
—
—
—
3900J
40J
190
—
4
13
3200J
£20J
MB/L
MG/L
M6/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
73
18
16
11
2.5
340
7.4
—
22
6.4
82
17
9.9
14
2.6
360
130
7.1
140
8.4
66
13
2.6
9.8
2.5
66
13
3.8
9.8
3.1
160
74
5.2
59
4.1
160
72
5.2
58
4.3
9.4
3.2
1.8
150
4.7
84
23
2.1
15
3.4
UG/L
U6/L
UG/L
6.0JN
4.BJN
2.0JN
20JN
60JN
20JN
90J
N
9.0J
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
ETHYL BENZENE
3.5J -
-------
PAGE
TABLE 7
-------
APPENDIX A
TASK FORCE ANALYTICAL RESULTS
Due to size, the raw data is not included in this report. A copy of the data
can be requested from:
EPA, Region IV
Residuals Management Branch
345 Courtland Street, NE
Atlanta, Georgia 30365
-------
VINEY BRANCH WELLS
WELL LOCATION-Sill
total depth-' 40*
casing size*. 3"
screen size- 3"
hole size- 4.25"
surface elevation-609.5*
water encountered- 35*
water after drill ing- 26'
height of stick ups- 3"
depth of gravel- 32' - 40'
depth of bentonite- 32' - 14'
depth ofPVC screen- 32' - 40'
casing size and depth- 0-40'x3
• -•a"
WELL LOCATION- SI*2 Lw«u.»£)
total depth- 1UO'
casing size- 3"
screen size- 3"
hole size- 4.25"
surface elevation-614.7*
water encountered- 43*
water after drill ing-23'
height of stick ups- 3"
depth of gravel- 100-10' /=>
depth of bentonite- 10-4'
depth ofPVC screen- 58-48' 4S
casing size and depth-0-58'x3"
WELL LOCATION- SII3
total depth- 200'
casing size- 3"
screen size- 3"
hole size- 4.25"
surface elevation- 741.9'
water encountered- 45*
water after drilling- 194.5'
height of stick ups- 3"
depth of gravel- 19* n
depth of bentonite- 19 '-13'
depth ofPVC screen- 89 '-79'
casing size and depth-0-89'*3
'"
WELL LOCATION- SII4
total depth- 76*
casing size- 3N
screen size- 3"
hole size- 42.5"
surface elevation- 593.4'
water encountered- 71'
water after drilling- 68-6'
height of stick ups- 3"
depth of gravel- 76'-33'
depth of bentonite- 33'-9'
depth ofPVC screen- 76'-66', =
casing size and depth- 0-76'x311
23
-------
Client t Ashland Petroleum
w Test note
I
/ . .-
I V^\X
•
|
fly Top of
Bentonice
« x^,
^ A^ A >\
1
Pf
1
1
(] Top of
Sand
B32'
I
Bottom of
Screen
a/v
n
WO.I
n
i
—
"TT
~~ -~
~5_i'
^
- . - Project:
Surtac, EUvmtion Job fc-f
TT^Y" 6°9'5
* DATE STARTED 8/25/81
DATE FINISH DRILLING 8/25/81
~t
DATE SET CASING 8/25/81
DATE FINISH WELL 8/25/81
TOTAL FEET OVERBURDEN
DRILLING 30'
Bedrock Elevation TOTAL FEET ROCK
,n, . - :' DRILLING 10'
TOTAL FEET CASING AND
10' SCREEN INSTALLED 40'
BAGS SAND USED
Top of Bentonlte BAGS GROnT asEQ
14'
Ground Water
35'
Final Elevation
40*
24
-------
HoU
Eltv. 6^9 tj«
Bovd Co. KY
Property Ash1 and.Petroleum
Collored _•"'- *at»flm«rf 40*
Logged by *r - -,.
Discorded X
- 10
- 20
brown soil
r
light brown clay
very stiff brown
- clay
30
35
- 40
-~~—H BreathItt Formation
black shale
(possibly coal)
- water level
sandstone
Contractor
Coordinates
Section :
Mop
Bearing
POQ«
Of
fnaH
-
28
u
-------
Test Hole No.8 SII2
Client!
Ashland Petroleum
n
Surface Elevation
-rl-'- 614..7
Top of Bentonite
4'
Bedrock Elevation
A. A
j Top of
Sand
I
10'
Ground Water
43'
Bottom of
Screen
, 58'
Final Elevation
58'
25
Project:
Job Ho.:
DATE STARTED
TOTAL FEET OVERBURDEN
DRILLING
TOTAL FEET ROCK
DRILLING
TOTAL FEET CASING AND
10' SCREEN INSTALLED
BAGS SAND USED
BAGS GROUT USED
8/24/81
DATE FINISH DRILLING 8/24/81
DATE SET CASING 8/25/gl
DATE FINISH WELL 8/25/81
10
90
58
1/2
-------
i
I
i
-. 1
I
I
0-
D
0
0
0
0
0
•
a*.-
. V
0
Holt
Are*
PfOI
Coll
Oi»C
- 10
L 20
- 30
- 40
43
- 50
- 60
- 70
. 80
Nfl <;T? PUi, filA 71
> a Coi
infy Bovd Co. KY
Ashland. Petroleum ~
* * \ f\f\ %
EP II.H
\ • •
^•^ ^**
^^^ ^"'^
x^** ^"^«
*
I Brown Clay
s _•
^^^^^^^1
^~— • <^< 1
1 =d Breathitt Formation 1
==
i • . . . .
. .
- . . •
. . . . •
. . - .
• • .
* • . *
• • *
1 * • * • •
. • • •
-
=
. . . •
• ' •
• • • •
mm.
• , ,
>
3 gray shale
+— sandv shale 1
gray sandstone
irirtiet '•^nrlrtnno
water level
shale
sandstone
sandstone
shale
.coal
sandstone
•••
•
29
Contractor
Coordinate!
Section
Mop
Bear
_ 100
Rcftre
;»«
Page 1 of -1 —
Mlfl F^cfprn R«r» Tp'rh
» - - -
nc« Catlettsbura Quad
_
j^^^""^"^1
• - *
M
1- ' ' •'
^^T"^^i
P^^B^^HMVMiH
' '
— H
4
*
1
f
M
'
-------
I Teat Hole Ho.:
i
I
I
£ Top of
Bentonite
1 "•
™" A A A A
i
8
11
^^™ 1
d
d
•i Top of
** Sand
d "•"
•i
d
d
Bottom of
pd screen
80'
d
§
— «
-i_L-
^v
SI|1 Client: Ashland Petroleum
Project: .--
Surface Elevation . . _
-7 •• ' . Job No.:
. . . 741.9*
^ DATE STARTED 8/18/81 •
8/19/81
DATE FINISH DRILLING 9/8/81
DATE SET CASING 9/8^81
DATE FINISH WELL 9/8/81
TOTAL FEET OVERBURDEN
DRILLING 10
Bedrock Elevation TOTAL FEET ROCK
10i DRILLING 190
TOTAL FEET CASING AND
10' SCREEN INSTALLED 89'
BAGS SAND USED
BAGS GROUT USED
Ground Water
Final Elevation
flQ' "
26
-------
8
D
B
II
D
0
D
Holt No,__S!_!i.
Art a & County Bovd
Property Achlanrl
Collared
Logged *>
Oitcordcd
200'
lnel
Contractor
Coordinates
Section •
Mop
Bearing.
Pag* 1
2
ftfln
Catlettsburg Quad
- 50
55
- 70
75
yellow --brown candy
dirt
dark yellow-brown
^sandy dirt
Fnrmatinn
light brown fine-grain
sandstone
gray silty sandstone
with Duscovite
gray shale
red shale
gray shale
(calcareous in
some areas)
coal
sandstone
30
94
95
,. 100
105
- 110
115
120
125
- 130
135
L 140
145
- 150
155
- 160
fractures
gray shale
red shale
gray shale
•red shale
gray shale
Coal Breathitt Forma-
tidn
hi ark shalo
gray shale
-------
Hol«
Area
Proo
• • **H
ColK
Log<
Di$c
185
- 190
195
- 200
_
*
-
1
w« SI *3 ei- 741.9
a cou
nty Bovd
flcKl atvi Petvnloum —
,rcrf flftffam.rf 200 f
ltd by.
EP-_ - InH
. X •
\
•^^H* ^^H
* * • •
• • * «
• • * *
• * •
• . • *
* , ^^^^0
MM •
• * • •
' * • *
t
inter bedded
d landstones and shales
_ sandstone
with shale lenses
31
Contr
Coon
Stctl
Mopl
8«ori
-
Pogt«_2_of 2
??tor
Jinolcs
an
Rtftrci
te* Catlettsbure Quad
« *
*
-
-
f
-------
Test Hole No.;
Ashland Petroleum
A A A
I
I Top of
Sand
33'
Bottom of
76'
p
— • ••
"^ ••
\
xx
-*--/V
SurfaccrElevation
593.4
u.V V,
Bedrock Elevation
9.5'
Top of Bentonite
9'
Ground Water
66'
Final Elevation
76 •
27
Project:
Job No.:
DATE STARTED 0/77/01
DATE FINISH DRILLING 8/27/81
DATE SET CASING 8/27/81
DATE FINISH WELL 8/27/81
TOTAL FEET OVERBURDEN
DRILLING 9.5'
TOTAL FEET ROCK
DRILLING 70.5'
TOTAL FEET CASING AND
10' SCREEN INSTALLED
BAGS SAND USED
BAGS GROUT USED
76'
-------
II
Boyd Co. KY
Holt No.__Sl*4
ArtO ft Caunty
-Property Ash Iand-Petroleum
Collortd =_4ortomtd
El«v. 693.1'
~~--T-| sandy gray shale
gray sandstone
gray shale
~ gray sandy shale
gray shale
gray sandy shale
gray sandstone
coal
- 60 "=•=
- 70
- 80
-^— • ^»
_
• ...
— _-_
«••>. —
. . • .
— —
—~——^
• • — . •
- .
• •
- - .
. • . • .
• ...
• • • • •
black shale
gray shale
sandstone
Pay* 1 nl 1
Contractor Mid Eastern Geo Tech
Coord inotts -
Stcl Jon
Mop Rmt»i*ntm Catlpttsburg
Storing-
-
-
-
:-
-------
~r— " " " - TABLE
N LANDFILL
*
WELL LOCATION- HHF H
total depth- 40'
casing size- 3"
screen size- 3"
hole size- 4-1/4"
•
surface elevation- 589.9'
water encountered- 35* 8"
water after drilling- 19' 5"
height of stick ups- 3"
depth of sand 32* - 40* -c
depth of bentonite- 28' - 32*
depth ofPVC screen- 32f - 40'
casing size and depth- 0 - 32 x 3"
WELL LOCATION- HHFI3
total depth- 174
casing size- " 3fr"
screen size- 3" x 10'
hole size- 4 1/4"
surface elevation- 849.5*
water encountered- -82, 110, 119
water after drilling- 19'
height of stick ups- 3"
depth of sand- 28'-65' ^
depth of bentonite- 25'-28'
depth ofPVC screen-55'-65'
E-19
WELLS :. ..
WELL LOCATION- HHF 12
total depth- 105'
casing size- 3"
screen size- 3"
hole size- 4-1/4"
surface elevation- 591.6'
water encountered- 49% 64*. 76', 84'. 86'
water after drilling- 41'IOV'
height of stick ups- 3"
depth of sand 40' - 105f vV
depth of bentonite- 26' 8" - 40'
depth ofPVC screen- 69' 3" x 79 1/3"
casing size and depth- o - 69* 3" x 3"
WELL LOCATION- HHF 14
total depth- 32
casing size- 3" _
screen size- 3"
hole size- - 4-1/4"
surface elevation- 588.4'
water encountered- 26'
water after drilling- 18
height of stick ups- 3"
depth of sand *!' - 32' :'*=
depth of bentonite- 17' - 21'
depth ofPVC screen- 21* - 31'
casing size and depth- 0-65x3" E-34 casing size and depth- 0 - 21* x 3*
(4/18/R6)
-------
Holt
Arw
Prop
Coll<
Low
Disc
5
_ 10
15
5
- 30
*
35
— An
MA pHF>fl Elav. J£
a CM
• rty
•ity
atf »'
Ashland Petroleum
irtd \ Baftomtd 40
l«d by.
ardcd _
^» y^^
»•«» /*^
«•>« xs^»
/>^ y^«
x>« »^-*
/^*/Nrf
/"^ X^«
<«•* X>»
^^ ^^»
r*"^
•\-.x^-
•>* <^rf
->»/-^
-V -*
t**t r**
** *~*
«•»» «^»
-«# x*«
/^/ /^*
t~*J *^
^* s**
S~r /*-
*^^ /««
^ ry
^/x>^
**» x^^
«<^»'IS^
• • . . .
• • • • •
• « • • •
• • • •
• • • • «
• • • • •
EP & JV fnei.
_ brown clayey soil
*
w
Ik
Breathitt Formation
shale
~ aanHaf*f)nA
water level 35' 8"
44
Contr
Coo.r.<
S«cH«
Mop f
Btori
IB
. 1
actor .
riAotti
an
Uftrcr
"0
»««• ^ v • i
MldEastern Geotech
II.A Catlettsburg Quad
« • ,
»
**
~ — —
-
- • -
-------
Teat Hole No.:
HHF II
•Client:
Ashland petroleum
Top of
Sand
32,
v .torn of
Screen
40'
Surface Elevation
Y '
CQQ Q«
, Bedrock Elevation
\
30'
Top of Bentonite
28*
Ground Water
19' 5"
Final Elevation
40'
45
Project:
Job No.:
DATE STARTED 8/18/81
DATE FINISH DRILLING 8/18/81
DATE SET CASING 8/18/81
DATE FINISH WELL 8/18/81
TOTAL FEET OVERBURDEN
DRILLING
TOTAL FEET SOCK
DRILLING
BAGS SAND USED
BAGS GROUT USED
30'
10'
TOTAL FEET CASING AND
10* SCREEN INSTALLED 40'
-------
Holt
ArtO
Prop*
CeU'd
Logg
Ditcc
U
4
9
14
19
23
24
29
34
39
44
4S
S4
5S
64
6<
74
79
84
aq
w« HHF #2 Pl.w._591.$'
A Count v ? v •
AsKland Petr ole1 '"i
7»# , flflMem«<« 105'
• rf hy EP & Jtt foe!
irded
x%*»x«—
XS.» XN*
.A^ ^***
*•••• XW
x-v.- *^x
f^ ****
^»^^N*
S^**-
^^ ^W
/••W ^>»
x**' ^w
f*-r <~*~
f~ ++*
S+*t^~
^^f*^
/^^^SX
o^XV^
^^& ^^^»
»^- v-s^
— ...
^M^* ^H
•MMW ••
# • »• •
MM « .
• » m • •
• & • • *
• « • » »
* » • • .
• « » * •
* *• * •
» •• • •
. * • . •
. » • • *
• •• * *
» « » •
• • » • •
• * * * •
• • • • •
• . • • «
^ • • • •
-
• . • • »
* • * • •
• . • » •
" • * * *
• • • • *
..«..•
• « *.. ••
• • • . •
iBssssr
^^^ ^••^IBM
• . « • •
* . » * .
. • • • *
. • * * •
* • • * .
* * . » •
• • • • •
•^••^•i^BiBMBB
. . • * *
" • » • •
i
brown clay
dirt
"
— Rrpathi't't Formation
light brown dry soil
witn rock frags
shale
coal
seat earth
shale
white clay
1 top rock (28 ') j
weathered sandy shale
dark gray SS lenses
(fine grained w/mica
flakes)
sandstone with
some shale
,
sandstone *
very damp sandstone
— sandstone
dark shale
sand stone (moist)
shale
sandstone (moist)
very hard SS w/moisture
shale
••
••
-
46
f
Contractor _
Coord
Stctic
Mop F
B.ari
94
99
-100
105
-
inotts
M
ttftrtn
tfl
•
^M» «H*
•
*
I • • » •
>
-------
Test Hole No.:
Client:
Ashland Petroleum
Top of
Bentonite
26' 8"
Top of
Sand
40'
>tton of
Screen
' "
79' 3
Surface Elevation
xxvv
591.6'
Bedrock Elevation
29 »
Ground Water
51' 7"
Final Elevation
105'
47
Project:
DATE STARTED 8/12/81
DATE FINISH DRILLING 8/13/81
DATE SET CASING 8/13/81
DATE FINISH WELL 8/13/81
TOTAL FEET OVERBURDEN
DRILLING
TOTAL FEET ROCK
DRILLING
TOTAL FEET CASING AND
10' SCREEN INSTALLED
BAGS SAND USED
BAGS GROUT USED
29
76
79' 3"
-------
Hoir
Area
Prop*
Collo
Logq
Oi«ca
4
9
14
19
24
29
3<
«
39
44
4<
54
59
64
6<
7/1
79
8^
M« HHT'f 3 Etaw. fi
& Coui
^?ty •"••"•
Iff"
aa-s.1
Aehlacd-^stroisaE' - -
r«rf ^ Bafto^ X*—
^^>x^
^>^> x>^
^^^ «^^
<*%« xsx
*"*> s*^
S*~S+f
XV. ^>"
II
1
•
"""•^"^^
«i^B^^«^W
• * • • •
* • * * *
# * • » •
• • * • »
brown soil
white clay
weathered shale
Conemaugh formation
t»
gray shale
sandstone (moist)
gray shale
sandstone
red shale
gray or green shale
coal
gray shale
sahdstone (moist)
M
1^
••
4ft
Contre
Coord
S«e»io
Mop R
Stori
94
99
104
109
114
116
119
124
129
134
139
144
149
154
159
1 (*L
i6e
16«
17^
. P
ictor _
inottt
Ml
tfcrtn
*g* 1 of 1
Mideastern Geotech
e* Bolts Fork Quad
* • •
* •
* • •
« • •
• • •
• • •
• • •
• • •
^-.^-^
—^^»— •
vn^wiv
? •
• • •
• • •
• • •
• • •
• • • •
• • •
. • »
• • •
• • •
• • •
• • •
• • •
• . •
• . .
«^^» ^^
"~~~*
,~
.^__^_
~
**~
«!••«*««.«
— —
_——___
-^
___^^
^___^._
__>^_^_
_— ^_
=ST=
1
_^___
« • • • •
« • • • •
yW rf^»
sandstone
gray shale
. limestone
shale
sandstone (moist)
(color change)
(moist)
sandstone
dark gray shale
**"
iv
shale (almost black)
clay(probably seatear
gray shale
-
-
M
)-
-------
Test Hole No.: HHF»3
Client: Ashland Petroleum
X\\N
Top of
Bentonite
25'
Top of
Sand
55'
Botcon of
Screen
65'
Surface .Elevation
^vv
849.5'
Bedrock Elevation
16'
A. A
Ground Water
10'
Final Elevation
176'
49
Project:
Job No.:
DATE STARTED 8/11/81 '
DATE FINISH DRILLING 8/11/81
DATE SET CASING 9/8/81
DATE FINISH WELL 9/8/81
TOTAL FEET OVERBURDEN
DRILLING 16'
TOTAL FEET ROCK
DRILLING 160'
TOTAL FEET CASING AND
10' SCREEN INSTALLED
BAGS SAND USED
BAGS GROUT USED
65'
-------
HOlt
Area
Propi
Collo
Loog
Oitcc
5
i r\
15
20
25
30
M<> HHF #4 _ El«v. _S
a coui
• rtw
nty -. -.
188. ft'
Aabland Oil .
<••<« BaMom«d 32*
mA hy EP & JW X inH
irtfxl
^^«^*^
^o^
*• %•*• ^*^
*^^^.*^^
*~**s+*^
^^^^* f^f
**-+*>-****
^^*^+*
^-^-"^-
^«55^SS5B5"
1
.
brown sandy clay
-
traces of coal
-Breathitt Formation
gray shale
top of bedrock (19 ')
water at 22' 6"
sandy shale
water at 29*
T.D. 32'
-
-
-
-
50
P
Controctor _
Coord
Soctia
Mop R
6«ari
-
—
-
inottt
n _.^«.
etertn
• n
«fl.- i of --1
Mid -Eastern Geotech
•
r- Caticutsdurg Quad
«
•»-
-
-
-
-
-------
Test Hole No.t HHF - 4
-•Client:
Ashland Petroleum
Top of
Benconite
17
Surface Elevation
A A A A
Top of-
Saad
21
(^ .torn of
Screen
31
xx YY
588.4'
Bedrock Elevation
19
Ground Water
18
Final Elevation
32
Project:
Job No.:
DATS STARTED 8/17/81
DATE FINISH DRILLING 8/17/81
DATE SET CASING 8/17/81
DATE FINISH WELL 8/17/81
TOTAL FEET OVERBURDEN
DRILLING
TOTAL FEET ROCK
DRILLING
TOTAL FEET CASING AND
10' SCREEN INSTALLED
BAGS SAND USED
BAGS GROUT USED
19
13
32
-------
Ashland Petroleum Company
\ Route 3 Landfill
\ Upgradient Well
\ \ \ \ \
Well Casing
3 in. Dia. PVC
^
»«•] Cement
-^ Grout
|§ Bentonite
Y£] Sand
__
T
10 Ft.
JL
•A
• i
fr*
V\
*i
4'
• f
•
'A
t.'
*
*«
•
f:
* •
4.
id.
* £
N
&
* •
*
'•
*
'•
*
*
•
*
•••M
K
p
^E.
r
k
o
t
^
'<
**
•
'<
.4
r
• »
>
'A
>
rr^n
•
v
* •
*
• •
*
»
*
*
*
9 *
V -
68
\
^m
4
t
63
•> -i
2^
I \
Ft.
-
^m
Ft. 1
••
i
Ft.
1
I
37 Ft.
I
i _
.
701 Ft. B.O.H. Elev.
-------
FULLER, MOBSBARGEF*, BCOTT
CIVIL ENGINEERS, INC
LEXINGTON, KENTUCKY
ROCK CORING RECORD
MAY
\
County
Project
Surface
Bo yd
Name Ashland 011, Inc.
Rt. 3 Landfill
Elev. 646.4
Rock Core Dia. NX
Driller
E. Roberts and Z. Carter
Project No.
Core Location
Date Started
Date Completed
Page
84131
84-1
8-20-84
8-22-84
1 of 3
Elevation
634.2
630.6
623.1
619.1
610.0
608.2
606.7
605.2
Depth
12.2 ~
15.8 -
22.2 -
23.3 -
27.3~
31.2—
_
36.4 -
—
38. 2~
^
39.7 -
- —
: —
41.2 =
Description of Material
Coll uvi urn
Sandy fireclay, dark gray
soft, inclined fractures
Shale with sandstone
streaks, brownish gray,
hard, slightly weathered
Fireclay, light gray,
soft
Shale, gray, soft to
hard, slightly weathered
Sandy fireclay, dark
gray, soft
Coal , cleated
Sandy shale, dark gray,
soft to hard
Coring
Run
10.0 '
4.6
4.9
10. 0_
Core
Recovery
9.5
3.6
3.9
10.0
Core
Loss
0.5
1.0
1.0
0.0
%
Recovery
95
78
80
100
Remarks
Water stained
healed vertical
joint @ 628.7 -
627 9 followed fa'
water stained
inclined fracture
Water stained
near vertical
joint &
613.0 - 612.3
Piezometer @ 607.
- -
-
\
-------
FULLEFI, MOSSBARGER, SCOTT
CIVIL ENGINEERS, "INC.
LEXINGTON, KENTUCKY
ROCK CORING RECORD
MAY
X
County
Project Name
Surface ELev.
Rock Core Dia.
DriUer
V
Bo yd
Ashland Oil , Inc.
Rt. 3 Landfill
646.4 •
NX
E. Roberts and Z. Carter
Project No.
Core Location
Date Started
Date Completed
Page
84131
84-1
8-20-84
8-22-84
2 of 3
Elevation
593.6
590.0
l£
579.0
577.6
569.8
569.0
561.0
Depth
51.2 =
52.8 =
56. 4~
60.0 =
67.4 =
68.8 ~
70.0 -
72. 2~
76.6—
77.4 =
82.2 =
85.4 =
91.9-
Description of Material
Shale interbedded with
sandstone, gray, hard
Sandstone, light gray,
coarse grained, thinly
bedded, hard, water
stained throughout
Sandstone, interbedded
with shale, gray, f~"ne
grained, hard
Shale, gray, soft to hard
Fireclay, dark gray,
soft, slickensided
Coal, cleated
Fireclay, dark gray to
gray, soft
Shale interbedded with
sandstone, gray, hard
Coring
Run
10.0
8.8
10.0
2.2
10.0
9.7
Core
Recovery
10.0
8.8
10.0
2.2
10.0
9.7
Core
Loss
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
%
Recovery
100
100
100
100
100
100
Remarks
Horizontal joint
@ 596.8
Piezometer @
590.2
-------
FULLER, MOSSBARGER, SCOTT & JVIAV
CIVIL ENGINEERS, INC.
LEXINGTON,KENTUCKV
N ROCK CORING RECORD
County
Project
Surface
Bo yd
Name Ashland Oil , Inc.
Rt. 3 Landfill
Elev. ' 646.4
Rock Core Dia. NX
Driller
E. Roberts and Z. Carter
Project No.
Core Location
Date Started
Date Completed
Page
84131
84-1
8-20-84
8-22-84
3 of
3
Elevation
550.9
549.7
549.1
548.4
547.6
534.5
Depth
95.5 I
96.7 =
97. 3~
98.0 -
-
98.8 -
—
101.9 =
^^^_
111.9 :
^"^
Description of Material
Sandstone with shale
streaks, gray, fine
grained, hard
Shale with sandstone
streaks, gray, soft to
hard
Sandstone, gray, fine
grained, hard
Shale, interbedded with
sandstone, gray, hard
Sandstone with shale
streaks, thinly bedded,
fine grained, hard
Bottom of Hole @ 111.9'
Coring
Run
10.0
10.0
Core
Recovery
10.0
10.0
Core
Loss
0.0
0.0
7".
Recovery
100
100
Remarks
- -
-------
FULLER, MQSSBARGER, SCOTT fiL IVIAY
CIVIL ENGINEERS, INC.
LEXINGTON,KENTUCKY
x ROCK CORING RECORD
County Bo yd
Project Name Ashland Oil, Inc.
Rt. 3 Landfill
Surface Elev. 738.3
Rock Core Dia. NX
Driller E. Roberts and Z. Carter
Project No. 841
Core Location
Date Started
Date Completed
Page
31
84-2
8-22-84
8-23-84
1 of
2
Elevation
728.3
723.1
722.5
708.4
695.3
694.8
686.0
676.6
Depth
10.0 =
15.2 =
15.8 -
18.4 =
22.3 =
29. 9~
32.3—
42.3 -
43.0 =
43.5 =
52. 3~
61.7 Z
Description of Material
Coll uvi urn
Sandy shale, brownish
gray, hard, slightly
weathered, water stained
horizontal fractures
Sandstone, light gray,
fine grained, hard,
partially water stained
Sandy shale, brownish
gray, hard, slightly
weathered, water stained
horizontal fractures
Shale, dark gray to
hi r\ c\f crv T"^ t~n h^ rri
Coal cleated
Sandy fireclay, dark gray
hard to soft
Fireclay, reddish dark
gray, soft, slickensided
Coring
Run
8.4
3.9
10.0
10.0
10.0
9.4
Core
Recovery
7.0
3.7
10.0
9.5
9.1
9.4
Core
Loss
1.4
0.2
0.0
0.5
0.9
0.0
%
Recovery
83
95
100
95
91
100
Remarks
Water stained
near vertical
joint @
714.3 - 712.3
Piezometer @ 694.
- -
-------
FULLER, MOSSBARGER, SCOTT
CIVIL ENGINEERS, INC.
LEXINGTON,KENTUCKY
RECORD
MAY
County
Project Name
Surface Qev.
Rock Core Dia
Driller
Bo yd
Ashland Oil , Inc
Kt. 3 Landfil 1
738.3
NX
E. Roberts and Z. Carter
Project No.
Core Location
Date Started
Date Completed
Page
84131
84-2
8-22-84
8-23-84
2 of
?
Elevation
674.0
656.6
649.1
645.8
635.8
626.6
Depth
64.3 -
71.7 I
81. 7~
•^«
89.2 -
91.7 -
92.5 =
101.7 -
-
102.5 -
-
—
—
111.7 -
—
Description of Material
Sandy fireclay, gray,
soft to hard, slightly
weathered, slickensided
Shale with sandstone
streaks, hard
Shale interbedded with
sandstone, gray, hard
Shale with sandstone
bLrcaNb, gray, ilaiu
Sandy fireclay, dark
gray, soft to hard,
slickensided
Shale interbedded with
sandstone, light gray,
hard
Bottom of Hole @ 111.7'
Coring
Run
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
-
Core
Recovery
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
Core
Loss
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
7o
Recovery
100
100
100
100
100
Remarks
Water stained nee
vertical joint @
673.0 - 671.5
Piezometer @ 652.
- =
-------
FULLER, MOSSBAHC3ER, SCOTT & MAY
CIVIL ENGINEERS, IIMC.~
LEXIIMCTOIM, KENTUCKY
ROCK CORING RECORD
County
Project Name
Surface CLev.
Rock Core Dia.
Driller
Bo yd
Ashland Oil, Inc.
Rt 3 Landfill
654.0
NX
E. Roberts and Z. Carter
Project No.
Core Location
Date Started
Date Completed
Page
84131
54-3
8-27-84
8-28-84
1 of
2
Elevation
644.0
638.6
625.4
611.5
610.0
608.1
601.7
596.8
Depth
10.0 I
15.4 -
17.3 -
21. 9-^
28. 6"1
31. 9~
41. 9~
42.5 -
44. 0~
45.9^
50.4^
52. 3 =
57.2-
Description of Material
Coll uvi urn
Sandy shale, brownish
gray, moderately
weathered
Sandstone with shale
streaks, thinly bedded,
light gray, fine grained,
very hard, water stained
horizontal partings
Shale with sandstone
streaks, gray, hard
Fireclay, dark gray, soft
to hard
Coal , cleated
Sandy shale, gray .to dark
gray, hard
Shale interbedded with
sandstone, gray, very
hard
Coring
Run
7.3
4.6
10.0
10.0
8.5
Core
Recovery
7.0
4.5
9.1
10.0
8.5
Core
Loss
0.3
0.1
0.9
0.0
0.0
%
Recovery
96
98
91
100
100
Remarks
Several water
stained, inclined
and nearly vertic
joints @ 644.0 -
638.6
Water stained nea
vertical joint
628.6 - 628.0
Piezometer @ 607.
-------
FULLER, MOSSBARGEPl, SCOTT &. MAY
CIVIL ENGINEERS, INC.
LEXINGTON, KENTUCKY
, ROCK CORING RECORD
County Bo yd
Ashland Oil , Inc.
Project Name Rt. 3 Landfill
• Surface Elev. 654.0
Rock Core Dia. NX
Driller E. Roberts and Z. Carter
Project No.
Core Location
Date Started
Date Completed
Page
84131
84-3
8-27-84
8-28-84
2 of
2
Elevation
589.7
574.8
570.5
569.8
565.3
562.1
553.6
Depth
60.4 I
64.3 =
70.4 -
79.2 =
80.4 =
83. 5~
84.2—
88.7 -
90.4 =
91.9 Z
100.4 ~
—
Description of Material
Sandstone, light gray,
coarse grained, water
stained
Shale with sandstone
streaks, light gray, hard
Sandy fireclay, dark gray
soft to hard
Coal
Fireclay, dark gray to
gray, soft to hard
Shale with sandstone
streaks, gray, hard
Sandstone with shale
streaks, medium bedded,
gray, very hard
Bottom of Hole 9 100.4'
Coring
Run
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
Core
Recovery
10.0
10.0
10.0
9.5
10.0
Core
Loss
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.5
0.0
%
Recovery
100
100
100
95
100
Remarks
Piezometer @ 590.
-------
FULLER, MOSSBARGER, SCOTT GL MAY
CJVIL EIMC3IIMEERS, INC.
LEXINGTON,KENTUCKY
ROCK CORING RECORD
\
County Bo yd
Ashland th
Project Name Rt. 3 Land'
Surface Elev. 697 . 7
Rock Core Dia. NX
, Inc.
mi
-
Driller E. Roberts and Z. Carter
Project No. 841 31
84—4
Core Location
Date Staned 8-29-84
Date Completed 8- 2 9-84
Paee 1 of
1
Elevation
686.4
676.4
670.6
i
669.4
650.6
639.7
625.1
621.3
617.0
Depth
11.3 =
21.3 -
27.1 =
28.3—
31.0 -
41. 0~
47.1 =
51.0 =
58.0—
60.7 =
70. 7~
72.6 -
76. 4~
80.7 -
—
Description of Material
Coll uvi urn
Shale, light brown, soft,
heavily fractured, water
stained, highly weathered
Sandy fireclay, dark gray,
soft
Sandstone, gray, fine
grained, very hard
Sandy shale, light gray,
hard
Fireclay, dark gray to
gray, soft
Shale interbedded with
sandstone, light gray,
hard
Shale with sandstone
streaks, gray, hard
Fireclay, dark gray, soft
Bottom of Hole @ 80.7'
Coring
Run
10.0
9.7
10.0
10.0
9.7
10.0
10.0
Core
Recovery
4.8
9.7
10.0
9.5
9.7
10.0
7.8
Core
Loss
5.2
0.0
0.0
0.5
0.0
0.0
2.2
<7»
Recovery
48
100
100
95
100
100
78
Remarks
Water stained nee
vertical joint @
670.6 - 669.7
Piezometer @ 666.
Water stained
inclined joint
ra 629.1' and 627.
Piezometer (?
627.5'
-------
FULLER,MOSSBARGER,SCOTT AND MAY
CIVIL ENGINEERS,INC
LEXINGTON.KENTUCKY
PAGE
1 COUNTY
tOAD NAME
\
\
Boyd
AOI Rte. 3 Landfill
.SURFACE ELEVATION 828.8
1 HR 1 LLER
•ROJECT TYPE
(HOLE NUMBER
Roberts/ James
Groundwater
1 TOTAL DEPTH
SUBSURFACE LOG
PROJECT NUMBER
LOCATION
DATE STARTED
LOGGED BY
DEPTH TO WATER:
378.5 DEPTH TO WATER
84131
86-1
6/10/86 COMPLETED
R. Yost
IMMEDIATE N/A
-
6/26/86
DAYS AFTER COMPLETION
LITH
ELEV.
|l 828.8
-822.8
F
"817.3
(=
H
h 810.8
L.
t
802.9
F-
*" 796.0
I
P~ 789.0
E~788.2
>_ 785.1
R
F 777.3
E_
t_
OLOGY
DEPTH
0.0
6.0
11.5
13.7
18.0
23.7
25.9
32.8
33.7
39.8
40.6
43.7
51.5
OVERBURDEN
OPTC!? I FT I ON --
ROCK CORE
Silty Clay, brown, moist,
stiff
Shale, brown, very highly
weathered, soil-like
Shale, gray-brown, w/clay
s earns , wea ther ed
Siltstone, gray, with sand-
stone streaks
Clay Shale, dark gray
Shale, gray
Sandstone, light gray, very
fine grained
Shale, gray
Clay Shale, dark gray, with
clay seams and scattered
slickensided partings
!
SAMPLE
NO.
ROD
0%
58%
6%
54%
DEPTH
RUN
2.2
10.0
10.0
10.0
-
REG.
FT.
REC.'
FT.
2.2
9.9
10.0
10.0
BLOWS
REC.
%
100%
100%
100%
100%
TYPE
SO I
REMARKS
Begin Core
@ 11.5
Joints - Near
Vertical
Weathered
17.0-17.3
811.8-811.5 -
17.7-18.0
811.1-810.8
Joint - 70° '
24.5 - 24.8
804.3-804.0
Slightly
Weathered
—
-
—
Maroon Stains
50.0-51.5
7J8.8-777.3
-
-------
ROJECT NO.
FULLER,MOSSBARGER,SCOTT AND MAY PAGE.
CIVIL ENGINEERS,INC.
LEXINGTON.KENTUCKY
SUBSURFACE LOG (CONT'D)
x LOCATION .
OF.
HOLE NO..
L 1 THOLOGY
ELEV.
J 777.3
- 775.1
^- 773.0
H-
.' 767.0
E-
• 761.5
E-
• 759.8
I
t
~. 728.2
E^
t
• 719.2
_' 713.0
_ 703.9
. 692.2
::
DEPTH
51.5
53.7
55.8
61.8
63.7
67.3
69.0
73.7
83.7
93.7
95.2
100.6
109.6
113.7
115.8
124.9
133.7
136.6
*
DESCRIPTION*
OVEFiBURDEN
ROCK CORE
Sandstone, light gray,
medium grained
Clay Shale, da
rk gray
Coal, black with black
shale and bone partings,
scattered cleats
Sandstone, dark gray, fine
grained w/shale partings
Sandstone, light gray, fine
grained w/shale partings
Sandstone, gray-brown,
coarse grained
w/scattered
conglomerate zones, water
stained throughout
Sandstone, light gray,
fine to medium grained
Clay Shale, gray with
scattered slickensided
partings
Siltstone, gray with
scattered shale partings
Sandstone, gray with
scattered shale partings
and inclusions, medium
grained
SAMPLE
ROD
14%
21%
69%
92%
72%
0% .
54%
51%
DEPTH
RUN
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
1.5
8.5
10.0
PI?'
H?-
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
1.4
8.5
10.0
BLOWS
*EC.
100%
100%
100%
100%
94%
100%
100%
TYPE
SO I
.
REMARKS
-
-
Water Stained
Partings
68.1 - 68.4
760.7 - 760.4
Joint - 70°
80.0 - 80.3
748.8 - 748.5 -
Water Stained
Joints - Near
Vertical
89.5 - 89.9
739.3 - 738.9
92.1 - 92.5
736.7 - 736.3
94.0 - 94.5
734.8 - 734.3
94.9 - 95.2
733.9 - 733.6
Weathered, friab
Water Stained
Water Stained -
102.3 - 108.2
726.5 - 720.6
T-J — f. _ TO0 t-n
Near Vertical
130,5 r 131.2 -
698% 3 - 697.2- -
-------
•ROJECT NO.
FULLER,MOSSBARGER,SCOTT AND MAY
_ CIVIL ENGINEERS,INC.
LEXINGTON,KENTUCKY
SUBSURFACE LOG (CONT'D)
84131 . x LOCATION API Rte. 3 Landfill
PAGE.
OF.
HOLE NO..
LITHO
ELEV.
.: 692.2
t 690.4
t_ 681.0
-
I
!=-.
: 671.6
b-
671.6
H^
669.2
• 666.9
—
E
7 648.9
t
"
J 642.8
b
, • 640.5
|-_
•
b
; 631.6
h_
1—
• 626.3
F-
i-
619.5
CT
.'- 611.5
t
LOGY
DEPTH
136.6
138.4
1 /. *3 1
14 O • /
147.8
i ";T 7
Ijj . /
156.9
157.2
159.6
161.4
163.7
161.9
173.7
179.9
i at 7
1.0 J . /
186.0
188.3
193.7
197.2
202.5
203.7
209.3
213.7
217.3
OVERBURDEN
DESCRIPTION
ROCK CORE
Clay Shale, gray
Siltstone, gray w/sandstone
streaks and seams
Shale, dark gray
........
Coal Bone, black
Fireclay, dark gray
Siltstone, dark gray with
scattered shale partings
Sandy Shale, dark gray,
with sandstone streaks and
scattered clay seams
Sandstone, light gray, with
. i . f • . •
shale streaks, tine grained.
Shale, dark gray, with
scattered clay seams
Clay Shale, gray w/brown
and red-brown zones, with
clay seams and slickensided
partings
Shale, dark gray, scattered
thin clay seams
Sandstone, light gray, with
shale streaks and seams
Sandy Shale, gray with
sandstone streaks
-
SA^LE
ROD
CLCtV
UU7
. . 8%
48%.
43%
toy
20%
42%
63%
DEPTH
RUN
inn
inn
.7.7
. 2.3. .
10.0
inn
10.0
10.0
10.0
P??-
H?-
TOO
100
7.7
.2.3
10.0
100
10.0
10.0
10.0
BLOWS
^c-
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
.
100%
100%
TYPE
SDI
-
REMARKS
Joints - 70°
1 SI 0 - 151 3
677.0 - 677.5
152.6 - 153.0
676.2 - 675.8
Calcite Streaks
163.0 - 165.0
665.8 - 663.8
Joint ~- 45° . __
Slickensided
215.0 - 215.4
• -
-------
ROJECT NO.
FULLER,MOSSBARGER.SCOTT AND MAY
CIVIL ENGINEERS,INC.
- LEXINGTON,KENTUCKY
SUBSURFACE LOG (CONT'D)
84131. LOCATION API Rte. 3 Landfill
PAGE OF
HOLE NO..
LITHOLOGY
ELEV.
- 611.5
-609.6
F
. I 604.3
t-
f^-596.9
,- 595.3
IT
P~ 583.0
l_
^ 576.6
f- 571.9
^ 565.8
E 563.6
I1 560.6
L 558.6
k
" 555.1
E-
H-552.6
P~ 554.3
i-
DEPTH
217.3
219.2
223.7
224.5
231.9
233.5
233.7
243.7
245.8
252.2
253.7
256.9
263.0
263.7
265.2
268.2
270.2
273.7
276.2
283.7
284.5
DESCRIPTION
OVERBURDEN
ROCK CORE
Shale, dark gray with
scattered thin
clay seams
Sandstone, light gray, with
shale streaks
fine grained
and seams ,
Coal, black w/bone, black
shale and shale partings,
scattered cleats
Fireclay, gray
Shale, gray, with thin
scattered clay seams
Sandy Shale, gray with
sandstone streaks and
scattered clay seams
Sandstone, light gray, with
shale streaks
Shale, dark gray with thin
scattered clay seams
Clay Shale, dark gray
Coal, black, with bone
partings, scattered cleats
Fireclay, gray
Siltstone, gray
Sandstone, light gray, with
shale streaks, fine grained
Shale, gray w/scattered
~
c.Lay seams
SAMPLE
ROD
24%
0%
44% .
46%
39%
34%
55%
DEPTH
RUN
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
REC.
FT.
Pr?-
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
BLOWS
REC.
%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
TYPE
SDI
-
-
REMARKS
613.8 - 613.4
Joints - Near
Vertical
242.8 - 243.1
244.0 - 244.7
586.0 - 585.7
584.8 - 584.1
-
Joint - Near
Vertical
273.7 - 274.0
555.1 - 554.8
- -_
-------
FULLER,MOSSBARGER,SCOTT AND MAY
CIVIL ENGINEERS,INC.
LEXINGTON,KENTUCKY
SUBSURFACE LOG (CONT'D)
PAGE.
OF.
. rlOJECT NO.
84131
LOCATION
API Rte. 3 Landfill
HQLE
LITHO
ELEV.
544.3
P
I- 538.7
h_
|_ 530.2
h—
^~527.9
\T
'. 524.3
F
522.8
t
- 518.6
t
"
h 508.7
h
P
""-506.5
.
K 505.9
1 —
CL505.4
E-
i 499.2
1—
F
LOCY
DEPTH
284.5
290.1
293.7
298.6
299.7
300.9
303.7
304.5
306.0
310.2
313.7
320.1
322.3
322.9
323.4
323.7
329.6
> OVERBURDEN
DESCRIPTION
ROCK CORE
Sandstone, light gray with
shale streaks and clay _....
seams, fine grained
Sandstone, gray, with shale
streaks, medium grained
Sandstone, gray, with coal
spars and shale streaks,
medium grained
Shale, gray, with sandstone
streaks and scattered thin
clay seams
Sandstone, gray, medium
grained
Sandstone, gray, with coal
spars, medium grained
Sandstone, gray, medium
grained
Sandstone, gray, w/coal
spars and seams , medium
grained
Coal, black
Sandstone, gray, rooted,
fine grained
Shale, dark gray w/coal
streaks and clay seams
;
SAMPLE
ROD
50%
52%
72%
80%
82%
DEPTH
RUN
10.0
6.0
4.0
10.0
10.0
K-
ff?-
10.0
6.0
4.0
10.0
10.0
BLOWS
REC.
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
TYPE
SDI
REMARKS
^_
—
—
Joint - 70°
•jfi-j n O/T3 /i
JUJ.U — JUj.'f _
COC Q _ COC A
~
—
coc i AQB 1
juj . J- 'tyo .x
323.7 - 330.7
Loss of Core
Due to Pulver-
ization from ~
Malf unct ioning
Core Barrel
—
-------
ROJECT NO.
FULLER,MOSSBARGER,SCOTT AND MAY PAQE_L_OF_±
CIVIL ENGINEERS,INC.
LEXINGTON.KENTUCKY - ~
SUBSURFACE LOG (CONT'D)
84131 LOCATION API Rte. 3 Landfill HOLE NO._L_
LITHOUOGY
ELEV.
499.2
1=
E,
• 47,6.2
U
— 473.9
E-
472.2
E-
469.6
t"
" 466.4
—
H 4*1.8
k
C 458.3
i_
t 452.8
~450.3
DEPTH
329.6
330.7
333.5
343.5
352.6
353.5
354.9
356.6
359.2
362.4
363.5
367.0
370.5
373.5
376.0
378.5
'» OVERBURDEN
DESCRIPTION^
ROCK CORE
Sandstone, light gray,
/ ^«- Jlil *- 7
w/ scattered snaxe streaics,
fine grained
Shale, gray
Sandstone, light gray,
with shale streaks, fine
grained
Coal, black, w/scattered
cleats
Sandy Fireclay, dark gray,
w/scattered slickensided
partings
Shale, black, w/sandstone
streaks and seams
Coal, black, scattered
cleats
Fireclay, gray, with slick-
ensided partings
Siltstone, gray
Bottom of Hole @ 378.5
SAMPLE-
ROD
16%
100%
96%
91%
64%
37%
47%
DEPTH
RUN
7.0
2.8
10.0
10.0
"10.0
10.0
5.0
fff'
REG.
FT.
1.7
2.8
10.0
10.0
10.0
9.7
5.0
BLOWS
REC.
24%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
TYPE
SO I
REMARKS
Joint - 45°
352.8 - 352.9
Slickensided
476.0 - 475.9
-
-
-
-
-
- =.
-------
FULLER,MOSSBARQCn,SCOTT AND MAY
CIVIL ENGINEERSjNC
tEXINGTON,KENTUCKY
PAQB.
SUBSURFACE LOG
BOUNTY Boyd
ROAD NAME A.OI Rte. 3 Landfill
SURFACE ELEVATION 875.2
DRILLER Roberts /James
PROJECT TYPE Groundwater
HOLE NUMBER 2 TOTAL DEPTH
PROJECT NUMBER
LOCAT ION
DATE STARTED
LOGGED BY
DEPTH TO WATER:
DEPTH TO WATER
84131
86-2
7/11/86 COMPLETED
R. Yost
IMMEDIATE
DAYS AFTER COMPLETION
LITHOLOGY
ELEV.
r 875.2
' 872.7
t
—865.2
E_
t_863.7
(^
E-
I 850.2
tr
- 8A3.2
- 843.0
-
- 838.7
~838.2
t-
.834.3
U 833.6
h_
P 831.3
DEPTH
0.0
2.5
10.0
11.5
13.4
23.4
25.0
32.0
32.2
33.4
36.5
37.0
40.9
41.6
43.4
43.9
OVERBURDEN
ROCK CORE
Clay, red-brown, moist,
stiff
Shale, brown, decomposed,
soil-like
Limestone, gray-brown,
fossilif erous
Clay Shale, brown, weathered,
with clay seams
Clay Shale, gray, weathered,
with clay seams
Coal Bone, black
Clay Shale, gray with thin
coal seams
Coal and Black Shale
Fireclay, gray
Limestone, gray, argillaceous
Sandstone, dark gray, with
shale seams, very fine
grained
SAMPLE
NO.
ROD
14% '
8%
0%
18%
DEPTH
RUN
3.4
10.0
10.0
10.0
REC.
FT.
REC,
FT.
3.3
10.0
10.0
9.2
BLOWS
REC .
%
100%
100%
92%
TYPE
SDI
REMARKS
Joint - 45°
13.4 - 13.6 _
861.8 - 861.6
Weathered
Joints - Near
Vertical
14.0 - 14.2 -
861.2 - 861.0
14.5 - 14.7
860.7 - 860.5-
15.9 - 16.7
859.3 - 858.5
All Weathered
Joint - 70% to
Near Vertical,
21.4 - 21.8
853.8 - 853.4
Weathered ,
^rtially Heal
-
-
"~ —
—
-------
FULLER,MOSSBARGER,SCOTT AND MAY
CIVIL ENGINEERS,INC. _
LEXINGTON.KENTUCKY
SUBSURFACE LOG (CONT'D)
PAGE_2_
OF.
flOJECT NO.
84131 x
LOCATION API Rte. 3 Landfill
HOLE NO..
LITHOLOGY
ELEV.
- 831.3
"825.0
t- 823.7
t 823.0
~820.0
F
• 816.2
813.5
t
- 805.0
p;
" 798.8
•I 795.2
' 784.4
t-
I 783.9
~ 782.9
CT
'- 728.5
DEPTH
43.9
50.2
51.5
52.2
53.4
55.2
59.0
61.7
63.4
70.2
73.4
76.4
80.0
83.4
90.8
91.3
92.3
93.4
103.4
113.4
123.4
133.4
143.4
146.7
DESCRIPTION'
OVERBURDEN
ROCK CORE
Shale, gray with thin clay
seams
Sandstone, light gray, with
shale streaks,
fine grained
Sandy Shale, gray with
sandstone streaks
Clay Shale, dark gray, with
clay seams
Limestone, dark gray,
argillaceous,
zones
with clay
Sandstone, light gray, fine
grained
Clay Shale, gray to red-
brown, with clay zones
SAMPLE
ROD
16%
35%
Sandstone, light gray, with]
shale streaks,
fine grained
Sandy Shale, gray, with
sandstone streaks
Clay Shale, da
gray brown, w/
rk gray to
clay zones
Coal Bone, black
Sandy Fireclay, dark gray
Sandstone, brown w/occ.
gray zones, shale streaks,
fine to medium grained
_
4%
44%
9%
97%
89%
97%
93%
91%
DEPTH
RUN
10,0
-10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
ff?-
K-
9.6
10.0
9.6
10.0
9.5
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
BLOWS
"%C"
96%
100%
96%
100%
95%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
TYPE
SO I
REMARKS
Joint - 70°
48.8 - 49.2
Water Stained ~
826.4 - 826.0
.
-
—
Joint - 70°
70.3 - 70.7 •
804.9 - 804.5
—
—
__
Water Stained
92.3 - 146.7
782.9 - 728.5
Joints - Near
Vertical-
123.4 - 123.6 --
143.4 - 143.6
Weathered _I
751.8 - 751;6
731.8 _- 731.6 -
-------
PAGE 3 OF.
ROJECT NO.
FULLER,MOSSBARGER,SCOTT AND MAY
CIVIL ENGINEERS,INC.
-LEXINGTON,KENTUCKY
SUBSURFACE LOG (CONT'D)
84131 LOCATION API Rte. 3 Landfill HOLE NO.
L1THC
1 ELEV.
• 728.5
: 716.4
|l-
•
h~
699.8
F
^ 698.4
•-
.-" 684.9
r
f- 684.2
t-673.7
tl 672.2
1
p- 670.3
F
• 667.1
U
i-~651.7
t
)LOGY
DEPTH
146.7
153.4
158.8
163.4
173.4
175.8
176.8
1 R1 Q
J.O J . O
190.3
191.0
193.4
201.5
203.0
203.4
204.9
208.1
213.4
223.4
223.5
\ OVERBURDEN
DESCRIPTION
ROCK CORE
Sandstone, gray w/shale
streaks, fine to medium
grained
Sandy Shale, gray, with
sandstone streaks and
scattered thin clay seams
Shale, black
Shale, dark gray
Limestone, dark gray,
fossil iferous
Shale, dark gray
Coal, black, cleated
Sandy Shale, gray with
sandstone streaks
Fireclay, dark gray, with
slickensided partings,
scattered plastic and sandy
zones
Sandy Shale, gray with
sandstone streaks and
seams '
SAMPLE
ROD
100%
86%
90%
y u/o
88%
82%
61%
82%
DEPTH
RUN
10.0
10.0
10.0
10. 0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
£??•
REC.
FT.
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
BLOWS
REC.
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
TYPE
SDI
-
REMARKS
Joints - Near
Vertical
163.4 - 163.6
711.8 - 711.6
164.2 - 164.4
711.0 - 708.8
176.1 - 176.3
699.1 - 698.9
Joint - 45°
177.0 - 177.2
698.2 - 698.0
Slickensided
Joint — Near
Vertical
179.6 - 179.8
695.6 - 695.4
Joint - 70°
181.1 - 181.6
694.1 - 693.6
Joint - 45°
182.7 - 182.8
Slickensided
692.5 - 692.4
— -
"-"
-------
^ROJECT NO.
FULLER,MOSSBARGER,SCOTT AND MAY
CIVIL ENGINEERS,INC.
LEX*NGTON,KENTUCK¥
SUBSURFACE LOG (CONT'D)
84131 LOCATION API Rte. 3 Landfill
PAGE.
OF__Z_
HOLE NO..
L1THOLOGY
ELEV.
! 651.7
F 639.5
t 635.8
^-~631.6
r
• 621.8
? """
"_ 613.2
t
* "610.8
t
• 605.1
t_
-;-• 602.6
h_
; 599.7
E-
• 596.5
\-
*T 595.6
• 593.4
r
592.8
f '
DEPTH
223.5
233.4
235.7
239.4
243.4
243.6
253.4
262.0
263.4
264.4
270.1
272.6
273.4
275.5
278.7
279.6
281.8
282.4
DESCHIPTION
OVERBURDEN
ROCK CORE
Sandstone, light gray, with
shale streaks and scattered
shale seams, fine grained
Shale, dark gray, with
scattered clay seams
Fireclay, maroon w/gray
zones, w/slickensided
partings
Sandy Shale, gray w/sand-
stone streaks and scattered
very thin coal seams
Sandstone, gray w/shale
streaks, fine
grained
Sandy Shale, gray with
sandstone streaks
Shale, dark gray with clay
seams
Siltstone, gray w/shale
streaks
Shale, dark gray
Shale, black with scattered
slickensided partings
Coal, black
Siltstone, dark gray with
scattered coal streaks
Sandstone, light gray, with
shale streaks,
fine grained
SAMPLE
NO.
ROD
87%
31%
68%
98% '
43%
DEPTH
RUN
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
{???•
PT?'
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
BLOWS
"%c'
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
TYPE
SD1
REMARKS
Joint - Near
Vertical
246.4 - 246.6
628.8 - 628.6
- -
-------
OJECT NO.
FULLER,MOSSBARGER,SCOTT AND MAY
CIVIL ENGINEERS,INC.
LEXINGTON.KENTUCKY
SUBSURFACE LOG (CONT'D)
LOCATION API Rte, 3 Landfill HQLE
PAGE 5 OF 7
LJTHC
I ELEV.
592.8
E_
590.2
t 586.6
f- 578.2
fcr
- u_566.7
i
565.5
F
- 560.3
E
7 547.3
P
">_• 539.2
h
h
496.5
E-
496.3
j —
F-
492.8
P"
~496.3
C 492.8
1- 492.4
r
- 483.9
b
5LOGY
DEPTH
282.4
283.4
285.0
288.6
293.4
297.0
303.4
308.5
309.7
313.4
314.9
323.4
327.9
m /•
JJJ .4
336.0
343.4
353.4
363.4
373.4
378.7
378.9
382.4
378.9
382.4
382.8
383.4
391.3
'» OVERBURDEN
DUSCRIPTION x
ROCK CORE
Shale, black with coal and
coal bone
Shale, dark gray
Siltstone, gray
Sandstone, light gray, with
shale streaks, fine grained
Shale, gray with clay seams
Sandstone, light gray, with
shale streaks, fine grainec
Sandy Fireclay, gray, with
slickensided partings
Sandy Shale, gray, with
Sandstone, light gray, with
shale streaks & occasional
scattered coal spars, fine
to medium grained
Coal, black
Sandstone, light gray with
shale streaks, fine grained
Coal, black w/black shale
Sandstone, light gray, with
shale streaks, fine grained
Coal, black w/black shale
Fireclay, dark gray
SAMPLE
NO.
ROD
41%
90%
95%
84%
43%
o o"y
OJ%
93%
90%
95%
76%
86%
DEPTH
RUN
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0 •
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
H?-
»?•
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
BLOWS
REC.
•h
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100.4
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
TYPE
SO I
REMARKS
-
_
_
-
-
-
-
-
•
-
-
-
-
—
-
—
_
—
-
-
_
^^~"
—
—
_
^^^
—
— -
__
~~~
* r —
__
—
-------
ROJECT NO.
FULLER,MOSSBARGER,SCOTT AND MAY PAGE_!_OF_I_
CIVIL ENGINEERS,INC.
LEXJNGTON,KENTUCKY ' ~ ~ _
SUBSURFACE LOG (CONT'D)
84131 LOCATION API Rte. 3 Landfill HOLE NO._L_
UITHOLOGY
[ ELEV.
• 483.9
E.
471.2
t
470.6
E-
461.5
^
459.2
t 455.3
h 449.6
r
'-446.9
• 443.6
t 431.8
|_ 427.8
\-_
424.2
E.
' 422.6
£-
P- 402.8
P 392.3
P~
374.5
E"
DEPTH
391.3
393.4
403.4
404.0
404.6
413.4
413.7
416.0
419.9
423.4
425.6
428.3
431.6
433.4
443.4
447.4
451.0
452.6
453.4
463.4
472.4
473.4
482.9
483.4
493.4
500.7
\
DESCRIPTION
OVERBURDEN
ROCK CORE
Sandy Shale, gray, with
sandstone streaks
Sandstone, light gray, with
shale streaks,
fine grained
Sandy Shale, gray with
sandstone streaks
Coal, black, w/black shale
Sandy Fireclay, gray
Shale, black
Coal, black, cleated
Fireclay, black
Shale , gray
Shale, black
Siltstone, gray
Shale, black w/interbedded
sandstone and coal streaks
Sandstone, light gray, with
coal spars, medium grained
Sandy Shale, gray, with
sandstone streaks
Sandstone, light gray,
with shale streaks, fine
grained
M£LK
ROD
37%
85%
70%
40%
10%
51%
55%
67%
53%
94%
96%
DEPTH
RUN
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
ff?-
Pfr-
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
BLOWS
REC.
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
TYPE
SDI
"•
REMARKS
-
-
"
-
-
-
-
-
- =
-
-------
PROJECT NO.
FULLER,MOSSBARGER,SCOTT AND MAY PAGE_L_ OF_L
CIVIL ENGINEERS,INC.
~LEXINGTON,KENTUCKY
SUBSURFACE LOG (CONT'D) -
8*131 LOCATION API Rte. 3 Landfill HOLE HO- 2
LITHOLOGY
ELEV.
. 374.5
t_
• 354.8
E
-, 353.7
351.8
F
K
E"
F
E_
E-
r~
i
r •'
'tr
F~
DEPTH
500.7
503.4
513.4
520.4
521.5
523.4
DBCIUPrioN
OVERBURDEN
ROCK CORE
Sandstone, light gray,
massive, fine
Sandstone, lig
coal spars, me
grained
ht gray, with
dium grained
Sandy Shale, gray, disturb-
ed bedding
Bottom of Hole @ 523.4
SAMPLE
ROD
94%
97%
94%
DEPTH
RUN
10.0
10.0
10.0
PI?-
PI?-
10.0
10.0
10. a
•
BLOWS
REC.
100%
100%
100%
TYPE
SD1
-. -.
REMARKS
- =
-------
FULLER,MOSSBARGER,SCOTT AND MAY
CIVIL ENGINEERS,INC
LEXINGTON,KENTUCKY
SUBSURFACE LOG
PAGE
.OF.
, COUNTY B°yd
'•TOAD NAME AOI Rte. 3 Landfill
SURFACE ELEVATION 806.7
(DRILLER Roberts & James
>ROJECT TYPE Groundwater
(HOLE NUMBER 3 TOTAL DEPTH
PROJECT NUMBER 84131
LOCATION 86-3
DATE STARTED 6/30/86 COMPLETED
LOGGED BY R. Yost
DEPTH TO WATER-. IMMEDIATE
7/8/86
DEPTH TO WATER DAYS AFTER COMPLETION
I LITHOLOGY
ELEV.
h 806.7
800.7
*~ 791.0
E_
784.1
h
r~
t-
|~ 731.2
1
E-
E-
_728.7
t ••
E
"712.8
1=
E_ '
692.6
1=
DEPTH
0.0
6.0
15.7
22.6
23.7
33.7
43.7
53.7
63.7
73.7
75.5
78.0
83.7
93.7
93.9
103.7
113.7
114.1
DESCRIPTION
OVERBURDEN
ROCK CORE
Silty Clay, brown, moist,
stiff
Shale, gray-brown, decomposed
soil-like
Sandstone, brown w/ shale
streaks & scattered clay
seams, weathered, fine
grained
Sandstone, brown, w/scattered
pebble conglomerate zones,
slightly weathered, coarse
grained
Conglomerate, gray & brown,
large gravels and coarse
sand
Shale, gray w/s
clay seams
scattered thin
Siltstone, gray
SAMPLE
ROD
34%
94% '
92%
77%
86%
64%
74%
41%
97%
91%
DEPTH
RUN
8.0
REC.
FT.
REC.-
FT.
8.0
10.0 ilO.O
BLOWS
REC;
%
100%
100%
10.0 ilO.O 100%
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
TYPE
spi
-
REMARKS
Begin Core
@ 15.7'
Water Stained
Throughout
15.7-22.6
791.0-784.1
Water Stained -
Throughout
22.6-75.5
784.1-731.2 -
Joints Near
Vertical
50.5-50.8
756.2-755.9
67.4-67.7
739.3-739.0
Clay Filled
Joint - 45°
722.5 - 722.3
84.2-84.4
Joints Near
Vertical
89.4-90.9
717.3-715.8
92.5-84.4
714.2-713.1 "
Clay Tilled - -
Partings @ -—
112.9 & 110.5-
110.7
696.2-696.0 -
-------
^ROJECT NO.
FULLER,MOSSBARGER,SCOTT AND MAY PAQE_!_ op_5_
CIVIL ENGINEERS,INC.
_ LEXINGTON,KENTUCKY
SUBSURFACE LOG (CONT'D)
84131 LOCATION API Rte. 3 Landfill HOLE MO. 3
L.ITHC
I ELEV.
: 692.6
h 691.8
r~
}- 682.4
1
t
680.3
IT-
666.1
b
u~ 662.0
h
1- 657.9
t 657.4
u
- 651.7
h—
E.
'h 645.7
( .
F~ 637.9
•j
. 632.2
t~
E"
JLOGY
DEPTH
114.1
114.9
123.7
124.3
126.4
133.7
140.6
143.7
144.7
148.8
149.3
153.7
155.0
161.0
163.7
168.8
173.7
174.5
DESCniPT.Ot* OVE^URDEN
ROCK CORE
Coal & Bone, black
Fireclay, gray, w/scattered
slickensided partings
Sandstone, It. gray, very
fine grained
Shale, light gray, with
scattered clay seams
Siltstone, It. gray
Sandy Shale, gray
Clay Shale, gray
Sandstone, It. gray with
shale streaks, very fine
grained
Shale, gray, with scattered
clay and sandstone seams
Clay Shale, gray with
maroon zones, scattered
slickensided partings
Siltstone, gray
SAMPLE
ROD
54%
58%
80%
i
79%
33%
: 20%
DEPTH
RUN
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
OF/""
FT'T
REC.
FT.
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
BLOWS
REC.
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
TYPE
SDI
REMARKS
Joint Near
Vertical
124.7 - 126.4
Partially Healec
682.0 - 680.3
Joint - 70°
148.3 - 148.4
Slickensided
658.4 - 658.3
Joint Near
Vertical
158.0 - 159.1
648.7 - 647.6
- =
-------
>ROJECT NO.
FULLER,MOSSBARGER,SCOTT AND MAY
CIVIL ENGINEERS,INC.
LEXINGTON,KENTUCKY —
SUBSURFACE LOG (CONT'D)
84131 LOCATION API Rte. 3 Landfill
PAGE 3 OF L
HOLE NO..
LITHO
1 ELEV.
; 632.2
R-630.4
F 629.1
1 —
t_ 626.4
r- 624.3
E-
v—623.3
b
[_-~ 620.3
F
'_ 618.3
P
7 617 . 7
fl
_ 604.3
^ 604.0
r- 601.6
t-
h-' 600.0
E-
1_ 599.2
h
' 598.7
r
_597.9
E
LOGY
DEPTH
174.5
176.3
177.6
180.3
182.4
183.4
183.7
186.8
188.4
189.0
193.7
202.4
202.7
203.7
205.1
206.7
207.5
208.0
208.8
OVERBURDEN
DESCRIPTION
ROCK CORE
Sandstone, light gray, with
shale streaks, fine grained
Sandy Shale, gray
Sandstone, light gray, with
shale streaks, fine grained
Shale, gray
Limestone, gray-brown,
argillaceous
Sandstone, light gray, with
shale streaks, fine grained
Shale, gray
Sandstone, light gray, with
shale streaks, fine grained
Shale, gray with numerous
clay seams
Coal Bone, black
Sandy Fireclay, dark gray
Sandy Shale, dark gray,
with sandstone streaks
Sandstone, light gray, with
shale streaks, fine grainec
Shale, dark gray
Coal, black, scattered
cleats
SAMPLE
NO.
ROD
33%
53%
8%
»
DEPTH
RUN
10.0
10.0
10.0
PI?-
PI?-
10.0
10.0
9.8
BLOWS
REC.
100%
100%
98%
TYPE
SDI
REMARKS
'
-
Joint - 70°
190.8 - 191.3 -
Slickensided
615.9 - 615.4
-
— -
-
-------
PROJECT NO.
OF.
FULLER,MOSSBARGER,SCOTT AND MAY PAQE_J
CIVIL ENGINEERSfINC. „
LEXINGTON.KENTUCKY
SUBSURFACE LOG (CONT'D)
84131 LOCATION API Rte, 3 Landfill HOLE NO.__JL
LITHOLOGY
I EL.EV.
! 597.9
E.
, ' 596.7
h-
f- 590.7
b
1-^-589.2
h
£~585.3
t-
^ 578.1
• 574.8
p 573.0
t 571.5
t-563.4
•
I7"554.4
-
P~547.7
: 530.4
1-
^
E 504.0
DEPTH
208.8
210.0
213.7
216.0
217.5
221.4
223.7
228.6
231.9
233.7
235.2
243.3
243.7
252.3
253.7
259.0
263.7
273.7
276.3
283.7
293.7
302.7
DESCRIPTION
OVERBURDEN
ROCK CORE
Shale, dark gray
Sandy Shale, gray, with .
sandstone streaks
Shale, dark gray, with
clay seams
Sandy Shale, gray with
sandstone streaks
Sandstone, light gray,
with shale streaks, fine
grained
Sandy Shale, gray , with
sandstone streaks
Shale, gray with clay seams
Silt stone, dark gray
Sandy Fireclay
, dark gray
Sandy Shale, gray with
sandstone streaks
Sandstone, light gray with
shale streaks,
fine grained
Sandstone, gray, scattered
shale streaks,
grained
medium
Sandstone, gray, with coal
spars, shale s
occasional sha
medium grained
treaks and
le seams,
S^UE
ROD
50%
55%
60%
29%
81%
98%
100%
86%
93%
DEPTH
RUN
10.0
10.0
f
4
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
Hf-
REC.
FT.
10.0
10.0
10.0
9.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
BLOWS
REC.
100%
100%
100%
90%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
TYPE
SDI
REMARKS
Joint - 70°
210.8 - 211.3
Slickensided
595.9 - 595.4
— .=
-------
^OJECT NO.
FULLER, MOSSBARGER.SCOTT AND MAY
CIVIL ENGINEERS,INC.
LEXINGTON.KENTUCKY
SUBSURFACE LOG (CONT'D)
LOCATION AQI Rte- 3 Landfill HQLg MQ
PAGE_!_OF_!
"LITHC
1 ELEV.
' 504.0
h
h_
, ; 485.2
t
h
E-
, '. 475.4
*- 461.0
[l 460.7
r 458.4
J2
_ 455.1
t
t
7 453.0
L."
•L- 444.7
h
C_
t
E-
i
F
FT
3LOGY
DEPTH
302.7
303.7
313.7
321.5
323.7
331.3
333.7
343.7
345.7
346.0
348.3
351.6
353.7
362.0
DESCI7IPTION «««««
ROCK CORE
Sandstone, gray, massive,
medium grained
Sandstone, gray, with coal
spars, scattered streaks
and seams, and scattered
pebble conglomerate zones,
fine to medium grained
Sandstone, gray, massive,
fine grained
Coal Bone, black
Sandy Fireclay, dark gray
Shale, black
Coal, black with shale
partings, scattered cleats
Shale, gray with scattered
clay seams
Bottom of Hole @ 362.0'
SAMPLE
ROD
90%
97%
97%
96%
98%
45%
73%
DEPTH
RUN
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
.
10.0
8.3
fff'
H?-
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
8.3
BLOWS
REC.
•ft
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
TYPE
SOI
REMARKS
—
—
Joint - Near
Vertical •
333.7 - 333.9
473.0 - 472.8
—
__
.
—
Joint - 45° :
354.4 - 354.6
Slickensided
452.3 - 452.1
-------
I
I
FULLER,MOSSBARGER,SCOTT AND MAY
CIVIL ENGINEERS,INC -
LEXINGTON.KENTUCKY
SUBSURFACE LOG
PAGE
.OF.
IbjUNTY Boyd
IfiOAD NAME AOI Rte. 3 Landfill
KURFACE
(DRILLER
•>ROJECT
ELEVATION 577.6
Roberts/ James
TYPE Groundwater
THOLE NUMBER 4 TOTAL DEPTH
I
p LITHOLOGY
• ELEV.
T; 477.6
1_562.6
•-557.1
f~528.7
J 524.7
1_486.0
r
I 482.8
!
F476.3
^.
474.2
f
DEPTH
0.0
15.0
20.5
23.1
33.1
43.1
48.9
52.9
53.1
63.1
73.1
83.1
91.6
93.1
94.8
101.3
103.1
103.4
DESCRIPTION
OVERBURDEN
ROCK CORE
Clayey Sand, brown, moist,
medium dense
Sandstone, brown, friable.
highly weathered, soil-like
Sandstone, gray w/scattered .
shale streaks,
fine grained
Sandy Shale, gray with sand-
stone streaks
Sandstone, gray w/scattered
coal spars and
fine grained
shale streaks
Siltstone, light gray
Sandy Shale, gr
sandstone strea
ay with .... .
ks
Sandstone, gray with shale
streaks and seams, fine
grained
PROJECT NUMBER
LOCATION
84131
86-4
DATE STARTED COMPLETED
LOGGED
BY R- Yost
DEPTH TO WATER
DEPTH TO WATER
SAMPLE
NO.
ROD
74%
93%
98%
78%
89%
91%
95%
87%
65%
DEPTH
RUN
2.6
10.0
-10.0
4
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
IMMEDIATE
DAYS AFTER COMPLETION
»?'
K'
2.6
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
BLOWS
REC.
1,
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
TYPE
SDI
-
REMARKS
-
-
Begin Core -
@ 20.5 -
Joint - Near -
Vertical
QO 7 *JO 1 —
JZ * / — oJ . J.
544.9 - 544.5 -
Water Stained —
Partings @
20.5 - 21.7
557. 1 - 555.9-1
Joint: - 45° I.
52.1 - 52.4 —
525.5 - 525.2 =
—
-
-
-
—
-
— — . -
M^Vi
-------
I
I
FULLER,MOSSBARGER,SCOTT AND MAY PAGE_!_OF_L
CIVIL ENGINEERS,INC.
LEXINGTON.KENTUCKY
SUBSURFACE LOG (CONT'D)
OJECT NO. 84131 .
[LITHOLOGY
ELEV.
474.2
472.2
468.9
464.8
462.4
462.1
b
• 455.6
i
\
U~
i
t
DEPTH
103.4
105.4
108.7
112.8
113.1
115.2
115.8
122.0
DESCRIPTION
_ LOCATION A01 Rte- 3 Landfill HCU e NQ 4
OVERBURDEN
ROCK CORE
Coal, black, cleated
Sandy Fireclay
, gray
Shale, dark gray
Coal, black, cleated
Fireclay, dark
gray
Shale, dark gray
Bottom of Hole
@ 122.0
SAMPLE
NO.
ROD .
20%
31%
DEPTH
RUN
10.0
8.9
4
ff?«
H?-
10.0
8.9
BLOWS
REG.
100%
100%
*
TYPE
SD1
REMARKS
—
««_
-
~ —
-
— —
-
~~ —
•; -
—
-------
APPENDIX C
April 1986,revised Part B,Section E-4b: Description
of sampling/analysis procedures
Proposal to Ashland Petroleum Company for RCRA Analytical
Program: prepared by BCM Laboratories Division (Dec. 1981)
-------
*W*^*Ji^*^
well at the~~upgradient site. FMSM-was employed to install
the well. The new well i-; -.1 -*-«: seme- gcreral^area as the
original and is twice as deep.
The additional depth enabled the well to be located in the
permanent moist zones that exist at the greater depth and
avoided the unreliable perched water table that was
apparently cased in the original well. Details of the well
are shown in Figure E-10. Installation of the well was
completed on July 1, 1983.-
E-4b Description of Sampling/Analysis Procedures [401 KAR
34:060 Section 8(4), (5) and (6)]
Ashland personnel collect the samples and send the samples to
an outside laboratory for analysis. The following sampling
procedure has and will continue to be followed: .
1. Recording the Water Level
The water level must be recorded prior to pumping.
Enter the measured depth to water on "Depth to
Water Table" Form shown in Table E-20. The depth
to water must be recorded on all three downgradient
wells prior to the pumping of any of these wel l^s.
ThTs i~s ne cess's a ry because the wells are close
enough together that pumping one well may affect
the levels in the other two wells. To check this,
the water level is recorded again immediately
before pumping the other wells (without the pump in
the well). If there is'a,difference, the water
table elevation obtained immediately before pumping
will be used to determine the required pumping time
(see instructions in E-4b(2).
2. Pumping the Well
In orde.r to make the best effort possible to pump a
minimum of one well volume of water prior to
sampling, the steps listed below will be followed:
A. Calculate the total depth of the water by
subtracting the water table depth from the
depth to the bottom of the screen. This gives
the depth of water in the well and should be
recorded on the "Depth to Ground Water Table"
form shown in Table E-20.
B. Using the depth of water in the well, obtain
the total quantity of well water present by
using the "Well Water Volume" chart. Table E-
21. Record this value.
C. Place the pump approximately three feet from
the bottom of the well.
E-37 (4/18/86)
-------
0. .Assuming a one gallon per minute pumping rate,
pump out one well volume of water and then
stop.
3. Well Recovery
After pumping for the required time, allow the well
to recover. Once the well has recovered a minimum
of three feet,- record the time needed for recovery
and the new (recovery) depth, and begin pumping
again to obtain the sample.
4. Sampling
Ground water sampling/monitoring is conducted in
accordance with procedures identified in SW 846
Section 1.4.6.
Methods of Analysis
All analyses of groundwater sampl
performed according to the procedures
the following publications:
es w
-------
•— ' TABLE E-20
ASHLAND PETROLEUM COMPANY
CATLETTSBURG REFINERY
RCRA GROUND WATER MONITORING
DEPTH TO GROUND WATER TABLE
Route 3 Landfill
Well Depth to Depth to Depth of Quantity Recovery Recovery
Nuntoer Bottom of Water Water in,_. of Water Time DeptJ: .
Screen(Pt) Table(Ft)<2' Well(Pt)t2' (Gal)<3> (Man) (Ft™
l(HHF-l) 43.4
2(HHF-2) 80.5
3(HHF-3) 138
4(HHF-4) 35.7
Comments
Sampler Date
(1) From top of well casing, rounded to nearest foot
(2) Rounded to nearest foot
(3) Quantity of water (in gallon) equals required pumping
time (in minutes) (e.g. 8 gallons water requires 8
minutes pumping)
(4) Depth after recovery and prior to sampling
E-40 (4/18/86)
-------
TABLE E-21
RCRA GROUND WATER MONITORING
WELL WATER VOLUME
Depth of Water
in Well*1* (ft)
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Volume of
Water (gal)
1.8
2.2
2.6
2.9
3.3
3.7
4.0
4.4
4.8
5.1
5.5
5.9
6.2
6.6
7.0
7.3
7.7
8.1
8.4
8.8
9.2
Depth
(ft)
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
, '46
47
48
49
50
Volume
(gal)
9.5
9.9
10.3
10.6
11.0
11.4
11.7
12.1
12.5
12.8
13.2
13.6
13.9
14.3
14.7
15.0
15.4
15.8
16.1
16.5
16.9
17.2
17.6
18.0
18.4
(1) Rounded to nearest foot
All values assume 3 in. I.D. well casing
E-41 (4/18/86)
-------
£. Chd'tn of Custody Control ;
Ashland utilizes a Chain of Custody Form (Figure
E-ll), to insure that proper methods are being
followed in the storage, preservation and transpor-
tation of samples. The procedures to follow in
using this form are:
A. The person taking the sample in the field
initiates the form, assigns numbers to the
samples and describes them with regard to
source, etc.
B. An identifying number must be assigned to each
submitted sample to automatically identify the
required analyses.
C. Since different groups are involved in the
sampling, transport, check-in and analysis,
care must be taken to insure that the
appropriate block is signed prior to the
release of the samples from their custody and
a copy of the form is maintained for their
file. For example, the person taking the
sample places his/her name and date samples
were taken on the form. When the person picks
up the samples for transport, he/she signs the
form and the sample collector maintains a copy
of this signed, form for his files.
Transporter does the same thing when the
samples are delivered to the laboratory.
E-4c Procedures for Establishing Background Quality 401 KAR
34:060 Section 8(7)
The requirements of this subsection are addressed in
Subsection- E---1.- -
E-4d Proposed Compliance Point 401 KAR 34:060 Section 6
The point of compliance for this regulated unit shall be the
downgradient boundary of the waste management area as shown
in Figure B-l.
E-5 Description of Detection Monitoring Program for
Facilities Not Detecting the Presence of Hazardous Consti-
tuents:401 KAR 38:100 Section 2 (6), 401 KAR 34:060 Section
2 (2)(d), and Section 9
E-42 (3/19/85)
-------
, . Figure E-ll
ASHLAND PETROLEUM COMPANY
CATLETTSBURG (KY) REFINERY
GROUND WATER MONITORING PROGRAM
TYPICAL CHAIN OF CUSTODY FORM
Location Identification:
Description of Samples:
1. Total number of sample packs(l)
2. Sample Pack Number Corresponding Well Number
Samples taken by:.
Date:
Samples received for transportation by
Date:
Time:
4
Samples received at laboratory by:
Date: •
Time:
Laboratory Analyst(s):
Please return to: Mr. Harold E. Sutton, Jr.
Ashland Petroleum Company
P.O. Box 391
Ashland, KY 41114
(1) Each sample pack contains the following:
1 - 500 ml plastic bottle preserved with HN03 for metals
2-11 glass bottle, unpreserved
1-11 glass bottle preserved with CuSO^/H3P04 for
phenolics -
1-11 amber glass bottle with teflon seals with
headspace for TOH
E-43 (3/19/85)
-------
E-5a List of Indicator Parameters, Waste Constituents,
Reaction Products to be monitored for,401 KAR 38:100 Section
2(6) (a), 34:060 Section 4,, 34:060 Section 9(1)
A detection monitoring program in accordance with 401 KAR
34:060 Section 9 is in operation at this facility.
Approximately 65,000 tons per year of hazardous waste are
disposed of at this facility. Of this 65,000 tons, 62,000
tons are low hazard hazardous waste from the Ashland's Viney
Branch Surface Impoundment closure. This closure process
will continue until October 1986. The remaining 3,000 tons
per year of hazardous waste consists of solids from the
following: induced air flotation float, slop oil emulsion
solids, heat exchanger bundle cleaning, API separator sludge,
and tank bottoms. Downgradient monitoring wells will be
sampled semi-annually for the following indicator parameters:
Hexavalent Chromium
Lead
TOC
These parameters were chosen because of the nature of the
wastes to be disposed of at this facility. The listed
petroleum refining hazardous wastes to be disposed of at this
facility are designated as hazardous because they contain
chromium and lead. The spill residue disposed of at this
facility could contain lead and organic compounds.
The concentrations of chromium, lead and other potential
organic constituents of the waste have been determined for
some of the waste types and this data is'given in Attachment
III-C.
Because of the physical and chemical characteristics of the
landfill waste (hazardous and non-hazardous), this material
does not lend itself to the generation of leachate. These
characteristics are: 1) the waste does not contain any free-
liquids, 2) a large portion of the material is RCCSI" waste,
which is hydrophilic. Any potential leachate generated
during rainfall infiltration would not have sufficiently low
pH to extract the hexavalent chromium and lead (used as the
indicator parameters). Therefore the waste is expected to be
highly immobile which insures long-term stability within the
disposal site. In view of the nature and form of the
hazardous constituents, no problems of persistence are
anticipated.
The background average concentrations for chromium, lead, and
TOC and coefficient of variation for these parameters are
given in Tables E-ll through E-16.
The detectabi1ity of chromium, lead, and TOC varies
considerably depending upon potential interferences that
might also be present in the groundwater. However, based
upon the data collected from the existing groundwater wells,
the minimum detectable levels are: 1) Chromium - 0.001 mg/1,
E-44 (4/18/86)
-------
2) Lead - 0.005 ing/1, and 3) Total Organic Carbons (TOC) - 2
mg/1. ~~
The following parameters establishing groundwa'ter quality
will be sampled on an annual basis:
Chloride
Iron
Manganese
Phenols
Sodium
Sulfate
E-5b Background Groundwater Concentration Values and Coeffi-
cients of Variation for Proposed Parameters Established by;
401 KAR 38:100 Section 2(6)(c),34:060 Section 8(7)(a), (c)
and (d), 34:060 Section 9(l)(d), 34:060 Section 9(3)(a) .and
(c)
Based on current information, these values and coefficients
are found in Tables E-ll through E-16.
E-5c Description of Groundwater Monitoring System 401 KAR
38:100 Section 2(6)(b) and 34:060 Section 9
Based on current information, Ashland believes a detection
monitoring program in accordance with 401 KAR 34:060 Section
9 is in operation at this facility. Existing downgradient
monitoring wells HHF-1, HHF-2 and HHF-4 described in E-4a
will be sampled semi-annually for-the following indicator
parameters:
4
Hexavalent Chromium
Lead
TOC
The following parameters establishing ground water quality
will be sampled on an annual basis:
Chloride Phenols
Iron Sodium
Manganese Sulfate
E-5d Description of Proposed Sampling, Analysis and
Statistical Comparison Procedures 401 KAR 38:100 Section
2(6}(d), 34:060 Section 9(6) and (7)
Sampling and analysis procedures are described in Section E-
4b. Procedures for determining statistically significant
increases are found in 401 KAR 34:060, Section 8(8) and 401
KAR 34:320.
(4/18/86)
-------
E-5e Procedures to be Implemented if a Statistically Signif-
icant Increase in any Constitutent or Parameter is Identified
at Any Comp'liance Point Monitoring Well 401 KAR 34:060
Section 9(8)
As reported to the Kentucky Division of Waste Management
(letter to Alex Barber dated December 31, 1984, see
Attachment 6E), Ashland has detected an apparent significant
increase in pH at downgradient well HHF-2 as compared to the
background well using procedures outlined in 401 KAR 34:060
and 401 KAR 34:320. The most likely reason for this increase
is the variation of the geologic characteristics of the
sandstone and shale layers in which these wells are located.
For this-reason and others specified in the letter to Alex
Barber, Ashland believes that no additional action is
required under 401 KAR 34:060 Section 9(8).
In the event Ashland determines that there is a significant
increase in the pH at HHF-2 or any specified parameter at any
compliance point monitoring well, Ashland will take the
necessary actions to meet the requirements of this section.
(Notify cabinet of the finding in writing within seven (7)
days, immediately sample the groundwater in all monitoring
wells, establish background value for constituent of concern,
submit within ninety (90) days an application for permit
modification to establish a compliance monitoring program,
etc. )
E-6 Compliance Monitoring Program for Facilities Which Have
Detected Presence of Hazardous Constituents
4
This section is not applicable since current monitoring data
does not indicate that leakage from a regulated unit is
entering the ground water.
E-7 Description of Corrective Action Program 401 KAR 38:100
Section 2 (8)
This section is not applicable since current monitoring data
does not indicate non-compliance described in 401 KAR 34:060.
E-46 (4/18/86)
-------
Sampling
TABLE E-22
ASHLAND PETROLEUM COMPANY
CATLETTSBURG (KY) REFINERY
GROUNDWATER MONITORING PROGRAM
SAMPLING SCHEDULE
Route 3 Landfill
Period
1st
1983
1984
1985
2nd
3rd
4th
1st
2nd
3rd
4th
1st
2nd
3rd
4th
Well #1
Q 2,3
Q
Q 3
Q
Q 2,3
Q
Q 3
Q
Q 2,4
Q
Q 4
Q
Well 12 Well t3* Well #4
- 2,3 - 2,3
-
3 1,2,3 3
1,2,3
2,3 1,2,3 2,3
1,2,3
333
2,4 2,4 2,4
4 44
*Upgradient Well
1st Quarter:
2nd Quarter:
3rd Quarter:
4th Quarter:
November 19 - February 18
February 19 - May 18
May 19 - August 18
August 19 - November 18
(1) Parameters characterizing the suitability of groundwater
as a drinking water supply:
Arsenic, Barium, Cadmium, Chromium, Fluoride, Lead,
Mercury, Nitrate (as N), Selenium, Silver, Endrin,
Lindane, Methoxychlor, Toxaphene, 2,4-D, 2,4,5-TP Silvex,
Radium, Gross Alpha, Gross Beta, Coliform Bacteria
(2) Parameters establishing groundwater quality:
Chloride, Iron, Manganese, Phenols, Sodium, Sulfate
(3) Parameters used during interim status period as
indicators of ground water contamination: pH, Specific
Conductance, Total Organic Carbon, Total Organic Halogen.
(4) Parameters to be used under Part B permit as indicators
of groundwater contamination: Hexavalent chromium, Lead,
Total Organic Carbon
E-47 (4/18/86)
-------
Betz • Converse. Muidoch. Inc.
PROPOSAL
TO
ASHLAND PETROLEUM COMPANY
Ashland, Kentucky
FOR
RCRA ANALYTICAL PROGRAM
BCM Proposal No.1-8175-42
December 28, 1981
PREPARED AND SUBMITTED BY:
BH^ah-L. Bills, P. E.
Assis'^ant Regional Manager
j
Pamela 6. Villers
Laboratory Services Representative
BCM Laboratories Division
325 Thirteenth Street
Dunbar, WV .25064
-------
Betz • Converse • Murdoch. Inc.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
2.0 INTRODUCTION
3.0 SCOPE OF WORK
3.1 Sample Preservation/Collection
3.2 Sample Shipment
3.3 Quality Assurance
4.0 GENERAL CONDITIONS
APPENDIX A: ANALYSIS SCHEDULE
APPENDIX 8: ANALYTICAL LABORATORY PROCEDURES
QUALITY ASSURANCE/CONTROL
APPENDIX C: QUALIFICATIONS SUMMARY
APPENDIX D: SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION
-------
Betz • Converse. Muodoch • Inc.
ASHLAND PETROLEUM" COMPANY
-i-
December 28, 1981
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1.1 Organization
Betz, Converse, Murdoch, Inc. (BCM), is a full-service consulting
engineering, planning and computer specialist firm with extensive
experience in environmental control and facilities engineering
projects. Our services involve environmental studies and guidance,
site selection and development, water supply, water treatment,
wastewater treatment, solid waste management, air pollution control,
energy systems, building design and plant engineering type projects.
The member firms of BCM serve clients with a combined staff of over
500 engineers, architects, planners, scientists, computer
specialists, and administrative and support personnel. Our
engineering offices, regional environmental laboratories, and mobile
test vans are located as follows:
Engi neer i ng Of fice
Plymouth Meeting, * PA
Pittsburgh, * PA
Dunbar, * WV
Vienna* and Staunton, VA
Panama City, FL
Albany, GA
Mobile* and Montgomery, AL
Deer Park, TX
Biloxi, MS
Laboratories
Yes
Yes
Mobile Test Vans
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Denotes a major engineering office. Corporate headquarters located
in Plymouth Meeting. I •=
-------
Betz • Converse • Murdoch-. Inc. - - - —
-» *- "
ASHLAND PETROLEUM-COMPANY -2- December 28, 1981
1.2 Areas Of Expertise
BCM projects encompass one or more of the following areas,
which are described in more detail in the enclosed attachments:
Environmental Baseline Studies
Environmental Impact Statements and Report
Site Selection and Planning
Site Development
Water Supply and Treatment Systems
Process Water Treatment Systems
Computer Services
Environnmental Compliance and Regulatory Assistance
OSHA/Industrial Hygiene
In-Plant Ventilation
Air Pollution Control
Water Conservation/Reuse
Wastewater Treatment Systems
Solid Waste Management and Disposal
Energy Management and Systems
Plant and Facility Engineering
Operations and Maintenance Engineering
1.3 BCM FULL-SERVICE ENGINEERING
BCMprovides allservices for successful implementation of an
engineering project, starting with ,problem definition and continuing
through:
4
Field Testing and Survey
Environmental
Ambient Air and Stack Emissions
Energy Flows
Water/Wastewater/Solid Waste
In-Plant Air Contaminants
ftoise- -
Laboratory Testing --
Water/Wastewater Solids
Treatability Studies
Feasibility Studies/Evaluation
Treatment Pilot Studies
Conceptual Design
Environmental Process Engineering
Preliminary Engineering (Design)
Detailed (Final) Engineering; Plans and Specs for Bids
Acquisition and Review of Bids
Procurement or Purchase Assistance
Construction Management or Surveillance
Resident Inspection
Preparation of Operations and Maintenance Manuals
Operator Training - -
Start-up and Subsequent Operations Assistance
-------
Betz • Converse • Murdoch • Inc. -.
"• ** *
ASHLAND PETROLEUM COMPANY -3- _ " December 28, 1981
8CM services are available on a completely flexible basis; any or all
of the above steps can be provided. Laboratory service programs
range from a single sample analysis costing a few dollars to
multiple-sample annual programs exceeding BCM is organized
to offer consulting engineering services for small to large projects,
with engineering fees typically ranging from as little as to
or more. - .
1.4 Specialty Disciplines
A wide diversity of capabilities is necessary to provide "total
engineering services" for environmental control and related facility
projects, and BCM maintains substantial depth in all of these areas.
In some cases, however, it is necessary to retain and consult with
recognized experts to provide the top-level professional assistance
that some projects require. Generally, we do not subcontract any of
our design projects. However, we do retain local geotechnical
engineers for soils borings, testing, and consultation. Our
— technical staff is comprised of the following numbers of specialists:
1 Agricultural Engineer 9 Financial Specialists ' "•
_ 11 Air Pollution Control Engineers 5 Geologists
2 Architects 7 Hydrolegists
-•-•_ . 16 Biologists 2 Instrumentation Engineers
1 Ceramic Engineer 1 Landscape Architect
~ 10 Chemical Engineers 7 Mechanical Engineers
11 Chemists 1 Mining Engineer
47 Civil Engineers 12 Planners: Urban/Regional
8 Computer Specialists 1 Plant Operator
66 Construction Engineers/Inspectors 48 Sanitary Engineers
2 Contracts Specialists 2 Soils Engineers
49 Design Engineers/Draftspersons 5 Specification Writers
5 Ecologists 8 Structural Engineers
2 Economists 17 Surveyors
6 Electrical Designers 60 Technicians -~ •=
-f 2 Estimators
-------
Betz • Converse • Murdoch • Inc. - - .
ASHtAND PETROLEUM COMPANY -4- December 2ff, 1981.
2.0 INTRODUCTION
Ashland Petroleum Company has requested a proposal for analytical work
to be performed in accordance with their RCRA groundwater monitoring
requirements. The proposal outlined herein represents BCM -Laboratory
Division's approach to the required work scope as described by Ashland.
3.0 SCOPE OF WORK
BCM will be responsible for analysis of samples collected for Ashland's
monitoring program. Samples will be collected from twelve (12) wells
and analyzed for the parameters shown in Appendix A. Parameters in
Group C will be analyzed for four (4) replicate measurements.
3.1 Sample Preservation/Collection
Ashland will assume responsibility for collection of samples which
will be performed on a quarterly basis. An option available to
Ashland is for sample collection to be done by BCM.
Preservation:
All samples must be kept cold during collection and shipment.
Prior to sampling, solidly freeze the ice packs provided for at
least 12 hours. Return these to the sample packs just before
collecting the first sample. Keep, the -sample pack closed as much
as possible to maintain the cold. '
Chemical fixatives are not required in the field. These have
already been added to the appropriate collection bottles. At the
end of the sample collection period it is important to ship the
samples to the laboratory as quickly as possible. Couriers which
guarantee-next day service should be used. Inform the laboratory
of the method of shipment and the expected time of arrival.. . .
Collection:
Each sample pack contains bottles required for sampling a single
discharge point for complete RCRA groundwater monitoring. The
following are included.
1 - 500 ml plastic bottle preserved with HN03 for metals.
1 - 1 liter glass bottle, unpreserved.
1 - 1 liter glass bottle preserved with CuS04/H3?04 for
phenolics.
2 - 250 ml amber glass bottle with teflon seal with
HEADSPACE for TOH.
1 - 4 oz. glass bottle, NaS03 sterilized, for total
coliform. -- .=
1 - 40 ml glass bottle for TOC.
-------
Betz • Converse • Murdoch. Inc. -__'--
ASHLANO PETROLEUM COMPANY. --5- December 28, 1981
As a minimum standard, each type of bottle has been prepared to
meet Environmental Protection Agency requirements for priority and
conventional pollutant sampling. Please insure that they are not
contaminated during handling.
*»
The unpreserved liter" bottle and the amber bottles are to be
rinsed three (3) times with a portion of the sample before
filling. The amber bottles must be filled so that no air space is
trapped inside. This is done by filling the bottle to overflowing
so that the sample forms a convex surface on top of the bottle.
Carefully float the rubber septa on the sample with the then white
teflon surface toward the inside. Screw the cap in place firmly
but do not over tighten. Invert the bottle to.check for bubbles,
If bubbles are present, filling must be repeated.
*
Do not rinse any of the other bottles before filling as this would
wash out the preservatives that have been added.
••
3.2. Sample Shipment
The sampling location must be recorded on the field collection log
and the individual bottle tag. It is also recommended that the
" sampling point be marked on the outside of the sample pack. Use
only an indelible pen for marking. Remember that improper or lost
' sample identifiction can result in resampling. A tag is to be
; completed and attached to each bottle.'
4
To package the samples for shipment make absolutely certain that
no glass to glass contact can occur. Arrange the bottles in the
same manner they were received. Use additional packing materials
or shredded newspaper if needed. Completely seal all edges of the
sample pack with strapping tape. Make arrangements with Courier
or BCM in-advance so there are no delays in shipping the samples.
3.3 QUALITY ASSURANCE
To provide the most reliable data for our clients, BCM Laboratory
t Division has implemented a rigorous quality assurance/control
program. A listing of the methods, references, and quality
assurance procedures followed are included in Appendix B.
4.0 GENERAL CONDITIONS
WORK SCHEDULE
BCM will do its utmost to complete the analyses within 30 days of
receipt of the samples at the laboratory. While we fully expect to
meet this commitment, unanticipated equipment failure or workload
increases can result in delays, and so a guarantee cannot be madeZ tf
potential problems develop, BCM will contact you to identify the
magnitude of the delay.
-------
Betz • Converse • Murdoch. Inc:- - . —
-» ••
ASHLAND PETROL oktOMPANY -6- - December 28, 1981
«
COMPENSATION
We propose that the outlined project scope be performed on a Lump Sum
basis. This fee is firm and cannot be changed unless it is mutually
agreed that the scope of the work has changed from what is outlined in
this proposal.
LUMP SUM (Quarterly)
LUMP SUM (Annually)
VALIDITY
This proposal is valid for 60 days. Subsequent to that date, BCM may
review the basis of payment to allow for changing costs and adjust
starting and completion dates to conform to our workload.
-------
I
Betz - Converse • Murdoch • inc.
Plymouth Meeting. Penno 19462
ENVIRONMENTAL LABORATORY TEST
- ' PROCEDURES
ANALYTICAL LABORATORY TEST
PROCEDURES
Betz'Converse-Murdoch*Inc.'s Analytical Laboratory is fully equipped to per-
form all tests required by Federal and State Environmental Protection Agen-
cies. The following list of test methods and references outlines procedures
currently used at BCM's laboratory. These test procedures are in full com-
pliance with current requirements listed in the Federal Register Vol. 41
#52780 published December 1, 1976.
(B) 877
7/78
-------
Betz • Converse • Murdoch. Inc.
LIST OF APPROVED TEST PROCEDURES^)
References
Parameter and Units
Acidity, as CaCO3, milli-
grams per liter
Alkalinity, as CaCO3, milli
grams per liter
Ammonia (as N), milli-
grams per liter
BACTERIA
Coliform (fecal)5, number
100 ml
Coliform (fecal)5 in pre-
sence of chlorine, number
per 100 ml
Coliform (total)5, number
per 100 ml
Coliform (total)5 in pre-
sence of chlorine,-number .
per 100 ml
Fecal streptococci5, number
per 100 ml
Method
Electrometric end point
(pH of 8.2) or phenol-
phthalein end point
Electrometric titration
(only to pH 4.5) man
ual or automated
Manual distillation4 (at pH
9.5) followed by nessleri-
zation, titration, electrode
MPN;6 membrane filter
MPN; membrane filter
MPN; membrane filter
MPN;6 membrane filter
with enrichment
MPN;6 membrane filter;
plate count
1974
EPA
Methods
Page No.
1
159
165
168
14th -ed.
Standard
Methods
Page No.
273(4d)
278
410
412
616
922
937
922
928, 937
916
928
916
•933
943
944
947
2 of 13
-------
Betz • Converse • Mijrdbeh. Inc...
References
~ Parameter and Units
Biochemical oxygen demand,
- 5-d (SOOs), milligrams per
1 i ter
Bromide, mi 11 grams per
liter
Chemical oxygen demand
" (COD), millgrams per
liter
- Chloride, milligrams
per liter
_ Chlorinated organic com-
pounds (except pesticides),
- tp-"lligrams per liter
Chlorine - total residual,
_ milligrams per liter
Color, platinum cobalt units
or dominant wave length^
hue, luminance purity
Cyanide, total14, milli-
grams pen liter
Cyanide amenable to
ch1 orination, milli-
grams per liter
Dissolved oxygen, mi Hi
grams per liter
Method
Winkler (Azide modifica-
tion) or electrode method
Titrimetric, iodine-iodate
probe
Dichromate reflux
Mercuric nitrate
Gas chromatography1^
lodometric titration, amper-
ometric or starch-iodtne end-
point; DPD colorimetric or
Titrimetric methods (These
last 2 are interim methods
pending laboratory testing)
Colorimetric, spectrophoto-
metric; or ADMI proce-
dure 13
Distillation followed by
silver nitrate titration
or pyridine pyrazolone
(or barbituric acid)
colorimetric
1974
EPA
Methods
Page No.
14
20
29
31
35
36
39
40
Winkler (Azide modifica-
tion) or electrode method
49
51
450
14th ed.
Standard
Methods
Page No.
543
550
303
304, 613
318
322
332
329
64
66
361
376
443
3 of 13
-------
Betz • Converse • Murdoch. Inc.
References
":
Parameter and Units
Fluoride, milligrams per
liter
Hardness - Total as
milligrams per liter
Hydrogen ion (pH), pH
units
Kjeldahl nitrogen (as N),
milligrams per liter
METALS
( Aluminum - Total, milli-
per liter
Aluminum - Dissolved,
milligrams per liter
Antimony - Total, milli-
grams per liter
Antimony - Dissolved, mi Hi
grams per liter
Arsenic - Total, milli-
grams per liter
Arsenic - Dissolved,
milligrams per liter
Barium - Total, milligrams
per liter
Method
Distillation^ followed by ion
electrode; SPADNS
EDTA titration; or atomic
absorption (sum of Ca and
Mg as their respective car
bonates)
Electrometric measurement
Digestion and distillation
followed by nesslerization,
titration, or electrode
Digestion*5 followed by
atomic absorption1**
0.45 micron filtration1? fol-
lowed by references methods
for total aluminum
Digestion1** followed by atomic
absoprtion1^
0.45 micron filtration17 fol-
lowed by references method
for total antimony
Digestion followed by silver
diethyldithiocarbamate; or
atomic absorption1^ 18
0.45 micron filtration17 fol-
lowed by references method
for total arsenic
Digestion15 followed by
atomic absorption1"
1974
EPA
Methods
Page No.
65, 59
61
68
239
175 •
165
92
171
94
9
95
159
14th ed.
Standard
Methods
Page No.
389, 391
393, 614
202
460
437
152 grams
285
283
97
152
4 of 13
-------
Betz • Converse • Murdoch • Inc.
-Parameter and Units
-Barium - Dissolved, milli-
grams per liter
Beryllium - Total, mi Hi
•grams per liter
'Beryllium - Dissolved,
-milligrams, per liter
_Boron - Total, milligrams
"per liter
Boron - Dissolved, milli-
~grams per liter
v. -dmi um - Tota 1, mi 11 i -
grams per liter
_Cadmium - Dissolved,
milligrams per liter
~Calcium - Total, milli-
_grams per liter
Calcium - Dissolved, milli
"grams per liter
•Chromium VI, mi Hi- "'
grams per liter
i
.Chromium VI - Dissolved,
milligrams per liter
Chromi urn - Tota1, mi 11i -
•grams per liter
Method
0.45-micron filtration1**
followed by referenced
method for total barium
Digestion1^ followed by
atomic absorption^
0.45 micron filtration17
followed by referenced
method for total beryllium
Colorimetric (Curcumin)
0.45 micron filtration17 fol-
lowed by referenced meth-
od for total boron
Digestion15 followed by
atomic absorption
0.45 micron filtration17 fol-
lowed by referenced method
for total cadmium
Digestion^ followed by
atomic absorption; or
EDTA titration
0.45 micron filtration17 fol-
lowed by referenced meth-
od for total calcium
Extraction and atomic ab-
sorption
0.45 micron filtration17 fol-
lowed by references method
for chromium VI
Digestion15 followed by
atomic absorption1^
References
1974 14th ed.
EPA Standard
Methods Methods
Page No. Page No.
99
13
101
182
103
80
105
152
177
287
148
148
192
105
148
192
5 of 13
-------
Betz • Converse .Jvlgrdoch • Inc.
References
Parameter and Units
Chromium - Dissolved,
milligrams per liter
Cobalt - Total, milligrams
per liter
Cobalt - Dissolved, milli-
grams per liter
Copper - Total, milli-
grams per liter
Copper - Dissolved, mi Hi
grams per liter
v Gold - Total, milligrams
per liter
<*
Iridium - Total, milli-
grams per liter
Iron - Total, milligrams
per liter
Iron - Dissolved, mTlli-'
grams per liter
Lead — Tota1, mi 11i grams
per liter
Lead - Dissolved, milli-
grams per liter
Magnesium - Total, mi Hi'
grams per liter
Method
0.45 micron filtration*7 fol-
lowed by references method
for total chromium.
Digestion*5 followed by
atomic absorption^
0.45 micron filtration*7 fol-
lowed by references method
for total cobalt
Digestion*5 followed by
atomic absorption16
0.45 micron filtration*7 fol-
lowed by referenced meth-
od for total copper
Digestion*5 followed by
atomic absorption*9-
4
Digestion*5 followed by
atomic absorption*9
Digestion*5 followed by
atomic absorption*^
0.45 micron filtration*7 fol-
lowed by referenced meth-
od for total iron
Digestion*5 followed by
atomic absorption*5
0.45 micron filtration*7 fol-
lowed by referenced method
for total lead
Digestion*5 followed by
atomic absorption
1974
EPA
Methods
Page No.
107
108
110
112
14th ed.
Standard
Methods
Page No.
148
148
196
148
208
148
215
114
148
221
6 of 13
-------
Betz • Converse • Murdoch • Inc.
References
" Parameter and Units
Magnesium - Dissolved
- milligrams per liter
Manganese - Total milli-
- grams per liter
"Manganese - Dissolved
, milligrams per liter
Mercury - Total, milli-
" grams per liter
Mercury - Dissolved, milli-
x-~ams per liter
- Molybdenum - Total, mi 11 i -
grams per liter
_ Molybdenum - Dissolved,
"milligrams per liter
Nickel - Total, mi Hi-- .
grams per liter
Nickel - Dissolved, milli
grams per liter
Osmium - Total, mi 111-
grams per liter
Palladium - Total, milli-
grams per liter
Platinum - Total, milli-
grams per liter
Method
0.45 micron filtration*7
followed by referenced
method for total magne
slum
Digestion15 followed by
atomic absorption*6
0.45 micron filtration*7 fol-
lowed by referenced method
for total manganese
Flameless atomic absorp-
tion
0.45 micron filtration*7 fol-
lowed by referenced method
for total mercury
Digestion*5 folTowed 'by
atomic absorption*6
0.45 micron filtration*7 fol-
lowed by referenced meth-
od for total molybdenum
Digestion*^ followed by
atomic absorption*6
0.45 micron filtration*7 fol-
lowed by referenced method
for total nickel
Digestion*5 followed by
atomic absoprtion*9
Digestion*5 followed by
atomic absorption*9
Digestion*5 followed by
atomic absorption*9
1974
EPA
Methods
Page No.
116
118
139
141
14th ed.
Standard
Methods
Page No.
148, 225
227
156
7 of 13
-------
Betz ."Converse • Murdoch • Inc.
References
Parameter and Units
Potassium - Total, milli-
grams per liter
Potassium - Dissolved,
milligrams per liter
Selenium - Total, milli-
grams per liter
Selenium - Dissolved,
milligrams per liter
Silica - Dissolved, milli-
grams per liter
Silver - Total,20 milligrams
per liter
Silver - Dissolved,20 milli-
grams per liter
Sodium - Total, milli-
grams per liter
Sodium - Dissolved, milli-
grams, per liter
Thallium - Total, milli-
grams per liter
Thallium - Dissolved, milli
grams per liter
Tin - Total, milligrams
per liter
Method
Digestion15 followed by
atomic absorption, or by
flame photometric
0.45 micron filtration17 f0l-
lowed by referenced method
for total potassium
Digestion*5 followed by
atomic absorption1^ 19
0.45 micron filtration1? fol-
lowed by referenced method
for total selenium
0.45 micron filtration17 fol-
lowed by colorimetric
(Molybdosilicate)
Digestion15 followed by
atomic absorption
0.45 micron filtration17 fol-
lowed by referenced method
for total silver
Digestion15 followed by
atomic absorption or by
flame photometric
0.45 micron filtration17 fol-
lowed by referenced method
for total sodium
Digestion15 followed by
atomic absorption1^
0.45 micron filtration17 fol-
lowed by referenced method
for total thallium
Digestion15 followed by
atomic absorption1^
1974
EPA
Methods
Page No.
143
146
274
146
147
149
14th ed.
Standard
Methods
Page No.
235
234
159
487
148
243
250
150
8 of 13
-------
Betz • Converse"* Murdoch • Inc.
Parameter and Units
Tin - Dissolved, milli-
grams per liter
Titanium - Total, milli
grams per liter
Titanium - Dissolved,
milligrams per liter
Vanadium - Total, milli-
grams per liter
Vanadium - Dissolved, milli
grams per liter
/Line - Total, milligrams
per liter
Zinc - Dissolved, milli-
grams per liter
Nitrate (as N), milli-
grams per liter
Nitrite (as N), millv
grams per liter
Oil and grease, milli
grams per liter
Organic carbon; total
(TOC), milligrams per
liter
Organic nitrogen (as N),
milligrams per litar
Method
0.45-micron filtration*7
lowed by referenced method
for total tin
Digestion*5 followed by
atomic absorption^
0.45 micron filtration1-7 fol-
lowed by referenced method
for total titanium
Digestion*5 followed by
atomic absorption^
0.45 micron filtration*7 fol-
lowed by referenced method
for total vanadium
Digest ion 15 followed by
atomic absorption^
0.45 micron filtration*7 fol
lowed by referenced method
for total zinc
Brucine sulfate
Manual
Liquid-liquid extraction
with trichloro-trifluoro-
ethane-gravimetr ic
Combu sti on-Infrared
method22
Kjeldahl nitrogen minus
ammonia nitrogen
References
1974 14th ed.
EPA Standard
Methods Methods
Page No. Page No.
151
153
155
215
229
236
152
260
148
265
201, 197 423, 427
207 620
414
51-5
532
175, 159 437
9 of 13
-------
Betz
• Inc.
Parameter and Units
Orthophosphate (as P),
milligrams per liter
Pentachlorophenol, milli-
grams per liter
Pesticides, milligrams per
liter
Phenols, milligrams per
liter
Phosphorus; total (as P),
milligrams per liter
RESIDUE
Total, milligrams per
liter
Total dissolved (filterable),
milligrams per liter
Total suspended (nonfilter-
able), milligrams per liter
Settleable, mi Hi liters per
liter or milligrams per
liter
Total volatile, milligrams
per liter
Specific conductance, micro-
mhos per centimeter as 25°C
Sulfate (as SO4), milligrams
per liter
Sulfide (as S), milligrams
per liter
Method
Manual absorbic acid reduc-
tion
Gas chromatographyl2
Gas chromatography
Colorimetric, (4AAP)
Persulfate digestion fol-
lowed by manual ascorbic
acid reduction
References
1974 14th ed.
EPA Standard
Methods Methods
Page No. Page No.
249
256
241
249
256
Gravimetric, 103 to 105°C 270
4
Glass fiber filtration, 180°C 266
Glass fiber filtration, 103 to 268
105QC
Volumetric or gravimetric
Gravimetric, 550°C 272
Wheatstone bridge con- 275
ductimetry
Gravimetric; turbidimetric; 277
or automated colorimetric 279
(barium chloranilate)
Titrimetric-Iodine for lev- 284
els greater than 1 mg per
liter; Methylene blue pho-
tometric
481
624
555
582
476,481
624
91
92
94
95
95
71
493
496
505
- -"503
10 of 13
-------
Bete • Converse • Murdoch .Inc.
References
*
Parameter and Units
Sulfite (as SO^), milli-
grams per liter
Surfactants, milligrams
per liter
Temperature, degrees C
Turbidity, NTU
Method
Titrjmetric, iodine-
iodate
Colorimetric (Methylene
blue)
Calibrated glass or electro-
metric thermometer
Nephelometric
1974
EPA
Methods
Page No.
285
157
286
195
14th ed.
Standard
Methods
Page No.
508
600
125
132
^•Recommendations for sampling and preservation of samples according
to parameter measured may be found in "Methods for Chemical Analysis of
Water and Wastes, 1974," U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, table
2, pp. vii-xii.
page references for USGS methods, unless otherwise noted, are to
Brown E. Skounstad, M. W., and Fishman, M. G., "Methods for Collection
and Analysts of Water Samples for Dissolved Minerals and Gases," U. S.
Geological Survey Techniques of Water-Resourcet Inv., book 5, ch. Al,
(1970).
comparable method may be found on indicated page of "Official
Methods of Analysis of the Association of Official Analytical
Chemists," methods manual, 12th ed. (1975).
^Manual distillation is not required if comparative data on repre-
sentative effluent samples are on company file to show that this pre-
liminary distillation step is not necessary; manual distillation, how
ever, will be required to resolve any disputes.
method used must be specified.
6The tube MPN is used.
7Slack, K. V. and others, "Methods for Collection and Analysis of
Aquatic Biological and Microbiological Samples: U. S. Geological
Survey Techniques of Water-Resources Inv., book 5, ch. A4 (1973)."
8Since the membrane filter technique usually yields low and variable
recovery from chlorinated wastewaters, the MPN method will be required
to resolve any disputes.
11 of 13
-------
Betz • Converse^Murdocfv Inc.
^Adequately tested methods for benzidine are not available. Until approved
methods are available, the following interim method can be used for the esti- .
mation of benzidine: (1) "Method for Benzidine and Its Salts in Wastewaters,"
available from Environmental Monitoring and Support Laboratory, U. S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio 45268.
^American National Standard on Photographic Processing Effluents, Apr. 2,
1975. Available from ANSI, 1430 Broadway, New York, NY 10018.
Hpishman, M. J. and Brown, Eugene, "Selected Methods of the U. S. Geolo-
gical Survey for Analysis of Wastewaters," (1976) open-file report, 76-177.
^Procedures for pentachlorophenol, chlorinated organic compounds, and pes-
ticides can be obtained from the Environmental Monitoring and Support Labora-
tory, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio 45268.
method (ADMI procedure) is available from Environmental Monitoring
and Support Laboratory, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati,
Ohio 45268.
samples suspected of having thiocyanate interference, magnesium chlor-
ide is used as the digestion catalyst. In the approved test procedure for
cyanides, the recommended catalysts are replaced with 20 ml of a solution of
510 g/1 magnesium chloride (MgCl2 H20). This substitution will eliminate
thiocyanate interference for both total cyanide and is amendable to chlorin-
ation measurements.
15 For the determination of tot^l metals, the sample is not filtered before
processing. Because vigorous digestion procedures may result in a loss of
certain metals through precipitation, a less vigorous treatment is recommended
as given on p. 83 (4.1.4) of "Methods for Chemical Analysis of Water and
Wastes" (1974). In those instances where a more vigorous digestion is de-
sired, the procedure on p. 82 (4.1.3) should be followed. For the measurement
of the nobTs meta-1 -series (gold, iridium, osmium, palladium, platimum, rhedium
and ruthenium), an aqua regia digestion is to be substituted as follows:-.
Transfer a representative aliquot of the well-mixed sample to a Griffin beaker
and add 3 ml of concentrated redistilled HN03- Place the beaker on a steam
bath and evaporate to dryness. Cool the beaker and cautiously add a 5 ml por-
tion of aqua regia. (Aqua regia is prepared immediately before use by care-
fully adding 3 volumes of concentrated HCI to one volume of concentrated
HN03). Cover the beaker with a watch glass and return to the steam bath.
Continue heating the covered beaker for 50 minutes. Remove cover and evapor-
ate to dryness. Cook and take up the residue in a small quantity of 1:1 HCI.
Wash down the beaker walls and watch glass with distilled water and filter the
sample to remove silicates and other insoluble material that could clog the
atomizer. Adjust the volume to some predetermined value based on the expected
metal concentration. The sample is now ready for analysis.
"As the various furnace devices (flameless AA) are essentially atomic afr-
sorption techniques, they are considered to be approved test methods. Methods
of standard addition are to be followed as noted in p. 78 of "Methods of Chem-
ical Analysis of Water and Wastes," 1974.
- 12 of 13
-------
Betz • Converse • Murdoch «~lnc.
170issolved metals are defined as those constituents which will pass through
a 0.45 um membrane filter. A prefiltration is permissible to free the sample
from larger suspended solids. Filter'the sample as soon as practical after
collection using the first 50 to 100 ml to rinse the filter flask. (Glass or
plastic filtering apparatus are recommended to avoid possible contamination.)
Discard the portion used to rinse the flask and collect the required volume of
filtrate. Acidify the filtrate with 1:1 redistilled HN03 to a pH of 2.
Normally, 3 ml of (1:1) acid peY liter should be sufficient to preserve the
samples.
18$ee "Atomic Absorption Newsletter," vol. 13, 75 (1947). Available from
Perkin-Elmer Corp., Main Ave., Norwalk, Conn. 06852.
Method available from Environmental Monitoring and Support Laboratory, U.
^S-. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio 45268.
20Recommended methods for the analysis of silver in industrial wastewater at
concentrations of 1 mg/1 and above are inadequate where silver exists as an -
inorganic halide. Silver hadides such as the bromide and chloride are rela-
tively insoluble in reagents such as nitric acid but are readily soluble in an
aqueous buffer of sodium thiosulfate and sodium hydroxide to a pH of 12.
Therefore, for levels of silver above 1 mg/1, 20 ml of sample should be dilu-
ted to 100 ml by adding 40 ml each of 2M ^$203 and 2M NaOH. Standards
should be prepared in the same manner. For levels of silver below 1 mg/1, the
recommended method is satisfactory.
21An automated hydrazine reduction method is available from the Environmen-
tal Monitoring and Support Laboratory, U. 'S.< Environmental Protection Agency,
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268.
22A number of such systems manufactured by various companies are considered
to be comparable in their performance. In addition, another technique, based
on combust ion-methane detection is also acceptable.
13 of 13
-------
BCM
Betz • Converse • Murdoch • Inc.
QUALITY"ASSURANCE PRACTICES
In order to provide the most reliable data for our clients, BCM
Appalachian Group Laboratories has implemented a rigorous quality assurance
(Q.A.) program. The elements of the program are as follows:
1. Proper sampling and documentation of sample
identification.
2. Observing acceptable practices of sample , .
-' preservation and holding time. .
-«• .
3. Utilizing and documentating acceptable
methodology. ^
4. Performing quality control analysis to
validate analysis of samples.
The program begins by advising the client of proper collection and
preservation techniques and by facilitating transportation of the sample to
the laboratory for analysis within the recommended, holding time.
4
Each sample is logged in upon receipt by the lab with a unique sample
number assigned to the sample. After the sample number is assigned, the
following information is recorded in a bound notebook: the company name,
sample identification, number, sampling date, date of receipt, person
receiving the sample, and analysis required. Any samples requiring
preservation are preserved according to EPA requirements, and the sample is
stored in a cold room (4 C) until the analyst is ready to perform the
analysis. Each analysis is documented and a record is kept each time the
sample is transferred.
-------
This procedure of logging in and following the sample through the
laboratory is recommended by the EPA Quality Assurance and Quality Control
Manual.
The methods used by the BCM Laboratories were selected from the approved
methods listed in the Federal Register (41FR52780). A listing of the methods
references and a summary of each method is included in the lab test procedure
section, for your information.
""All sample data is maintained in the lab files. Any or all information is
-<• .
available for all current and past samples analyzed by our laboratory for each
client. It is our responsibility as a water/wastewater laboratory to maintain
accurate files. All data from every client's sample is available for
reference.
We welcome the opportunity to analyze spike and duplicate samples to
enhance our reputation as an accurate, high quality laboratory. We routinely
4
participate in round-robin interlaboratory exchange of samples with the EPA's
EMSL laboratory in Cincinnati and maintain records of our acceptable
performance on these samples in our files.
Quality control analysis accounts for approximately 20% of the laboratory
workload. The client is not billed for these analysis, however, they are
reflected in the per analysis or per sample fee schedule. The quality control
analysis performed on a regular basis are outlined below.
1. Field Duplicates - When BCM is responsible for sample collection,
approximately one sample in every 20 is collected in duplicate. When our
client is responsible for collection, containers and instructions are
provided for field duplicates. The duplicates are analyzed as a blind
-------
sample CIO unknown to analyst) along with other samples of this type. On
completion of analysis, the results of the duplicate samples are compared
before the results are released. If there is poor agreement the entire
batch of samples is reanalyzed. This is a check on analytical technique
as well as containers and sampling technique.
2. Lab Duplicate - A portion of a sample is provided to the analyst as a
blind sample. These samples provide data similar to field duplicates but
-eliminates sampling and field contamination error.
3. Standard Samples - These samples are prepared to precise concentration and
provided to the analyst as a blind sample. On completion of analysis the
observed value is compared to the true value. If the difference of the
two values fall outside of an established range the analysis is out of
control. The method of analysis is completely evaluated and the entire
batch of samples is reanalyzed. An unknown standard sample is ran with
each batch of samples. In a large batch of samples, replicate analysis of
the standard is performed to account for approximately one sample in every
ten.
4. Spike Samples - Periodically after a sample has been analyzed, an exact
concentration of standard material is added to the sample. The sample is
then reanalyzed. On completion of analysis the amount originally present
plus the amount added is compared to the amount recovered. This technique
provides data on the precision of a method as well as data on possible
interferences present in the sample.
-------
5. Check Samples - These are standard samples that are obtained from sources
outside our laboratory and are analyzed as blind samples. BCM currently
uses 2 sources for check samples. One source is the Environmental
Protection Agency. The EPA check samples are prepared in
distilled-deionized water at 2 or 3 levels for each test performed by the
lab. They are ran once each quarter. These samples compare the
performance of our lab against other quality labs throughout the nation.
-.The other source of check samples is a commercial source. These samples
not only contain a known concentration but also contain" interferences
normally encountered in water and wastewater samples-
These quality control analysis are above and beyond the minimum procedures
of standardization or calibration but are necessary to insure reliable
results. The quality control practices and frequencies follow the guidelines
established by the Environmental Protection Agency for discharge monitoring.
For the various tests, the following procedures and controls are carried out
on a continuing basis.
1. Titrations - When a titration determination is performed, the reagents and
technician's technique are checked by running a known standard which is
near the midpoint of the recommended working range of the test. Known and
obvious interferences such as color, turbidity, pH, etc. are checked and
eliminated according to EPA-recommended procedures. Duplicates are run on
every 10th sample, spikes on each 20th sample.
2. Colorimetrics - Calibration curves are run using 3 to 8 standards,
depending on the particular test. Before each set of tests, 1 to 3
standards are run to check agreement with the calibration curve.
-------
J. . ; -. - -
•f" _ - I _ • _
f : Standards are run through appropriate pretreatment steps to check
fl — —
recoveries and techniques. Every 10th sample is done in duplicate, and
r
J_ each 20th sample is spiked.
•r— 3. Distillations - Standards are run through the distillation steps to check
methods and techniques and", where necessary, efficiency factors are
calculated and applied to the determination.
4. Probes - Each probe is calibrated on 2 to 5 standards, depending on the
levels detected in the samples being analyzed. In all cases, the probe is
'- *• calibrated above and below the samples value. Spikes-are run on each-10th
'~ sample or as required for samples showing potential interference.
5. Atomic Absorption - Operating curves are run for each metal, and standards
_ are previously run to check agreement with calibration curves. At
_ present, agreement is within _+ 10X of the standard curve; therefore,
r~ ' detection limits will vary within +_ 103?. The instrument reads the average
~ of either 10 or 100 readings. The TOO average is usually used with
samples for which there is ample volume; the 10 average is used for
limited volumes. Each determination is done in duplicate or triplicate.
6. Gas Chromatograph - High, mid-range, and low standards are used for
establishing the linear range and detection limits for each method.
Standards are run prior to and as required during each determination on
samples. Blank samples and reagents are run for each determination. EPA
QC/QA guidelines are used for running of duplicates and spikes -
recommendations are for 1 in 10 spikes and 1 in 10 duplicates (duplicate
samples or repetitive runs).
-------
Standards are purchased as concentrated solutions and are diluted with the
appropriate solvent for working standards. Working standards are compared
to previous or known values of response and retention time prior to use in
identification and quantification of samples.
Field blanks using distilled water will be collected and analyzed when it
is apparent that environmental conditions pose a contamination potential.
Equipment used for sample collection will also be "blanked" if it is
- -apparent that their physical and/or chemical structure could induce
-» .
contamination.
7. Gravimetrics - Blanks are run, where appropriate, and duplicates are run
approximately every 10th sample, when possible.
-------
r
r:
r
BCM
Betz • Converse • Murdoch • Inc.
HAZARDOUS WASTE ANALYSIS
The Betz«Converse«Murdoch«Inc. (BCM) Analytical Laboratories have extensive
experience in solid, liquid and hazardous waste analysis and characteriza-
tion. Past projects have included the sampling of solid, sludge, and liquid
wastes; preparation of leachates from sampling; and subsequent comprehensive
analysis of samples and leachates.
In accordance with the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Hazardous
Waste Regulations, the BCM Laboratories offer the following analyses:
Ignitability - Flash point determination of liquid
(40 CFR 261.21) samples by Pensky - Martens Closed Cup
-• Tester using the protocol specified in
ASTM Standard 0-93-72 . _$
Corrosivity - Steel Corrosion (SAE 1020) at 130°F
(40 CFR 261.22) using the protocol specified in Test
Methods for Evaluating Solid Wastes,
SW-846, U.S. EPA, 1980 $
pH determination of liquid samples using
a pH meter, following the protocol specified
in the "Manual of Methods for Chemical Analysis
of Water and Wastes" (EPA-625-15-74-003) $
Toxicity - Sample preparation using EPA Tcfxicant Extraction
(40 CFR 261.24) Procedure as outlined in EPA4SW-846, 1980 $
Analysis of extract for:
Arsenic
Barium
Cadmium
Chromium
Lead
Mercury
Selenium
Silver
Endrin
Methoxychlor
Lindane
Toxaphene
2, 4-0
2, 4, 5-TP (Silvex)
per sample*
per sample*
per sample*
per sample
per
sample*
$" per sample*
opec)a i
contracts
-------
Betz • Converse • Murdoch • Inc. . --_-—-
The metal analyses are performed by Atomic Absorption Spectrophotometry using
the protocol specified in "Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and
Wastewater," 14th Edition, 1975. Organics analyses are performed according to
the methods described in "Methods for Organochlorine Pesticides in Industrial
Effluents" and "Methods for Chlorinated Phenoxy Acid Herbicides in Industrial
Effluents," MDQARL, Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio, Novem-
ber 28, 1973.
NOTE: Reactivity (40 CFR 261.23) has not been included in the above analy-
ses because the EPA has not established a routine protocol to be used
for the screening of all waste samples. Potential reactivity is de-
termined primarily-through a knowledge of the specific waste compon-
ents and characteristics rather than laboratory analysis.
Organics Analysis
BCM is fully equipped to analyze sludge and solid wastes-for toxic organics.
Please contact us for a quote based on your specific needs.
Additional Services
BCM is fully qualified to assist you with any sampling or technical services
that you may require. Please contact us for additional information.
BCM Laboratory Division BCM Laboratory Division
Eastern Group Appalachian Group
Norristown, Pennsylvania Dunbar, West Virginia
(215) 825-0447 (304) 766-6283 '
BCM Laboratory Division
Houston Group
Deer Park, Texas
(713) 479-6084
B/I-0061- 7/gi
------- |