EPA-700/8-88-043
May 1988 EPA-700/8-88-043
Hazardous Waste Ground-Water
Task Force
Evaluation of
Conoco Billings Refinery
Billings, Montana
United States Environmental Protection Agency
OF MONTANA
Department of Health and Environmental Sciences
-------
UPDATE OF THE HAZARDOUS WASTE GROUND-WATER
TASK FORCE EVALUATION OF THE
CONOCO, INC. BILLINGS REFINERY,
BILLINGS, MONTANA
APRIL 29, 1988
The Hazardous Waste Ground-Water Task Force (Task Force) of
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), representatives
from EPA Region VIII and representatives from the Montana Solid
and Hazardous Waste Bureau conducted an evaluation of the ground-
water monitoring program at the Conoco, Inc. Billings Refinery,
Billings, Montana. The on-site field evaluation was conducted
during the week of October 20, 1986.
During the Fall of 1986 a Preliminary Assessment Report on
the Conoco Refinery was prepared. The final report is dated
January 9, 1987. The RCRA Facility Assessment (RFA) was
completed on July 9, 1987 by performing a visual site inspection
(VSI). The final site inspection report was submitted to EPA on
September 30, 1987. Although the Task Force visit to the
refinery took place before the RFA efforts began, none of the
Task Force findings are included in the RFA reports.
The Montana Department of Health and Environmental Sciences
(MDHES) approved the closure certification on August 17, 1987,
for the concrete oily sludge pit that was used for API sludge
storage. The closure was conducted in accordance with a plan
submitted in November, 1985, and is considered to be a "clean"
closure.
Conoco, Inc. will begin the closure of the tetraethyl lead
(TEL) treatment and disposal area during April or May, 1988.
MDHES approved the closure plan for this area on March 22, 1988,
subject to several special conditions including sampling, soil
disposal, and post-closure care.
Ground water samples were collected from 12 Conoco wells on
March 29, 1988. MDHES and EPA were present for the sampling and
observed improved techniques including the use of a bladder pump
rather than a submersible pump or bailer for well purging.
Conoco submitted a preliminary project outline for a ground
water remediation program at the refinery to EPA and MDHES on
March 30, 1988. the first phase of the program had begun and
consists of a review of existing data. The second phase is a
field evaluation to further characterize the contaminated areas.
Region VIII and MDHES representatives will develop a facility
investigation plan with Conoco that will provide a basis for
corrective action provisions to be contained in the post-closure
permit.
The investigation/remediation plan will be formalized by the
State and a compliance schedule will be developed. The post-
closure permit may contain specific compliance schedule items if
the facility investigation has reached a point that would allow
this.
The use of the post-closure permit to address corrective
action at closing interim status facilities is the preferred
method as outlined in a memorandum from J. Winston Porter dated
March 8, 1988.
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
TECHNICAL ENFORCEMENT SUPPORT
AT
HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
TES IV
CONTRACT NO. 68-01-7351
WORK ASSIGNMENT #586
FINAL GROUNDWATER TASK FORCE EVALUATION
CONOCO REFINERY
BILLINGS, MONTANA
EPA ID NO. MTD 006 229 405
JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC.
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
TECHNICAL ENFORCEMENT SUPPORT
AT
HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
TES IV
CONTRACT NO. 68-01-7351
WORK ASSIGNMENT #586
FINAL GROUNDWATER TASK FORCE EVALUATION
CONOCO REFINERY
BILLINGS, MONTANA
EPA ID NO. MTD 006 229 405
JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC.
12600 WEST COLFAX AVENUE, SUITE A300
LAKEWOOD, COLORADO 80215
DRAFT - DECEMBER 18, 1987
DRAFT FINAL - MARCH 21, 1988
FINAL - APRIL 28, 1988
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 5, Library (5PL-16)
230 S. Dearborn Street, Room 1670
Chicago, IL 60604
-------
Table of Contents
Page
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Task Force Effort 1
1.2 Objectives of Evaluation 1
1.3 Background/Facility Description 2
2.0 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 4
2.1 Interim Status Groundwater Monitoring Program 4
2.2 Groundwater Contamination 5
2.3 Superfund Off-Site Policy 5
II TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT
1.0 INVESTIGATIVE METHODS 6
1.1 Records/Document Review 6
1.2 On-site Inspection 6
1.3 Task Force Sampling Locations and Methods 6
2.0 WASTE MANAGEMENT PRACTICES 9
2.1 Solid Waste Management Units 9
2.1.1 Solid Waste Management Units 9
2.1.2 Active Solid Waste Management Units 15
3.0 GEOLOGY/HYDROGEOLOGY 16
3.1 Regional Geology 16
3.2 Site Geology 16
3.3 Regional Hydrogeology 18
3.4 Site Hydrogeology 23
4.0 GROUNDWATER MONITORING PROGRAM (INTERIM STATUS) 31
4.1 Regulatory Requirements 31
4.2 Monitoring Well System . 31
4.2.1 Background 31
4.2.2 Design 33
4.2.3 Construction Details 34
4.2.4 Adequacy of System 39
4.3 Groundwater Quality Assessment Plan 41
4.4 Sampling and Analysis/Field Implementation 42
(Conoco)
4.4.1 Sampling and Analysis Plan 43
4.4.2 Field Implementation 45
4.4.3 Data Quality Evaluation 47
-------
Table of Contents (Continued)
Page
5.0 SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS/FIELD IMPLEMENTATION 48
(GROUNDWATER TASK FORCE)
5.1 Analytical Results 49
5.2 Data Quality Evaluation 58
5.3 Data Comparison 65
(Groundwater Task Force vs. Conoco)
6.0 REFERENCES 68
List of Figures
Figure
Number
1 General Location Map of Conoco Refinery, 3
Billings, Montana
2 Location of Existing Wells, Conoco Refinery 7
3 Location of Past and Present Waste Management Units, 10
Conoco Refinery
4 Location of Cross Sections, Conoco Billings Refinery 19
5 Cross Section A-A' 20
6 Cross Section B-B' 21
7 Cross Section C-C' 22
8 Top of Bedrock Erosional Surface 26
9 Groundwater Potentiometric Surface (amsl) 27
Task Force (9-14-84)
10 Groundwater Potentiometric Surface (amsl) 29
Task Force (10-20-86)
11 Location of Oil Recovery Trench and Culvert System 40
List of Plates
1 Plan Map of Facility Follows Text
2 Geologic Map of Billings Area Follows Text
ll
-------
Table of Contents (Continued)
List of Tables
/
Page
Table
Number
1 Inactive Solid Waste Management Units, Conoco Refinery 11
2 Analyses of DAF Float and API Separator Sludge, 13
Conoco Refinery
3 Water-Bearing and Lithologic Characteristics of 17
Geologic Units
4 Summary of Groundwater Flow Directions and Gradients 25
As Calculated by Conoco From 1982 to 1985
5 Water Levels Collected by the Task Force on 28
October 20, 1986
6 Past and Present Well Designations 31
7 Summary of Conoco Statistical Analysis From 32
February 23, 1984 through March 23, 1984
8 RCRA Well Specifications 35
9 Water Elevations Vs. Screened Elevations 36
10 Groundwater Task Force Parameters Collected at 50
Conoco Refinery
11 Analytic Summary, (Task Force) 51
12 Comparison of Conoco and Task Force 66
Groundwater Data (ppb)
Appendices
A Groundwater Potentiometric Maps (Conoco)
May 21, 1982 to August 20, 1985
B Groundwater Quality Assessment Program June 4, 1984
C Well Construction Details/Logs (1981-1982 Wells)
D Well Construction Details/Logs (1984 Wells)
E EPA Contractor (Versar) Field Data Sheets
F PRC Data Quality Evaluation Report
G Conoco Analytical Results
ill
-------
586cme
—slh
I EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 / Task Force Effort
The United States Environmental Protection Agency's Groundwater Task Force
(Task Force) conducted an evaluation at the Conoco Refinery facility located in
Billings, Montana. The Task Force was comprised of personnel from the United
States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) Headquarters, U.S. EPA Region
VIII offices and the Montana Department of Health and Environmental Services
(DHES).
Data collected in previous years on groundwater movement indicated several
different flow directions. Installation of six additional wells under the
groundwater quality assessment program in 1984 did not aid in clarifying
groundwater flow direction inconsistencies. Presently, it is not known if errors in
groundwater surface measurements were the cause of the anomolies, or if flow
directions varied by more than 90 degrees during the year.
The EPA Montana Office was notified that the Groundwater Task Force would be
available to visit one facility in Montana. EPA, the Solid and Hazardous Waste
Bureau and Conoco felt that the Task Force could assist them in evaluating
existing information and would also be able to identify improvements in the
groundwater monitoring system.
The Task Force scheduled a visit to the Conoco Refinery in October 1986. The
regulatory agencies agreed to postpone further groundwater regulatory action until
the Task Force had completed their investigation and made recommendations.
1.2 Objectives of Evaluation
The purpose of the Task Force evaluation was to determine the adequacy of the
groundwater monitoring system with regard to Federal groundwater monitoring
requirements under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).
Specifically, the objectives of the evaluation at Conoco were to determine if:
o Conoco was in compliance with 40 CFR 265 Subpart F, interim status
groundwater monitoring requirements.
o Conoco's designated RCRA monitoring wells were properly located and
constructed.
o The groundwater quality assessment program at Conoco is effective in
defining the rate and extent of groundwater contamination beneath the site.
o Conoco had developed and was following an effective plan for groundwater
sampling and analysis.
o Samples have been collected properly.
o Analyses were reliable (i.e., quality of data).
-------
586cme
—slh
1.3 Background and Facility Description
The Conoco Billings Refinery is located at 401 South 23rd Street in Billings,
Montana. The refinery is situated on approximately 160 acres on the southeast side
of Billings (Figure 1). Many residences and businesses are located near the
refinery. The approximate location of the facility is the NW 1/4 of Section 2,
Township 1 South, Range 26 East in Yellowstone County, Montana. The
Yellowstone River passes within approximately 1000 feet of the eastern boundary
of the Conoco property.
The Conoco Refinery operation began in 1949 and is still in operation today. The
refinery converts crude oil, condensate, and field butane into products by several
methods including fractionation, desulfurization, catalytic cracking, reforming,
butane isomerization, and alkylation. The products of these operations include
gasolines, jet fuel, diesel oil, fuel oils, liquid propane, and asphalts (EPA, 1987a).
Design capacity of the refinery is approximately 52,500 barrels per day.
Oily wastes generated in the refinery (K048 and K051) are stored in an above-
ground steel tank for less than 90 days and taken to Conoco's Landfarm located 12
miles north of Billings, Montana.
Adjacent Land Use. Land usage in the area surrounding the Conoco Refinery is
diversified. Many homes and businesses are located near the refinery. A
business/residential district borders on the refinery's western boundary. A
stockyard area is located just north of the refinery. A post office addition is
located directly south of the refinery. Approximately one-half mile southwest of
the refinery is a sugar factory. Interstate Highway 90 runs north-northeast
between the refinery and the Yellowstone River, within about 500 feet of the
refinery's eastern boundary. Adjacent to the river, southeast of the refinery, is the
Montana Power Company's steam electric plant (Corette Plant) and the Billings
City Water Plant.
-------
jAj^ssrs-r-'Su^J--^;
COHOCO REFINERY
PROPERTY BOUNDARY
r.: •-•>: ji- r*"5"! ••:•• i ~i_J .-ri '. "• v .?
^J'\ rpsiS-- !:---Ci|L;^i -; -./ -^:
PpS^^)>a^^ -.-V^M^-V:}
- ,r =r-« "->! «*> • V. 1^ - j&\~ ^ _ , _ • V -. -^ TV.T
SCALE
1000 0 1000 3000 3000 4QQQ yjM
FIGURE 1
General Location Map of
Conoco Refinery, Billings, Montana
Source: Billings Montana East
Wast Ouadranala. USfiff 1975
-------
586cme
—slh
2.0 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
The following summary of findings and conclusions are based on Task Force
interpretations of existing data, observations and findings from the sampling event at the
site on October 20-23, 1986, the requirements of 40 CFR 265 Subpart F, and
recommendations of the RCRA Groundwater Monitoring Technical Enforcement Guidance
Document (TEGD, EPA, 1986a).
2.1 Interim Status Groundwater Monitoring Program
The interim status groundwater monitoring system has changed significantly since
its inception in 1981. In 1984, Conoco was triggered into an assessment monitoring
program due to significant increases in specific conductance, TOC, TOX and a
decrease in pH. The assessment monitoring program included the installation of
six additional wells bringing the total to 12.
In order for Conoco to fully evaluate the rate and extent of contaminant migration
as required by 40 CFR 265.93(d), the uppermost aquifer must be fully
characterized. This would include aquifers hydraulically interconnected to the
uppermost aquifer (i.e., possibly the Colorado Shale and the overlying alluvial
terrace deposits). In addition, Conoco should provide data which identifies a
confining layer or aquitard at the site. Conoco has not collected data on the rock
strata underlying the shallow alluvial aquifer either for its confining properties or
its ability to transmit water.
The preferential pathways considered by the Task Force are dependent upon the
chemical characteristics of the contaminants at the site. Based on both light and
dense phase organic compounds, both the water table and the underlying
bedrock/alluvial contact would appear to control a majority of contaminant
migration. At this time, a concise evaluation of the top of the bedrock erosional
surface has not been made by Conoco. According to Conoco, there have also been
changes in the groundwater flow direction over time (southeast to northeast) which
may control light phase organic migration. Due to these changes and/or a lack of
data to characterize the subsurface hydrogeology, Conoco does not appear to have a
sufficient number of wells to adequately monitor the water table for light
immiscibles and the lower portion of the alluvium (bedrock contact) for denser
phase organics (i.e., the screens must be discrete enough so as not to dilute denser
constituents, especially soluble components with groundwater from the shallower
portion of the aquifer). It is recommended that Conoco re-evaluate the adequacy
of the existing monitoring wells to detect light and dense phase organics, and the
horizontal placement and construction (with the use of PVC) of the wells, then
proceed with a program which will fill in the data gaps in the existing program.
This should include additional downgradient wells (RCRA 40 CFR 265.93(d))
which will further evaluate the extent of the existing organic/inorganic plume and
will aid in identifying contaminant migration pathways off-site. The adequacy of
the existing groundwater monitoring system is discussed in further detail in
Section 4.2.4.
Construction and integrity of the existing wells are questionable due to a lack of
information on the thicknesses and specifications of the filter pack material and
bentonite seals. The turbidity values collected by the Task Force (17.2 to 195
NTU) seem to indicate that these wells may not be performing properly. Conoco
should attempt to redevelop the wells according to guidelines in Practical Guide
for Ground-Water Sampling (EPA, 1985) to see if sample turbidity can be
-------
586cme
-slh
improved. Alternate sampling methods, such as using a bladder pump rather than
a bailer, can also improve sample turbidity problems. This is also discussed in
detail in Section 4.2.4.
The sampling and analysis plan developed as part of the assessment program lacks
the minimum detail required in 40 CFR 265.92 and recommended in the TEGD
(EPA, 1986a). Specifically, the plan does not discuss: 1) collection of water level
measurements; 2) measurements of light and dense immiscible components; 3) step
by step evacuation procedures; 4) sampling methodologies; 5) collection of field
measurements (pH, specific conductance and temperature) including maintenance
and calibration of instruments; and 6) decontamination procedures.
Of most importance, the Conoco sampling team does not appear to be following
either the existing sample and analysis plan or accepted methodologies as outlined
in the TEGD (EPA, 1986a). This is discussed further in Sections 4.4.1 and 4.4.2.
2.2 Groundwater Contamination
The groundwater samples collected by the Task Force indicate that a contaminant
plume containing both organics and inorganics including several Appendix VIII
hazardous waste constituents exists at the site. Light phase organics were detected
at wells R-3-NC, R-12-PE and R-4-EC while well R-12-PE contained several feet of
dense heavy oil at the bottom of the well. Almost all of the culvert wells
contained a floating organic phase. Monitoring wells which contained the most
significant concentrations of organics/inorganics appear to be situated within the
plume are as follows: R-3-NC; R-4-EC; R-5-NNE; R-6-NE; R-ll-PN; R-12-PE and
culvert wells A, B, E, F and L. It should be noted that other culvert wells may
exist, but were not sampled by the Task Force. In addition, culvert well L could
not be located on any maps but is reportedly located approximately 50 feet east of
culvert E (phone conversation between Bob Olsen of Conoco and Barbara Jones
DHES, February 10, 1988). The remaining wells, R-l-W, R-2-SC, R-7-WC, R-8-SW,
R-9-TEL, and R-10-SE either did not contain any concentrations of hazardous
waste constituents or contained only trace amounts. The absence of contamination
in these wells is probably a function of their hydraulic gradients in relation to the
sources of contamination. Conoco should prove or disprove any potential sources
of groundwater contamination at the facility. The logic behind this is that
contamination has been verified by Conoco, evident by the fact that several oil
recovery wells were installed at the facility.
In summary, contaminant plumes exist at this site. The vertical and horizontal
extent has not been fully defined, especially since wells R-6-NNE and R-4-EC,
located at the eastern property boundary contain elevated concentrations of
organic and inorganic hazardous waste constituents. This is discussed in further
detail in Section 5.1.
2.3 Superfund Off-Site Policy
Under current EPA policy, if an off-site TSDF is to be used for land disposal of
waste from a Superfund financed cleanup of a CERCLA site, the TSDF must be in
compliance with the applicable technical requirements of RCRA. Although the
Task Force usually investigates such sites, the Conoco facility does not accept off-
site Superfund cleanup wastes and therefore does not fall under this policy.
-------
586cme
--slh
II TECHNICAL REPORT
1.0 INVESTIGATIVE METHODS
The Hazardous Waste Groundwater Task Force (Task Force) investigation consisted of the
following:
o Reviewing and evaluating records and documents from U.S. EPA Region VIII
Denver and Montana Offices and Conoco.
o Conducting an on-site facility inspection during the week of October 20, 1986.
o Sampling and analyzing data from 12 groundwater monitoring wells and five
culvert wells.
1.1 Records/Document Review
Records and documents obtained from EPA Region VIII, the EPA Montana field
operations and Conoco were compiled and reviewed prior to, and following the on-
site inspection. The purpose of this review was to obtain information regarding
past and present facility operations, details of the waste management units and the
facility's groundwater monitoring program.
Records and documents which were reviewed included: Comprehensive
Groundwater Monitoring System Evaluation (July 30, 1985), Groundwater
Monitoring Well Installation Procedures (August 24, 1984), Groundwater Quality
Assessment Program (June 4, 1984), Sampling and Analysis Plan (June 7, 1984),
Hydrologic Characterization of the Southern Portion of the Conoco Inc. Refinery
(June 1, 1984), Waste Minimization Plan and Response to questions requested by
EPA (November 22, 1985), Preliminary Assessment Report (January 9, 1987), Field
Investigation Report (October 20, 1986), RCRA Facility Assessment - Visual Site
Inspection (September 30, 1987), Groundwater Monitoring Plan (undated), and
several miscellaneous documents indicating groundwater elevations as well as
potentiometric surface maps.
1.2 On-site Inspection
A facility inspection was performed at the Conoco Refinery during the week of
October 20, 1986. The objective of this inspection was to determine compliance
with Federal and Montana regulations and in particular, compliance of the
groundwater monitoring system.
1.3 Task Force Sampling Locations and Methods
A total of 17 wells were involved in the Task Force sampling inspection. Of these,
12 are RCRA wells and the others are either observation wells or oil recovery wells
(A, B and C, Figure 2). A detailed discussion of these wells is presented in Section
4.2.3 of this report.
-------
rr
o,
,o
R-7-WC
4
•
R-l-W
E
0
OPEN SLUDGE . ^
PIT AREA ~^"
R-3- NC
• /
R-5-NNE /
R-6-NE/
J \
co /R-'2
/
•
1 TEL TREATMENT
8 DISPOSAL
I ~
CD
l
**> R-9-TEL
R-2-SC
- ••
^ \
-fi ^ /
r
R-4-EC
r ' _
FEE
LEGEND
MONITORING WEL
(Installed by North
R"'°"SE Engineering in I9J
R-a-sw
FIGURE 2
Location of Existing Wells
Conoco Refinery
400
• MONITORING WELL
(Installed by Davis
Drilling, 1981-82)
O CULVERT WELL
-------
586cme
~slh
Each sample was analyzed for the 40 CFR 261 Appendix VIII constituents. Field
analysis included pH, temperature and specific conductance (Lemire, 1986). Data
from sample analyses were reviewed to further evaluate Conoco's groundwater
monitoring program and to identify groundwater contamination. Summary tables
of analytical results of the samples collected by the Task Force are presented and
discussed in section 5.1 of this report.
8
-------
586cme
-slh
2.0 WASTE MANAGEMENT PRACTICES
2.1 Solid Waste Management Units
Several solid waste management units (SWMUs) were operated by the Conoco
Refinery in the past. These include: 1) the API oily sludge pit, 2) the south open
sludge pit area referred to as the surface impoundment area in the past, and the
TEL (tetraethyl lead) treating area. The API oily sludge pit is the only unit which
is considered a regulated unit, and was closed in the summer of 1986. Closure has
been certified and approved by DHES in a letter dated July 3, 1986. Hazardous
wastes in the open sludge pit area reportedly produced from the waste water
treatment system contained DAF float (K048), and API separator sludge (K051).
The sludge pits stopped receiving wastes prior to January 26, 1983 (EPA, 1987a).
Leaded tank bottoms (K052) were reportedly disposed in the TEL treatment area.
Although the TEL treatment area and the open sludge pits are not regulated units,
Conoco has elected to undertake partial closure activities.
Additionally, three landfills and one landfarm have reportedly operated at the
Conoco Refinery in the past. Locations of these units are indicated on Figure 3.
Records on the operations at these waste management units are incomplete.
Locations, sizes, and operating dates of these units are approximate and are based
on the recollections of employees (Table 1).
Currently, Conoco operates a wastewater treatment system at the refinery.
Locations of these units are indicated in Figure 3. All generated wastes are stored
in sludge storage tanks for less than 90 days, then are transported off-site for
disposal. A plan map of the Conoco facility is presented as Plate 1.
2.1.1 Solid Waste Management Units
API Oilv Sludge Pit. A closure plan for the API oily sludge pit was
submitted to the Solid Waste Management Bureau of the Montana
Department of Health and Environmental Sciences on July 24, 1984. The
closure plan was updated in November 1985. The pit was reportedly placed
in service in 1975 and was used for temporary storage of API separator
sludge (K051). It is located in the wastewater treatment area, as shown on
Figure 3. This open, reinforced concrete pit has a capacity of
approximately 65,000 gallons. A polyethylene liner was installed between
the soil and concrete at the time of pit installation.
As a step toward closure, the pit was emptied and rinsed on August 27,
1984. Two 4-inch concrete core samples were removed from the bottom of
the pit. Three "control" samples were taken for background comparison -
one from the east ramp of the pit where no wastes had been applied, and
two from a new concrete pit which had never received wastes. According to
the closure plan for the API oily sludge pit prepared by Conoco, visual
examination revealed that cores from the old pit showed no signs of
contamination other than at the exposed surface (EPA, 1987a). A one-inch
thick slab from the outer surface of each of the cores was analyzed for
heavy metal content.
-------
r
Property Boundary 2812 ft.
CM
o
•o
c
3
O
m
SLUDGE
STORAGE TANK
API OILY SLUDGE PITs
API SEPARATOR-*. \
No. I BIO POND
No. 2 BIO POND
BOILERHOUSE
SLOWDOWN POND
PROCESS AREA
DIVERSION POND
TANK FARM
STORM WATER
POND
AREA I
LANDFILL
AREA 2
ALKY LANDFILL-
OPEN SLUDGE
PIT AREA
\
1
AREA 4
LANDFILL x
N<
i
i j ,„
TEL TREATING ,'
^-AREA
W f A O C A ^
/ AREA 3
' LANDFARM
/
i
/
-•
m
CM
03
O
•o
C
3
O
m
£•
a
o
£
DAF UNIT
HOLDING POND
No. I
HOLDING POND
No. 2
-EMERGENCY
DIVERSION POND
4OO
FEET
LEGEND
PRESENT
I PAST
Property Boundary 1470 ft.
FIGURE 3
Location of Past and Present
Waste Management Units, Conoco Refinery
10
-------
TABLE 1
INACTIVE SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT UNITS, CONOCO REFINERY
**
**
**
**
Unit Name
API Oily Sludge Pit
South Open Sludge
Pic Area
TEL Treating Area
Area 1 Landfill
Area 2 Alky Landfill
Area 3 Landfarm
Area 4 Landfill
Size, Feet
22 x 100 x 6-1/2
280 x 310 x 3-1/2
86 x 100
300 x 300
110 x 300
400 x 875
200 x /i 20
Operating Capacity
65,000 gal.
238,000 gal.
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
* These units are in the process of closure.
** Sizes and operating dates of these units are approximate,
0pe ra t in g Da t ea
1975 - 9/84 (Closed 1986)
1966 - 6/82
1966
1950
1964
1970
1966
1978
1963
6/80
1972
1979
N/A Not Applicable
REFERENCE: EPA, 1987a
-------
586cme
--slh
South Open Sludge Pits. In August 1984, a closure plan for the south open
sludge pit area was submitted to the Solid Waste Management Bureau of the
Montana Department of Health and Environmental Sciences. An updated
version of the closure plan was submitted in November 1985. The plan had
not yet been approved as of late October 1986 (EPA, 1987a).
The open sludge pit area, which includes several unlined waste pits, is
located in the southern portion of the Conoco Refinery as shown on Figure
3. This pit area was used to store API separator sludge (K051) and DAF
float (K048) generated during the winter months. According to the sludge
pit closure plan, the last time wastes were stored at the pit area was in the
winter of 1981-1982. The pit area was reportedly used from 1966 until the
pits were emptied in June 1982. Before 1978, when the DAF unit was
installed at the wastewater treatment system, the only waste stored in the
pits was API separator sludge. It is estimated that 2,400 tons of total liquid
waste materials were stored in the pit area (EPA, 1987a).
Sludge samples were analyzed by Conoco personnel per RCRA requirements
for EP toxicity, ignitability, corrosivity, and reactivity. The sludge samples
revealed elevated levels of hydrocarbons, chromium, copper, selenium and
zinc (Table 2).
Oily materials have been detected in groundwater samples taken from
monitoring wells R-ll-PN and R-12-PE, which are located at the boundary
of and on the perimeter of the sludge pit area, respectively (Figure 2).
However, the source of the contamination has not yet been determined
(EPA, 1987a).
TEL Treatment Area. A closure plan for the TEL treatment area was
submitted to the Solid Waste Management Bureau of the Montana
Department of Health and Environmental Sciences in August 1984 and
updated in November 1985. As of late October 1986, the plan had not been
approved (EPA, 1987a). The TEL treatment area is located in the
southwestern portion of the Conoco Refinery (Figure 3). The area is
approximately 86 feet by 100 feet, and is enclosed by a 7-foot chain link
fence and a locking gate. The area was used between 1966 and 1978 as a
"weathering" area for leaded tank bottoms (K052). According to the
November 1985 closure plan, an estimated 15 tons of leaded tank bottoms
were applied to the area during that period (EPA, 1987a).
Results of RCRA analyses of soil samples taken from the TEL treatment
area, as well as analytical results for control samples, were obtained by
Conoco personnel. These samples contained relatively high levels of
hydrocarbons, copper, iron, lead, and tin (EPA, 1987a). Analyses done by
Northern Engineering and Testing revealed high lead concentrations in the
soil core taken from the southwest corner of the area, at a depth of
approximately 1.5 feet.
12
-------
t2-cme
slh
TABLE 2
ANALYSES OF DAF FLOAT AND API SEPARATOR SLUDGE
CONOCO REFINERY
DAF Float (pcrrO
Parameter March '84 Scot. '85
F
Ag
Al
As
B
Ba
Be
Ca
Cd
Co
Cr
Cu
Fe
Hg
Mg
Mn
Mo
Na
Ni
Pb
Sb
Se
Sn
Sr
Ti
Tl
V
Zn
Water Wt%
Oil Wt%
Solids Wt%
Corrosivity
pH
Reactivity
S=
CN'
Ignitability
Benzene
Ethylbenzene
Toluene
Methyl Ethyl
Ketone
Xylenes, M
Xylcnes, O&P
31
<0.15
88
2.0
15
0.68
<0.024
86
<0.073
-
73 77
4.0
160
4.7
36
1.2
0.28
120
<1.7
<1.2 <1.0
<1.2
0.21
6.4
1.0
2.3
<2.4
<0.62
30
98.8
<0.1
Sent. '8<
3.4
7.8
ND
ND
0.6
270
35
0.26
2.3
4.3
ND
14
3.7
85
ND
ND
ND
7.3
ND
ND
API Separator Sludge (ppm)
March '84 Sent. '85
14
1,150
8.3
34
34
<0.20
1,700
<0.60
2.6
595 193
79
6,050
0.40
1,200
62
2.9
<20
23
<10 3.4
<10
5.8
8.0
24
66
<40
26
325
95.1
0.5
19.16
Non-Corrosive
8.9
Neg
Neg
>140°F
Sent. '86
6.1
47
ND
0.89
2.0
450
81
0.47
15
19
0.6
1.7
15
450
59
57
260
ND
210
200
13
-------
t2-cme
slh
TABLE 2 (continued)
DAF Float (ppm)
Parameter March '84 Sept. '85 Sept. '86
/
y
Anthracene ND
Benzo(a)anthracene ND
Benzo(a)pyrene ND
Chrysene 0.2
Methylnaphthalene ND
Naphthalene ND
Phcnathrene ND
Styrenc 0.4
Benzenethiol 0.1
Crcsol ND
Dimethylphenol ND
Phenol 2.5
API Separator Sludge (ppm)
March '84 Sept. '85
Sept. '86
1.8
0.9
0.3
1.3
48
13
16
1.9
0.2
3.9
24
5.0
EP TOXICITY (MG/L)
DAF Float (ppm)
API Separator Sludge (ppm)
Parameter March '84 Sept. '85
Sept. '86
March '84
Arsenic
Barium
Cadmium
Chromium
Lead
Mercury
Selenium
Silver
0.1
1
<0.01
0.05
<0.1
<0.01
<0.02
<0.05
Sept. '85
3
<0.01
0.46
<0.01
<0.01
<0.02
<0.05
Sept. '86
REFERENCE: EPA, 1987a
14
-------
586cme
--slh
Landfills and Land Farm. Because of incomplete records, it is not
documented whether RCRA-listed hazardous wastes were managed at the
landfills or land farm (Figure 3). It is reported that discarded piping,
valves, broken concrete, and spent fluidized catalytic cracker (FCC) catalyst
/ were the primary wastes disposed of in landfills 1 and 4. Discarded
•' alkylation unit piping and equipment were disposed in landfill 2 to prevent
its accidental reuse in any other service. Prior to the opening of the land
farm north of the Conoco Refinery, area 3 was used as a land farm. API
separator sludge (K051) may have been applied to this area. Investigations
of soil contamination or groundwater contamination specific to these units
have not been performed (EPA, 1987a).
2.1.2 Active Solid Waste Management Units (SWMU)
Waste Water Treatment System. A number of SWMUs make up the
wastewater treatment system, including an API separator, a DAF unit, and
numerous holding ponds and tanks. These units are located in the central
and west-central part of the Conoco property (Figure 3). Two RCRA-listed
hazardous wastes are generated within the wastewater treatment system:
DAF float (K048) and API separator sludge (K051). Due to the presence of
chromium and lead, these wastes were listed as hazardous under 40 CFR 261
(EPA, 1987a). DAF float is generated continuously with an annual
production rate of approximately 1550 tons per year. API separator sludge
is removed from the API separator in batches several times per year. The
annual production rate of API separator sludge is approximately 750 tons
per year (EPA, 1987a). Samples of DAF float and API separator sludge
were taken in March 1984, September 1985, and in September 1986. Results
of analyses on these samples are presented in Table 2.
Sludge Storage Tanks. According to Conoco's submitted response to the 1984
RCRA amendments, the sludge storage tanks are the only other pair of
SWMU's currently used at the Conoco Refinery (EPA, 1987a).
In September 1984, a new above ground steel storage tank was put into
service at the Conoco Refinery. According to Conoco, this open tank is
used for the temporary storage of API separator sludge (K051) and DAF
float (K048). As shown on Figure 3, the tank is located within the
wastewater treatment area. This sludge storage tank temporarily stores
wastes, which are later transported to the Conoco landfarm via a vacuum
truck (EPA, 1987a).
A second sludge storage tank was completed in September 1986. This new
tank is identical to the original sludge tank and is located just east of the
original tank as shown on Figure 3 (EPA, 1987a).
15
-------
586cme
—slh
3.0 GEOLOGY/HYDROGEOLOGY
3.1 Regional Geology
Sedimentary rocks of Cretaceous age crop out in the area within a 15 mile radius
of Billings. These rocks, consisting predominantly of sandstones and shales, dip to
the northeast and are locally overlain by Quaternary alluvial and colluvial
deposits. In order of decreasing age, the Cretaceous formations which crop out in
the study area are: Colorado Shale, Telegraph Creek Formation, Eagle Sandstone,
Claggett Formation, Judith River Formation, Bearpaw Shale, and the Fox Hills or
Lennep Sandstone (EPA, 1987a).
The Colorado Shale outcrops in the southern and western portions of the study
area. Progressively younger strata are exposed as northwest-southeast trending
bands to the northeast of Billings (Hall and Howard, 1929; Gosling and Pashley,
1973). The lithologic and hydrologic properties of these formations are
summarized in Table 3.
Quaternary alluvium is present as floodplains and terraces along the Yellowstone
River and some of its tributaries. Gosling and Pashley (1973) mapped three
terraces along the Yellowstone River near Billings. The alluvium present beneath
the youngest terrace surface (T.) is generally coarse-grained (sand and gravel).
The alluvial materials in the older terraces (T2 and To) include increasing amounts
of fine-grained material (silty and clay). The composite thickness of the
Yellowstone River Alluvium ranges up to approximately 120 feet.
In addition to the terrace and river channel deposits, there are several other types
of Quaternary unconsolidated deposits in the region, including alluvial fan
deposits, slope wash deposits, and lacustrine deposits. These deposits are highly
localized and cover relatively small areas.
The area's geologic map presented by Gosling and Pashley (Plate 2) (1973) indicates
that the Conoco Refinery is located on the T^ terrace of Quaternary age. This
terrace parallels the Yellowstone River from Park City to Billings and is 20 to 40
feet above the river. The terrace deposit consists of up to 60 feet of sandy gravel
with minor amounts of silt and clay.
The Cretaceous aged unconsolidated alluvial deposits in the refinery area are
underlain by either the Telegraph Creek Formation or the Colorado Shale. The
Telegraph Creek Formation consists of thin-bedded, brown sandstone and shale; the
Colorado Shale consists of dark gray to black marine shale with thin sandy
members in the middle and lower sections (Gosling and Pashley, 1973).
3.2 Site Geology
Six shallow groundwater monitoring wells were installed in late 1981, and early
1982, at the refinery by Davis Drilling of Billings: R-l-W, R-2-SC, R-3-NC, R-4-
EC, R-5-NNE, and R-6-NE. In August 1984, six additional shallow wells were
drilled by Northern Engineering and Testing of Billings: R-7-WC, R-8-SW, R-9-
TEL, R-10-SE, R-ll-PN and R-12-PE. Figure 2 is a site map showing the location
of these wells.
16
-------
TABLE 3
Water-bearing and Lithe-logic Characteristics of Geologic Units
SfSTf.il
SKHIES
STKATICBAI'ltlC
III! IT
API'UOXI-
MATE
IIIIOCIIKSS
I.ITIini.OdC CIIAIIACTKIIISTICS
UATEH-IIEAMIrlG CIIAMACTKXISTICS
r.
8
s
Tertiary
llolocene
a Qua ternj ry *nj
Plel etactim
Illoccnc
CO
flala taceiie
K Ive r-chaniiel 0-20 Well-aortcd amid and gravel; contalna I urge
alluvliiu Cobble*.
Slo|>ewaih 0-170 Sill ami allly clny derived by eruilon of
depojlti Crelaceotia tonka.
Allnvlal-fan 0-100(7) Silt and allty clay derived by erosion of
dujiuytta Cretaccoiia rocka.
Trlbntiry Alluvlim 0-30
Ttrnc«« on valley 0-10
f loor
Illgli-terraca 0-10
dupua I La
Sill anJ all ly clay.
Ylclily no re than 50 g|n of good quality water to
we 11e .
Ylctda email qiiAnllilei ( m/ill qiiantltlee (1-3 gpn) of highly
• lnur.ll lied water.
Ylelda .-.11 qiiAitlltlee ('< 10 gpn) of highly
• Incra 1 I led wnler.
Gravel anJ at nil layer* near die river grading Co Ylelja 10-60 g|»i to uilli lapping gravel layara,
predominantly alll at norlli ctlg< of lurraca '1. but allty layeri ylald very tlttla ual«r.
Uall-aorceil aand anJ (travel.
Uiunlly liat abovt uitar table capping topograph-
ic lilglia.
Fox'tlll \t
Siinilt ton*
flearpau Shale
< 300
0-1 100
Gray to yelloulali gray fine- to »cJlun-gr»l ned
mntlnona ul lit occAiilonal gr«y aliale ami vlialy
• I 1 1 y tone.
o
te
n
1-4
•t
O
n
o
10
llppor Judith River JUO
CrcUceoiia t'ocmtlon
Claggett 670
CralACaoua furuuiilun
Eagle Sanditone 210
Cray to black narlne ahaly elayitoix an. I
ulili occaalonal tltln illlatone, allty a.inJutone,
• iiJ bonioiilte beda.
Alternating beda of yellow to brown •aitilatono anJ
iliala.
Significant aoiirce of water In ragtoit| ylclda up
to aliouc 70 g|i« to Jo»««tlc end alack u« 11 •. up
to 200 gpn to municipal and Induairlal walla.
Very low permeability) generally doe* not yield
to wo 11 a.
Telegraph Creek 160
fur nut Ion
Yellou-gray Co light-brown f ln«-gra IntJ lanJaton*
giajlng to alltalono an.l gray ahftla al lit* bnaa.
I.I (ht-ye I low-brown f (ne-grnlned al>Cone, m*t-
(Ive nt b.ne and t Itln-bed.luil at lop.
Till n-budilvd brown canilu tone, nnd ehnli.
Sandalon* layeri yield a»»ll quantltlci (|>|>cr uuubur.
lUy yield a»nll i|iiantlilee «IU |r«) of highly
nl nerul 1 «ed wtcer fron aandy eiraia.
Ylelda ««A!| quantltlea «IO gpia) of highly
• Inwral 1 iud u.ilur to walla.
Source a I Goallni oi»l l'.iahlcv (I9M); and S tuner and l.eul • (1900).
REFERENCE: EPA 1987a
-------
586cme
--slh
Based on the geologic logs of the first six wells, three geologic cross-sections were
prepared by Law Engineering Testing Company. The locations of the sections are
identified on Figure 4 and the cross-sections are presented on Figures 5, 6 and 7.
Static water levels measured on April 7, 1984, and screened intervals are shown on
the cross-sections.
The shallow subsurface materials at the site consist of an average of approximately
19 feet of unconsolidated alluvial material overlying gray shale. A one-foot thick
gravel fill layer was penetrated at the ground surface at well R4-EC. Three types
of natural unconsolidated material were penetrated in addition to the fill. Based
on descriptions presented in McDermott (1982), these shallow subsurface materials
are described below:
Siltv Sand and Clavev Sand. This unit generally is present at the ground surface
and extends to a depth of between 3 and 9 feet. It consists of brown, grayish-
brown, or brownish-gray, silty sand and clayey sand with occasional gravel.
Sandy Clav. The sandy clay unit is present at the ground surface near the
Yellowstone River at wells R-5-NNE and R-6-NE, where its thickness averages 4.5
feet. A thin (0.5 to 1 foot) sandy clay seam is also present beneath the silty sand
and clayey sand unit at wells R-2-SC and R-4-EC. The sandy clay unit consists of
gray, brown, or black, sandy clay or silty, sandy clay; occasionally it is referred to
in the logs simply as "clay."
Sandy Gravel. The sandy gravel underlies the units described above and extends
to the gray shale unit. Its thickness ranges from 9 to 15 feet. It consists of sandy
gravel comprised of igneous and metamorphic rock types. Based on examination of
sandy gravel outcrops along the Yellowstone River, a significant silt fraction is
also present.
These unconsolidated units were interpreted as having been deposited in a fluvial
environment similar to that of the present Yellowstone River. These materials
overlie a gray shale unit. Based on its color, the gray shale most likely is part of
the Colorado Shale. However, it is likely that the Telegraph Creek Formation also
includes some gray shale members.
The distribution of shallow subsurface materials beneath the site is relatively
uniform as shown on Figures 5 through 7. At the wells located farthest from the
river, the silty sand and clayey sand unit overlies the sandy gravel, which in turn,
overlies gray shale. Nearer to the river, thin sandy clay seams or lenses are present
at or near the ground surface (EPA, 1987a).
3.3 Regional Hydrogeology
The unconsolidated terrace and river channel deposits represent the most prolific
source of groundwater in the study area (EPA, 1987a). Of the consolidated rock
formations in the area, the Judith River Formation, Eagle Sandstone, and Fox Hills
Sandstone are capable of yielding small to moderate amounts of fair quality water
(Gosling and Pashley, 1973; Stoner and Lewis, 1980). Water-bearing properties of
the consolidated and unconsolidated units have been summarized in Table 3.
18
-------
O t U*-J 11 u ^
3102.29
WATER SURFACE
IN YEGEN DRAIN
ON 4-7-84
DRUM STORAGE
AREA 1
OFFICE
OLD SURFACE
IMPOUNDMENT
STORAGE AREA
OLD LANDFILL r
AREA
I I
I I
I U-
OLD TEL
TREATMENT 8 DISPOSAL
AREA
O
R-3-N(
OLD LANDFILL
AREA
— i
i
OLD SURFACE
IMPOUNDMENT
DISPOSAL AREA
____ -- --- !
/OLD LAND APPLICATION
/ / AREA I
/ R-2-SC J
L-- --- ----- 1
LEGEND
CONOCO INC. PROPERTY BOUNDARY
'~~~R~2~SC
A
1
A'
I
HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT UNIT
MONITORING WELL
CROSS SECTION LOCATION
FIGURE 4 Location of Cross Sections, Conoco Billings Refinery
REFERENCE: EPA,1987a
19
-------
ELEVATION „ (ft. MSL)
M
n
a
2
O en
M
• t
O
t- K
VD O
00 (0
~j cn
0)
CO
CD
o
rt
H-
O
CO
o
X
3E
m
cn
-l
|>-
O>
-------
B
SOUTHWEST
B1
NORTHEAST
3095— -
B.T.2 17'
3090 —
GROUND SURFACE
R-3-NC
R-5-NNE
SILTY SAND
AND
CLAYEY SAND
. . :-. -•-:.-: SANDY CLAY
SANDY GRAVEL
SANDY GRAVEL
GRAY SHALE
0 100 200 300
- 3110
- 3105
in
SCALE ((I.)
— 3100 _^
2
g
I
uj
— 3095 _J
UJ
— 3090
FIGURE 6 Cross Section B-B1
REFERENCE: EPA,19 8 7a
-------
3115 - C
NORTHEAST
R-3-NC
3110 -
-3113
3105 —
W)
2
3100
UJ
_J
UJ
3095 —
GROUND SURFACE
SOUTHEAST
R-4-EC
GRAVEL
FILL
SILTY SAND
AND
CLAYEY SAND
(4/7/84)
•B.T. £19'
3090 —
SANDY CLAY
SANDY GRAVEL
GRAY SHALE
50 100
SCALE (ft.)
B.T & 18'
— 3110
— 3105
- 3100
2
O
h-
<
>
UJ
_J
UJ
— 3095
— 3090
FIGURE 7 Cross Section C-C'
REFERENCE: EPA, 1987a
-------
586cme
--slh
The water-bearing portion of the terrace and river channel deposits along the
Yellowstone River is referred to as the "alluvial aquifer." Groundwater generally
flows toward the Yellowstone River in this aquifer in an easterly direction, with
an average gradient of approximately 0.005. Based on data from pumping tests in
the alluvial aquifer, well yields of several hundred gallons per minute (gpm) are
possible. Transmissivities range up to 2.7 x 104 gallons per day per foot (gpd/ft)
(Gosling and Pashley, 1973).
Specific data regarding groundwater flow directions and the hydraulic aquifer
properties of consolidated rock aquifers were not identified by Conoco. General
data indicates that the Fox Hills Sandstone, Judith River Formation, and Eagle
Sandstone may yield up to several tens of gallons of water per minute. Yields in
the other rock formations are reported to be significantly less (EPA, 1987a).
3.4 Site Hydrogeology
Based on site geologic data, the saturated portions of the sandy gravel, silty sand
and clayey sand units represent the uppermost water-bearing zone at the site. This
water-bearing zone is part of the alluvial aquifer as described by Gosling and
Pashley (1973). The alluvial aquifer is considered to be unconfined at the site.
According to Conoco, the top of the gray shale represents the lower boundary of
the alluvial aquifer on the site. It is possible that structural features (fractures,
jointing, etc.) in the gray shale may be capable of transmitting water. The overall
hydraulic conductivity of the gray shale, according to Conoco, is several orders of
magnitude less than that of the alluvial aquifer although data to support this
statement was not available.
The cross-sections presented in Figures 5 through 7 indicate that the saturated
thickness of the alluvial aquifer ranged from about 10 to 18 feet in April 1984. As
static water levels fluctuate with seasonal fluctuations, the thickness of the aquifer
will vary with time (EPA, 1987a).
The sandy clay unit present beneath the site does not appear to be sufficiently
thick or continuous to represent a hydrologic barrier. The entire saturated interval
in the alluvium is, therefore, considered to be a single aquifer.
The transmissivity of the alluvial aquifer beneath the refinery ranges from 8.9 x
10 to 2.5 x 10 gallons per day per foot (gpd/ft). The hydraulic conductivity
ranges from 3.5 x 10"2 to 8.9 x 10"2 centimeters per second (cm/sec) (EPA, 1987a).
For comparison, the range in values of transmissivity presented in Gosling and
Pashley (1973) was 1.9 x 104 to 2.7 x 104 gpd/ft. The range presented by Exxon in
the 1983 RCRA Part B permit application for their Billings refinery (similar
geologic location) was <1.0 x 10 to >1.0 x 10^ gpd/ft. Exxon's estimates of
hydraulic conductivity ranged from 1.7 x 10"2 to 3.7 x 10"2 cm/sec. (EPA, 1987a;
Exxon, 1983).
Transmissivity and hydraulic conductivity values estimated for the Conoco site are
generally comparable to those presented in Gosling and Pashley (1973) and Exxon
(1983). Differences may be attributed to a lesser saturated thickness at the Conoco
site than the alluvial aquifer generally exhibits, and subtle differences in the
texture, gradation, and packing arrangement of the local alluvium.
The groundwater flow direction as recorded by Conoco varies from a southeast to
northeast direction over time. Potentiometric maps were plotted by Conoco from
23
-------
586cme
-slh
May 21, 1982 through August 20, 1985 and are presented in Appendix A. Table 4
presents the average gradient and flow directions recorded during each event. On
November 4, 1983, the gradient direction changed from a southeasterly to a
northeasterly direction. This is about the same time as the oil recovery system
(culvert wells) were installed. Data were not available to evaluate whether this
system has had an effect on the groundwater flow. In addition, groundwater
mounding in the old land application area (Figure 3) was detected. Possible
explanations for this feature are enhanced recharge near well R-2-SC by ponding
of water, enhanced recharge south of well R-2-SC, high water levels in Yegen
Drain, or groundwater discharge from the area near well R-l-W (such as caused by
pumping a well). Available data are not sufficient to conclude if these affects or
some other cause is responsible for the change in the groundwater flow pattern.
Conoco should evaluate the effects on hydrogeologic conditions to determine the
impact, if any, from the oil recovery system or other artificial conditions (i.e.
artificial recharge from water mains).
In evaluating the groundwater flow conditions at the site, the Task Force plotted a
contour map of the top of the bedrock erosional surface. It seems likely that this
surface may control certain components of groundwater flow, especially as it
relates to dense phase organics (sinkers). Figure 8 shows the bedrock erosional
surface having a subtle erosional channel trending northeast. Generally, the
bedrock surface slopes in a southeast to east direction based on the 12 data points
(monitoring wells) used as stratigraphic control. As would be expected, the
bedrock surface appears to be grading towards the Yellowstone River.
To confirm Conoco's potentiometric surface map of September 14, 1984, the Task
Force plotted the identical water levels for all of the RCRA and culvert wells for
this same sampling event (Figure 9). Generally, groundwater flow was to the
northeast. An area of "no gradient" was noted in the area of the old surface
impoundment and landfill, in addition to an area of steep groundwater gradients
adjacent to well R-8-SW. The maps agreed except for the area of "no gradient"
which was not depicted on Conoco's potentiometric map (Appendix A).
Water levels collected by the Task Force on October 20, 1986 are presented in
Table 5. A potentiometric map was also constructed by the Task Force for this
event which is presented as Figure 10. In comparing water levels for the October
20, 1986 event to other historical water level events, it was apparent that these may
be the lowest recorded. It should be noted that Figure 10 does not include water
levels for the culvert wells. The figure shows that, overall, several components of
groundwater flow may exist at the site. Components of flow may include
southeast, north and northeast. In addition, an area of "no gradient" appears to
also exist within the various groundwater flow directions (Figure 10). The small
depression in the water table (area of "no gradient") appears to be similar to the
subtle erosional channel seen in the bedrock surface (Figure 8). Without further
data, this could not be confirmed.
Groundwater velocities in the alluvial aquifer were estimated using a modification
of the Darcy equation:
24
-------
tb!586
Table 4
Summary of Groundwater Flow Directions and Gradients
As Calculated by Conoco From 1982 to 1985
Date
Number of
Data Points
Average
Gradient (Ft)
5-21-82
8-5-82
11-4-83
2-23-84
4-5-84
7-10-84
9-14-84
8-20-85
(6 wells)
(6 wells)
(6 wells)
(6 wells)
(6 wells)
(6 wells)
(12 wells)
(12 wells)
.005
.003
.002
.0025
.002
.002
NC
NC
Groundwater
Flow Direction
southeast
southeast
northeast
northeast/east
northeast/east
north/northeast
north/northeast
northeast
NC = not calculated by Conoco
25
-------
tb!586
Table 5
Water Levels Collected by Task Force
October 20. 1986
Well Number
Water Level Elevation (MSL)
R-l-W
R-2-SC
R-3-NC
R-4-EC
R-5-NNE
R-6-NE
R-7-WC
R-8-SW
R-9-TEL
R-10-SE
R-ll-PN
R-12-PE
3102.19
3105.57
3104.18
3103.09
3101.58
3102.42
3102.90
3105.02
3102.75
3102.75
3101.94
3101.69
26
-------
/ I/1
I
400
FIGURE 8
Top of Bedrock Erosional Surface
Task Force
MONITORING WELL
(Installed by Northern
Engineering in 1984)
• MONITORING WELL
(Installed by Oavis
Drilling in 1981-82)
O CULVERT WELL
CONTOUR INTERVAL-2.0 ft.
27
-------
R-II-PN
. /5
\
R-I2-PE
(W/O4./3
FEET
400
LEGEND
d) MONITORING WELL
(Installed by Northern
Engineering in 1984)
• MONITORING WELL
(Installed by Oavis
Drilling in 1981-.82)
O CULVERT WELL
CONTOUR INTERVAL - 0.5 ft.
FIGURE
Groundwater Potentiometric Surface (amsl)
Task Force (9-14-84)
28
-------
400
LEGEND
0) MONITORING WELL
(Installed by Northern
Engineering in 1984)
• MONITORING WELL
(Installed by Davis
Drilling in 1981-82)
O CULVERT WELL
CONTOUR INTERVAL- 1.0 feet
FIGURE 10
Groundwater Potentiometric Surface(amsi)
Task Force (10-20-86)
29
-------
586cme
-slh
KI
V = n
where: V = groundwater velocity
K = hydraulic conductivity
I = hydraulic gradient
n = effective porosity
Values for hydraulic conductivity and hydraulic gradient have been determined
from site measurements. Based on a table presented in Todd (1959), the specific
yield of gravelly sand and fine gravel averages approximately 28 percent. Since
specific yield is roughly equivalent to effective porosity, a value of 28 percent has
been used for the estimated effective porosity of the alluvial aquifer. A realistic
minimum value for effective porosity of sand and gravel is 10 percent. Using this
value rather than 28 percent would roughly triple the calculated groundwater
velocity (EPA, 1987a).
Based on a range in hydraulic conductivity of 3.5 x lO to 8.9 x 10 cm/sec., a
median hydraulic gradient of 0.003, and an effective porosity of 28 percent, the
calculated range in groundwater velocities beneath the site is 1.0 to 2.7 feet per
day. A "worst case" groundwater velocity of 15.1 feet per day can be calculated by
assuming a hydraulic conductivity of 8.9 x 10 cm/sec., a hydraulic gradient of
0.006, and an effective porosity of 10 percent.
The geologic logs prepared by Davis Drilling and Northern Engineering and
Testing, Inc. are not sufficient for the identification of the uppermost aquifer
beneath the site. Since no site-specific information regarding the rock strata
underlying the alluvial aquifer has been collected, some questions remain regarding
the identification of aquifers which might be hydraulically interconnected with
the alluvial aquifer. In addition, grain-size distribution analyses were not
supplied. Therefore, determining the adequacy of the filter pack and screen slot
size of the monitoring wells is difficult.
30
-------
586cme
—slh
4.0 GROUNDWATER MONITORING PROGRAM (INTERIM STATUS)
4.1 Regulatory Requirements
Conoco has elected to close its interim status waste management units rather than
submit a Part B permit application. Because Conoco is required to continue its
groundwater monitoring during post-closure, a post-closure permit will be required
in which Conoco must comply with the 40 CFR 264 Subpart F groundwater
monitoring requirements. At this time, Conoco is subject to interim status
groundwater requirements (40 CFR 265 Subpart F) and therefore, this evaluation
only focuses on compliance with those sections in Part 265 (265.90 - 265.94).
4.2 Monitoring Well System
4.2.1 Background
The history of groundwater monitoring wells located on the refinery
property can be traced to the implementation of RCRA regulations in 1980.
During the end of 1981 and the beginning of 1982, Conoco installed a
shallow groundwater monitoring system consisting of six wells (Figure 2).
Throughout Conoco's history, the original numeric well designations have
changed. The following table clarifies these changes.
Table 6
Past and Present Well Designations
Former Current
Designations Designation
1882; 01-08-82 R-l-W
12582; 12-25-81 R-2-SC
11282; 01-12-82 R-3-NC
12682; 01-26-82 R-4-EC
121781; 12-17-81 R-5-NNE
12782; 01-27-82 R-6-NE
On June 7, 1984, Conoco submitted a groundwater quality assessment
program to the Montana Department of Health and Environmental Sciences.
This assessment included a hydrogeologic characterization of the refinery
prepared by Law Engineering Testing Company (Law Engineering), dated
June 1, 1984, and is presented as Appendix B.
The assessment program was "triggered" following statistical increases
(decreases in the case of pH) for the semi-annual sampling event on
February 23, 1984 and resampling on March 23, 1984. The statistical
comparison results are presented in Table 7. Analysis for all Appendix VIII
constituents after February 1984 was not performed prior to the Task Force
investigation. Some analyses, mostly inorganic parameters, were done in the
past, however.
31
-------
slh
Table 7
Summary of Conoco Statistical Analysis
February 23. 1984 - March 23. 1984
Well Number oH SC TOG TOX
Rl-W
2-23-84
R-2-SC
2-23-84
R-3-NC
2-23-84
3-23-84
R-4-EC
2-23-84
R-5-NNE
2-23-84
R-6-NE
2-23-84
fail
pass
pass
fail
n/c
fail
fail
pass
pass
pass
pass
fail
fail
fail
pass
pass
pass
pass
pass
fail
fail
fail
pass
fail
pass
pass
pass
n/c
fail
fail
pass
fail
n/c not calculated by Conoco.
Fail: indicates statistical increase/decrease in the
case of pH)
32
-------
586cme
-slh
The Law Engineering report, referenced above, identified groundwater flow
directions during different months of the year based on existing data. The
report indicated that the flow direction varied by as much as 90 degrees
depending on the time of year that measurements were made. Groundwater
mounding in the old land application area was also detected. Conoco
offered several explanations for the mounding, including the existence of
an underground water main that crosses their property from the southeast to
the northwest. The mounding effect indicates a large variability in
groundwater flow direction making it difficult to identify upgradient and
downgradient wells.
As a result of the Law Engineering report, Conoco drilled six new
groundwater monitoring wells at the refinery (Figure 2). One of the wells
is located on the northwest boundary of the Conoco property near the office
building (R-7-WC). This well is either upgradient or cross gradient at all
times. Two wells were drilled directly adjacent to the old surface
impoundment area (R-ll-PN and R-12-PE) and two were drilled on the
southern property boundary (R-8-SW and R-10-SE). The sixth well is
located on the northeast corner of the TEL treatment area (R-9-TEL).
A formal discussion of specific background wells have not been provided by
Conoco. However, the analytical results obtained following the Task Force
investigation indicate that wells R-l-W, R-8-SW and R-IO-SE (Figure 2) were
upgradient wells at that time. Because Conoco did not obtain splits with the
Task Force from wells R-2-SC and R-7-WC, it is unknown if these wells
were considered as background wells at the time of sampling. Analyses
prior to the Task Force investigation indicate that the latter wells were
indeed considered background.
Water quality data exists for the above mentioned wells. Well R-l-W has a
complete set of data, beginning in 1982. Well R-2-SC, for unknown reasons,
is lacking much of the data between 1982 and 1984. The data is generally
complete after 1984, as is the data from wells R-7-WC, R-8-SW and R-IO-SE.
Previous analyses do not indicate any noticeable trends in water quality
over time, even when compared with data obtained during the Task Force
investigation (with the exceptions of wells R-2-SC and R-7-WC). It should
be noted, however, that these five wells may not be representative of
background water quality.
Wells R-l-W and R-2-SC are cross gradient of the TEL treating area. Well
R-7-WC does not provide background water quality for the open sludge pit
or TEL treating areas, but appears to be representative of background water
near the API oily sludge pit. Well R-8-SW is the only well located truly
upgradient, but the abnormally steep groundwater gradient in this area must
be explained. Finally, well R-IO-SE is either cross gradient or downgradient
of both the TEL treating area and the open sludge pit area.
4.2.2 Design
Conoco currently maintains 12 RCRA wells as part of its groundwater
monitoring assessment program. Information was not obtained indicating
the logic for the horizontal placement of the original six monitoring wells.
However, it is probable that Conoco based these locations on the regional
flow of groundwater, which is towards the Yellowstone River. The six most
33
-------
586cme
—slh
recent monitoring wells were designed to better understand the local
hydrogeology and explain the unresolved issues presented in the Law
Engineering report.
All 12 RCRA wells were designed to monitor the uppermost unconsolidated
alluvial material, overlying the gray shale. The wells have generally been
screened in similar lithologies, at various depths. Table 8 presents
specification and design information for the 12 RCRA monitoring wells.
Well construction details (logs) for the original 6 wells and the additional 6
wells are located in Appendices C and D, respectively.
Based on the refinery waste constituents (light and dense immiscible
organics and inorganics), the groundwater monitoring system should be
capable of monitoring the water table at high, low and average water level
periods for light phase immiscibles. The system should also be designed to
monitor the lower depths of the aquifer for dense phase immiscible
components, which were detected in well R-12-PE during the Task Force
evaluation. Light immiscible organics are defined as those constituents with
a density less than that of water, while heavy immiscible organics are
characterized by densities greater than water. Table 9 presents average high
and low water level measurements during sample periods, except as noted,
and compares these with the screened elevations.
Based on Table 9, many of the groundwater wells appear to have improperly
located screened intervals to adequately monitor light phase immiscibles.
Wells R-6-NE through R-12-PE have been constructed with their screened
intervals below the average water level. In addition, the screened intervals
from wells R-9-TEL through R-12-PE are below historic low water levels,
although minimal water level data exists for these wells. It is interesting to
note that wells R-3-NC, R-4-EC and several of the culvert wells (described
in Section 4.2.3) located along the northern property boundary exhibited
varying amounts of light phase immiscibles. Furthermore, wells R-3-NC and
R-4-EC are screened so as to intercept water at any historic level. The
culvert wells monitor the water table at all times due to the fact they are
perforated. Finally, it should be noted that wells R-l-W and R-2-SC did not
contain any light phase immiscibles, although they are capable of
monitoring such. This may be attributed to the fact that these wells were
upgradient during the time of sampling.
The bottom of the screened intervals are located within or near the top of
the bedrock surface in all cases and appear capable of detecting dense phase
constituents. This presumption is based on the fact that the shale bedrock
acts as a confining layer as presented by Conoco.
4.2.3 Construction Details
Well completion details for all 12 RCRA wells are presented in Appendix C
and D. Details for the original six wells (R-l-W through R-6-NE) are
incomplete (Appendix C).
The following completion detail text was originally prepared by Davis
Drilling and submitted to the Montana Solid Waste Management Bureau on
May 19, 1982.
34
-------
t-x-586
Table 8
Well
Number
R-l-W
R-2-SC
R-3-NC
R-4-EC
R-5-NNE
R-6-NE
R-7-WC
R-8-SW
R-9-TEL
R-10-SE
R-ll-PN
R-12-PE
Casing
Date Of Casing Elevation
Installation Material (MSL) (Feet)
1-8-82 Sen. 80
12-5-81
1-32-82
1-26-82
12-17-81
1-27-82
8-15-84
8-15-84
8-71-84
8-17-84
8-20-84
8-17-84
Sen. 80
Sch.SJ
Sch.80
Sen. 80
Sch.80
Sen. 40
Sch.40
Sch.40
Sch.40
Sch.40
Sch.40
PVC
PVC
PVC
PVC
PVC
PVC
PVC
PVC
PVC
PVC
PVC
PVC
3111.77
NA
3112.02
3111.51
3108.51
3108.04
3107.79
3112.73
3112.60
3108.28
3111.08
3109.94
RCRA
Well
Surface
Elevation
fMSL) fFeet)
3108.
NA
3110.
3108.
3106.
3106.
3106.
3111.
3110.
3105.
3108.
3108.
87
30
97
96
92
79
43
30
88
58
24
Specifications
Total
Depth
17
NA
19
19
18+
22
15.9
22.5
21.2
19.6
21.7
18.8
Screen
Length
14+
NA
14
13.5
14
16.5
10.5
15.2
10.1
15.2
10.1
10.1
Filter
Screened Pack
Interval Interval
Feet * Feet *
3 - 17+ NA
NA NA
4.5-18.5 NA
4.5-18 NA
3.5-17.5 NA
5-21.5 NA
4.4 - 14-9 3.2 - 15.9
4.7 - 19.9 3.7 - 22.5
10.1 - 20.2 8.8 - 21.2
4-19.2 3.3-19.6
9.8 - 19.9 8.9 - 21.7
8.5-18.6 7.6-18.8
Formation
Material
sand & gravel
sand
sand
sand
sand
sand
sand
sand
sand
sand
sand
sand
& gravel
& gravel
& gravel
& gravel
& gravel
& gravel
& gravel
& gravel
& gravel
& gravel
& gravel
* Below ground surface
NA Not available in construction details (Appendix C)
-------
t-X-586
Table 9
Water Elevations vs Screened Elevations
Well
R-l-W
R-2-SC
R-3-NC
R-4-EC
R-5-NNE
R-6-NE 3*
R-7-WC 3" 2*
R-8-SW 3*
R-9-TEL 3* 2*
R-10-SE 3* 2*
R-ll-PN 3* 2*
R-12-PE 3* 2*
Average
3104
3104
3104
3103
3102
3102
3104
3108
3104
3104
3103
3103
.39
.91
.JO
.71
.27
.27
.19
.50
.36
.07
.59
.47
High
3104
3105
3105
3104
3103
3103
3104
3109
3105
3104
3104
3104
.82
.85
.36
.70
.66
.45
.84
.48
.36
.79
.70
.59
Water Levels
Date
6-22-84
6-27-85
3-29-86
11-29-84
9-20-85
6-16-85
9-14-84
3-20-85
11-24-84
9-14-84
11-29-84
11-29-84
(MSL
Low
3102.
3101.
3101.
3100.
3099.
3099.
3102.
3105.
3102.
3102.
3101.
3101.
19
67
51
13
46
03
95
02
75
75
94
69
Date
10-20-86
1-28-82
1-28-82
1-28-82
1-28-82
1-28-82
10-20-86
10-20-86
10-20-86
10-20-86
10-20-86
10-20-86
Screened
Interval (HSL)
3105
.87
3106 -
3106
3104
3103
3101
3102
3106
3100
3101
3098
3099
.30
.47
.46
.92
.39
.73
.20
.88
.78
.74
- 3091.87
3092 1*
- 3091.30
- 3090.97
- 3089.46
- 3085.42
- 3091.89
- 3091.53
- 3090.10
- 3086.68
- 3088.68
- 3089.64
1* Estimated from cross section map
2* Limited data base
3* Might not detect light phase immiscibles due to improper screen length during high or average water levels
-------
586cme
—slh
"The original six wells were drilled by Davis Drilling in 1981-
1982 with a Mayhew 100 rig. A 7 7/8 inch diameter tricone
bit was used to drill the holes. Drilling of an individual hole
progressed as follows. The hole was drilled from the surface
to the top of the gravel using water. All water used during
drilling was drawn from a hydrant in the refinery. At the
top of the gravel the hole was mudded up, using untreated 200
mesh bentonite. The bentonite product was Premium Gel, and
American Colloid bentonite. The mud viscosity was between
45 to 50 seconds. A hole was drilled through the entire gravel
thickness and bottomed out in the underlying grey shale. The
mud was then circulated to clean out the hole.
"To complete the hole as a well involved setting a screen
through the entire gravel thickness and about two feet into
the overlying material. The 4 inch diameter screen was Timco
brand, schedule 80, PVC with .020 inch slots. The casing was
Western brand. Joints were flush threaded and no sealant was
used. After the casing string was set, the drilling fluid was
washed out of the well. Fresh water was circulated through
the screen and annular area. The well was then developed
with air until there was indication of wall caving. At this
point, the annular area was sand packed with number 16,
washed and dried Emmett silica sand sold by Martin Marietta,
Industrial Sand Division. Sand was added to bring its level to
the top of the screened interval. A granular bentonitic seal,
KWK, was then poured to the land surface. Eight inch steel
protective casings were set over each well and a concrete well
apron was set around each well.
"The wells were then developed with air. Discharges ranged
between 10 and 25 gallons per minute. Attempts were made to
monitor the specific conductances of the water, but no
accurate readings could be measured. An exception was well
number 1882 [R-l-W]. Its conductance stabilized at 2400
micromhos per centimeter after about 45 minutes of
development. The other five wells discharged water that
exhibited varying degrees of foaminess. Well numbers 11282
[R-3-NC] and 12682 [R-4-EC] foamed the most. The water
from these wells also exhibited a pale yellow color and a
marked malodorousness." (McDermott, 1982).
The completion details do not specify the thickness of the bentonite seals,
nor how the seals were hydrated. However, according to the Davis Drilling
report, "A granular bentonitic seal, KWK, was then poured to the land
surface." Based on completion details, this thickness should range between
three and five feet. The Davis report further stated that filter pack
material was added to the top of the screened interval. The completion
details do not verify this claim because this information is missing. The
choice of filter pack size may not be compatible with the surrounding
geology, as the Task Force noted extreme turbidity in most of the wells.
From well location maps provided to the Task Force for review, numerical
designations of wells did not remain consistent during the early 1980s. The
Task Force also noted that the horizontal location of well R-3-NC has
37
-------
586cme
—slh
shifted approximately 250 feet over time, according to well location maps
(Appendix A). No explanation or clarification for this change has been
provided. Finally, field measurements by the Task Force for total depth in
well R-2-SC vary by more than 10 feet relative to completion details. The
Task Force noted a total depth of 30.62 feet (field notebook and Versar well
data sheet (Appendix E)), measured from the top of the inner (PVC) casing.
Construction details, however, indicate a total drilled depth of 19 feet, and
the bottom of the screened interval set at 18.5 feet.
Six additional wells were drilled at the refinery from August 15 through
August 21, 1984 by Northern Engineering and Testing, Inc., Billings,
Montana. These six wells are designated R-7-WC, R-8-SW, R-9-TEL, R-10-
SE, R-ll-PN and R-12-PE. The drilling logs for these wells are found in
Appendix D.
All boreholes were drilled to the total depth indicated in the completion
details, using a hollow-stem auger. Borehole diameters were all 12 inches.
The inside diameter of the auger was 6 1/4 inches. Split spoon samples
were collected at approximately five foot intervals. Each hole was
continued down a short distance into the underlying shale unit. In no
situation was the borehole advanced more than three feet into the
underlying shale.
Materials to construct the wells were placed through the hollow-stem of the
augers. The well screen and casing consisted of four inch diameter,
schedule 40 PVC with flush-threaded joints and a threaded bottom cap.
According to completion details, screen slot size was 0.013 inches. It is not
known if the screen was factory slotted. The filter pack consisted of
concrete sand, placed in the annulus between the screen and inside of the
auger. The filter pack extended between 0.7 and 1.3 feet above the top of
the well screen. Additional details regarding filter pack composition, size
and manufacturer are unavailable. A bentonite seal was placed in the
anulus above the filter pack. Thickness ranged between 2.0 and 4.4 feet.
The remainder of the space above the seal and below the ground surface
was backfilled using concrete, according to well completion details.
However, according to the August 24, 1984 Installation Report prepared by
Northern Engineering and Testing, Inc., wells R-ll-PN and R-12-PE were
backfilled using a cement-bentonite grout to within two feet of the ground
surface (O'Dell, 1984).
Each well was developed by bailing with a 10 foot x 3 inch bailer for a
period of about one hour.
Construction details indicate that the borehole was not advanced more than
a few feet into the shale bedrock. Furthermore, a bentonite seal was not
placed at the bottom of the borehole to prevent any potential
intercommunication of groundwater. Based on extreme turbidity results,
recorded by the Task Force (17.2 to 195 NTU), the filter pack and/or screen
slot appear to be incorrectly sized, even though the size was not specified in
the construction details for the filter pack. The TEGD (EPA, 1986a)
recommends that if the turbidity values in monitoring wells exceed 5 NTUs,
then the well performance should be re-evaluated by further development or
replaced as necessary.
38
-------
586cme
--slh
In addition to the 12 RCRA monitoring wells, culvert wells are also located
at the refinery. Information regarding formal construction details for the
culverts is unavailable. With the exception of culverts A, B and C (Figure
2), the purpose of these wells is unknown.
In March 1983, the City of Billings detected oil in the main sewer line that
runs northward along the northeast corner of the refinery property (Figure
11). Suspecting that the refinery may have been the contributor, Conoco
elected to dig an exploratory trench parallel to the sewer line. The
excavation began at a point approximately 400 feet north of the refinery
and ran south to the northeast corner of the refinery. Because petroleum
products were detected in this trench, Conoco installed a pump to remove
the product. The recovery operations in this trench ended when the
property owner suspended access rights to the site. Conoco then installed a
recovery trench along the northern property line. This trench was
excavated to a depth of approximately 6 feet to intercept the groundwater
table, and was sloped toward the northeast corner. The north side of the
trench was lined with polyethylene sheeting to prevent the movement of oil,
and the trench was then filled with crushed rock. Seven, three foot
diameter inverted CMP culverts were installed vertically at approximately
40 foot intervals along the northern property line. The total depth of these
wells is not known, nor is the perforation interval. Three of the culverts
(A, B and C, Figure 2) contain oil skimmer pumps that automatically pump
oil to the API separator units whenever it is detected in the culvert. This
trench is reportedly effective in recovering oil products before they migrate
off-site, however, there is no monitoring system in place to verify whether
this process is effective (EPA, 1987b). It appears that the culvert wells will
only detect light phases in this area. The need for further assessment in the
northeast portion of the facility is warranted, as no RCRA monitoring wells
are located in this area.
4.2.4 Adequacy of System
This subsection summarizes the adequacy of Conoco's groundwater
monitoring system. Both vertical and horizontal well placements were
reviewed, in addition to the actual construction of the wells and choice of
construction materials.
Based on water level measurements from 1982 until the present,
groundwater flow does not appear to exhibit seasonal variations as stated in
the Law Engineering report (see Appendix A). Rather, flow appears
generally unidirectional towards the northeast. However, unexplained
variations in flow direction within each potentiometric surface map should
be explained by Conoco. Because of these variations, the horizontal
locations of the 12 existing wells does not adequately determine the rate and
extent of groundwater contamination, nor groundwater quality below the
facility. All existing water level data should be plotted on potentiometric
surface maps. Additional water levels for wells R-7-NC through R-12-PE,
as well as for the culvert wells, are needed. Once this information is
provided, accurate flow directions can be understood and the horizontal
location of individual monitoring wells can be evaluated. Based on recent
flow directions, placement of additional monitoring wells located
downgradient along the eastern property boundary are recommended to
39
-------
n
APPROXIMATE LOCATION
OF COY SEWER-
EXPLORATORY TRECH
Ott. RECOVERYTRENCH
PROPERTY BOUNDARY 2812 IL
PROPERTY BOUNDARY 1470 R.
METEHS
N
Figure il Location of oil recovery trench and culvert system.
Reference: EPA, 1987b
40
-------
586cme
—slh
determine the existence and movement of any contaminated groundwater
plumes off-site. The presence of oily substances in the culvert wells, in
addition to light and dense phase organics in the monitoring wells, indicate
contamination under the facility. It should be noted that Conoco has not
' defined the vertical and horizontal extent of contamination below the
facility.
The vertical placements of well screens, as previously mentioned, may not
provide representative samples of groundwater quality. The top of
monitoring well screens R-9-TEL through R-12-PE are below historic water
levels. This indicates that detection of light phase immiscibles may not be
possible. In addition, detection of soluble dense phase constituents is
questionable. A discrete screened interval is recommended for these
constituents to ensure sample quality without dilution effects.
Construction and current integrity of the wells are also questionable.
Thicknesses of filter pack and bentonite seals have not been adequately
defined in some cases. Filter pack size and source were not specified by
Conoco for wells R-7-WC through R-12-PE. The extreme turbidity of
samples collected during the Task Force evaluation (Appendix E) appears to
demonstrate improper construction of monitoring wells. The Task Force
also measured up to several feet of silt inside some of the wells, which
further demonstrates that the wells may not be performing adequately.
Conoco should attempt to redevelop the wells according to guidelines in
Practical Guide for Ground-Water Sampling (EPA, 1985).
Potential problems may exist when PVC is used in contact with aqueous
organic mixtures. These organics may encourage leaching from or
adsorption to the PVC polymer matrix. There has been recent concern over
the potential of vinyl chloride monomer (VCM) to leach from PVC casing,
which in some cases may cause organic analytical interferences in situations
where prolonged exposure to aqueous organic mixtures may occur
(Barcelona and others, 1983). In certain situations under high organic
concentrations, PVC may also adsorb organic constituents (Barcelona et al.,
1983).
In conclusion, PVC can possibly leach and/or adsorb constituents that may
bias analytical results. Furthermore, PVC in contact with organics,
particularly benzene, is not recommended because of problems with long
term structural integrity of the well. In the future Conoco should review
all available data/information on casing materials carefully and make a
selection accordingly before installing new wells. This would be important
at wells which exhibit significant organic accumulations, especially since
long term monitoring (post closure) is probable.
4.3 Groundwater Quality Assessment Plan
Conoco submitted a report entitled, Groundwater Quality Assessment Program to
the Montana Solid Waste Management Bureau, Department of Health and
Environmental Sciences on June 7, 1984 (Appendix B). The report provided
information including number, location and depth of wells, sampling and
analytical methods, and evaluation procedures. In addition, several attachments
were provided which depicted the results of statistical analysis of indicator
parameters, the previously mentioned Law Engineering Hydrologic
41
-------
586cme
--slh
Characterization Report, and an outline of groundwater analysis. In general, most
of the requirements of a groundwater quality assessment plan have been addressed,
although often in no appreciable detail.
The description of hydrologic conditions at the facility was provided as
Attachment II of the plan. Attachment II was the Law Engineering Hydrogeologic
Characterization Report. Both the identification of the uppermost aquifer and an
evaluation of the direction and velocity of groundwater flow beneath the site were
addressed in the report. A description of the detection groundwater monitoring
system was also included in the report as recommended by the TEGD (EPA, 1986a),
but was vague.
Conoco does not adequately address the approach for conducting an assessment
program. The TEGD (EPA, 1986a) recommends that both direct methods (i.e.,
organic vapor analyzer and/or portable gas chromatograph) for facilities where
known or suspected volatile organics exist, and indirect methods (i.e., numerous
geophysical techniques) be used to better understand the rate and extent of a
plume.
The regulations require that the assessment plan specify the sampling number,
location and depth of wells to be installed as part of the assessment. Conoco's plan
simply states that the proposed location of the "...four new wells is shown in
Attachment III (Appendix C)." Information regarding depth of the proposed wells
was not available. Furthermore, six new wells were ultimately constructed at the
refinery and in one case at well R-9-SW (currently designated as R-9-TEL), the
location was changed by several hundred feet from the plan. An explanation for
this change, or the placement of the two additional wells was not provided.
Conoco has included well design and construction details for the older wells
(Appendix C) and for the newer wells (Appendix D).
A discussion of both the sampling and analytical program, and data collection and
analysis were included in Conoco's plan. This section of the plan is generally
vague. The TEGD recommends that groundwater data be plotted to allow an
evaluation of temporal variations in groundwater constituents. This information
has not been provided in the assessment plan for review. A review of the
adequacy of the assessment plan and actual sample collection in the field is
presented in Section 4.4 of this report.
Conoco does not adequately discuss the procedures used to determine the rate and
extent of contaminant migration in the groundwater. Off-site migration may be an
important factor in evaluating the extent of the plume. Estimates of migration
rates, based on aquifer and physio-chemical properties, including dispersion,
retardation and transformation of known contaminants, should be included.
Conoco's plan defines aquifer properties, but does not address any physico-
chemical properties of known contaminants. Conoco indicates that statistical
analysis of analytical data (found in Attachment IV of the plan) would determine
if a plume of contamination exists (Appendix C).
4.4 Sampling and Analysis/Field Implementation (Conoco)
Sampling and analysis under the RCRA program was initiated under a detection
monitoring program in May of 1982. As part of Conoco's groundwater monitoring
program, samples are currently being collected under a groundwater quality
assessment program [40 CFR 265.93] which was instigated based on Conoco's
42
-------
586cme
~slh
assessment plan submitted on June 4, 1984. This plan was submitted following
statistical increases in indicator parameters after sampling on February 22 and 23,
1984 and additional sampling on March 23, 1984 (see Table 7).
/ 4.4.1 Sampling and Analysis Plan
j
Conoco's sampling and analysis plan was prepared by Northern Engineering
and Testing Inc. of Billings, Montana and was submitted as an attachment to
the groundwater quality assessment plan (Appendix C).
The sampling and analysis plan addressed the following topics with no
appreciable detail:
o Sample collection
o Sample preservation and handling
o Methodology
o Quality assurance
Following is a brief discussion of each topic as presented in the plan.
Sample Collection The sample collection section stated that field procedures
will be followed as outlined in either EPA FY'81, "Minimum Quality
Assurance Requirements for a Water Monitoring Program," or the
"Handbook for Sampling and Sample Preservation of Water and Wastewater,"
EPA-600/4-82-029 (Appendix C).
At least three casing volumes of standing water will be removed prior to
sampling, utilizing a diaphragm-type suction lift pump which will be
decontaminated between wells with deionized water and bleach solutions.
Samples will be obtained using dedicated PVC type bailers. The bailers will
be decontaminated with detergent scrubbing as well as successive rinses of
wash acids, commercial bleach and deionized water.
In order to minimize adsorption and volatilization, those wells with
significant amounts of organic constituents will be sampled with dedicated
glass bailers.
Sample Preservation and Handling
The plan states that all samples will be collected and preserved in containers
consistent with procedures found in the "Handbook for Sampling and
Sample Preservation of Water and Wastewater (EPA-600/4-82-029) (Appendix
C). In addition, holding times will also adhere to those documented in this '
handbook. A chain of custody form was included in addition to a brief
discussion on maintenance of a field notebook by the samplers.
Methodology and Quality Assurance
The analytical methodologies and quality assurance procedures utilized by
Northern Engineering and Testing are discussed in Section 4.4.3, Data
Quality Evaluation (Conoco).
Technical deficiencies in the written sampling and analysis plan for sample
collection include:
43
-------
586cme
--slh
o The air in the well head should be sampled for organic vapors using
either a photoionization analyzer or an organic vapor analyzer.
i o The plan does not include a discussion of how measurements of static
water levels will be obtained in addition to decontamination
procedures of the instrument(s).
o There is no discussion of how Conoco will determine if a light or
dense immiscible layer is present. In addition, a discussion of how
Conoco will determine the thickness of such immiscible phases should
be included. This is extremely important at the site as it has been
documented that hydrocarbon accumulation does exist in some of the
wells (i.e. dense phase at R-12-PE and light phase at R-3-NC and R-4-
EC). Measurement of hydrocarbon accumulation in wells is very
important as excessive accumulation will affect actual water levels
(i.e. water levels will be lower due to displacement by the floating
phase).
o Conoco did not include a discussion of step by step procedures for
evacuating the wells. Although Conoco states that a diaphragm-type
suction lift pump will be used, they should provide a discussion on
whether or not this pump may cause volatilization and/or produce
high pressure differential(s), which would result in variability in the
analysis of pH, specific conductance, metals and volatile organics.
Conoco should also discuss if sufficient time is allowed to let the
water stabilize prior to sampling. In addition, the plan should
specify how evacuated water will be collected and/or disposed of.
o Conoco should further discuss sample withdrawal procedures for
each well. Although the plan states that a PVC or glass dedicated
bailer will be utilized, they should provide a discussion of the
suitability of PVC and glass material as it pertains to minimization
of physical or chemical alteration of samples. In addition, the plan
should indicate how samples will be obtained for light and/or heavy
phase immiscibles.
o There are no details as to the order of sample collection (i.e., least to
most contaminated).
o There were no details as to the order for which samples should be
collected to minimize volatilization.
o The sampling and analysis plan should outline how temperature, pH
and specific conductance will be determined in the field before and
after sample collection as a check on the stability of the water
sampled over time. Procedures for maintenance and calibration of
field instruments should also be included in the plan.
o Conoco should identify what preservation method will be used.
Sample containers and holding times for all constituents analyzed
should also be included in the plan.
44
-------
586cme
—slh
o Decontamination procedures for purging, sampling equipment and
field instruments should be discussed in detail. The use of "wash
acids" as identified in Conoco's procedure may not be sufficient to
decontaminate equipment exposed to organics such as hydrocarbons.
A non-phosphate detergent wash and a tap water rinse followed by
deionized water, acetone, and a pesticide grade hexane are
recommended (EPA, 1986a). The sampling equipment should also be
dried thoroughly before further use.
In summary, these are the major deficiencies of the sampling and analysis
plan as presented by Northern Engineering and Testing Inc. for Conoco. It
is important in any sampling and analysis plan to ensure that field sampling
personnel are following the written plan.
4.4.2 Field Implementation
The following is a summary of field sampling procedures performed by
Northern Engineering and Testing (Northern) on behalf of Conoco as
observed by the Task Force at well Rl-W. Northern's procedures were
performed at this well so that the Task Force could evaluate their field
methodologies based on conformance to the sampling and analysis plan.
Samples were not collected for analysis by Northern as this was only a
demonstration put on for the Task Force.
Water levels were obtained by using a steel tape. Total depth appeared to
be measured with a fiber cloth engineers tape with a weight on the end.
Following these measurements, Northern began well evacuation by
determining that 11 gallons needed to be purged. Calculations by the Task
Force indicated that for a 3.75 inch I.D. well with measurements of 10.1 feet
to water and a 20.2 foot total depth, each well casing would contain 5.75
gallons or 3 casing volumes at 17.25 gallons. The volume to be evacuated
was significantly higher than that obtained by Northern. A large rented
suction pump with a 3 horsepower engine and 20 feet of attached 2 inch
I.D. hose was utilized to evacuate this well. Northern stated that a different
pump was rented each time a sampling event occurred.
The rate at which groundwater was withdrawn is unknown but the well was
pumped dry three times. Decontamination procedures of the pump and hose
consisted of 2-3 gallons of hot soapy water, tap water and deionized water
rinses of the hose. Minimal decontamination of hoses that went down the
well occurred both prior to and following evacuation.
Following evacuation, samples were obtained with a dedicated PVC bailer
with a polypropylene rope. Samples were collected for total organic carbon
(TOC), total organic halogen (TOX) and specific conductance (SC). Field
measurements consisted of pH only which was taken last following TOC,
TOX and SC.
Bottles and preservatives used were: TOC, 1 liter clear glass preserved with
sulfuric acid (head space was noted upon sample collection); TOX, 1 liter
clear glass with no preservative and; SC, 500 ml plastic bottle. No field
blanks or QA/QC samples were obtained in the field by Northern.
45
-------
586cme
—slh
The following deficiencies in sampling methodologies were noted:
o Northern was either not aware that a sampling and analysis plan
existed or did not follow the written procedures. This comment
t relates to the lack of detail obtained in the sampling and analysis
plan as previously discussed.
o Although specific conductivity is relatively stable, it is recommended
that this characteristic be determined in the field to aid in
evaluating the physical and/or chemical stability of the groundwater
(EPA, 1986a).
o As was stated by Northern, well evacuation is performed by renting
a suction type pump for each sampling event. The pump type may
vary from sampling event to sampling event and the possibility exists
that inconsistent evacuation procedures or potential contamination
from the pumps may occur. Conoco should have a written procedure
in their sampling and analysis plan which addresses well evacuation
procedures.
o The sampling and analysis plan states that all wells containing
significant amounts of organic constituents will be taken with a glass
bailer. All samples collected by Northern were with a PVC bailer
and polypropylene rope. Because of the presence of aqueous organic
mixtures, the use of PVC and polypropylene materials is questioned
due to potential adsorption and leaching of constituents. In addition,
the polypropylene rope often drains and drips water into the top of
the bailer.
It is recommended in the TEGD that either teflon and/or stainless
steel bottom fill bailers or teflon/stainless bladder pumps be used for
sample retrieval. In addition, when sampling for dense phase
organics (sinkers) it may be appropriate to utilize a double check
valve bailer.
o pH was only measured following the collection of samples. pH,
temperature and specific conductivity should be collected before,
during, and following evacuation, and during sampling in order to
assure physical and/or chemical stability (EPA, 1986a).
o Decontamination procedures did not follow the sampling and analysis
plan or accepted methodologies. Where organics are known to exist,
such as hydrocarbons, decontamination should consist of a non-
phosphate detergent wash, tap water, deionized water, acetone and
pesticide grade hexane rinse in that order (EPA, 1986a). All
sampling equipment such as bailers, rope, instruments, and bottles
should be kept in a clean environment.
o Conoco's samples for TOC analysis contained some headspace and
were collected in clear glass containers. It is recommended in the
TEGD that TOC be collected in amber glass with a teflon lined septa
or cap. In addition, the TEGD states that headspace should not exist
in the containers in order to minimize the possibility of
volatilization of organics.
46
-------
586cme
-slh
o Conoco's samples for TOX were not preserved and were collected in
clear glass containers. It is also recommended that TOX be collected
in amber glass with a teflon lined septa or cap. In addition, the
recommended preservative is for 4°C and sodium sulfite (EPA,
1986a).
o Northern did not implement a field QA/QC program. This would
include the collection of field blanks, trip blanks, equipment rinsate
samples, duplicate and/or other field QA/QC samples. This
laboratory QA/QC program would aid in evaluating consistent
sample and laboratory data quality.
4.4.3 Data Quality Evaluation (Conoco)
Northern Engineering and Testing, Billings, Montana, is identified as the
laboratory which has been and will be performing analysis of groundwater
samples collected from the Conoco site.
A laboratory evaluation was not conducted by the Task Force. However, a
quality assurance/quality control plan was submitted as an attachment to
the sampling and analysis plan of June 1984 (Appendix B).
The basis of the QA/QC program developed by Northern is:
1) The laboratory services available to Northern's technical analysts are
monitored to provide adequate sources of materials which are
routinely used by the analyst. Examples of these services are
deionized water, compressed air, and vacuum sources.
2) Calibration and calibration checks of all instrumentation are
routinely scheduled.
3) Glassware is of analytical quality and kept clean and contamination
free.
4) Reagents are of sufficient purity to perform analyses under the EPA
methodological restrictions.
5) Analytical performance is monitored by the use of duplicate
determinations and spike recovery values.
6) Data are handled and reported to provide meaningful and exact
terms.
7) The technical analyst of Northern has been trained and his work
assignments reviewed according to policies developed by Northern.
In addition, the QA/QC plan also includes analytical methodology, routine
reporting levels, quality control acceptance and criteria for precision and
accuracy for the parameters to be analyzed (Appendix C).
47
-------
586cme
—slh
5.0 SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS/FIELD IMPLEMENTATION
(GROUNDWATER TASK FORCE)
The groundwater Task Force conducted an inspection of the Conoco facility from October
20 to 23, 1986. This inspection included conferences with facility representatives and
independent'sampling of 17 wells. Of these 17, 12 are RCRA wells and five are culvert
wells. Several other culvert wells were not sampled due to elevated organic vapor
readings recorded by the Task Force samplers (Lemire, 1986).
Each sample was analyzed for the RCRA Appendix VIII constituents listed in 40 CFR
261. Field analysis was done for pH, temperature and specific conductance. This was
accomplished by pouring bailed samples into beakers and using field analytical
equipment. Appendix E presents field data sheets utilized by the EPA contractor (Versar)
supporting the Task Force effort.
All sampling equipment was cleaned prior to arriving at the site. Decontamination
procedures were not conducted on-site with the exception of the oil/water interface probe.
The sampling equipment consisted of teflon bailers with two ball check valves, one at the
top and one at the bottom. Each bailer was 1.878 inch diameter and was threaded in
three sections. The bailers were all dedicated, pre-cleaned, and individually wrapped in
thick plastic bags.
Bailing of the well was accomplished by using two people, one holding a pulley over the
well and one walking away from the well, holding onto a teflon-coated stainless steel
stranded wire attached to the bailer. In this procedure, the teflon cable was never
allowed to touch the ground, the edge of the well casing or the sampling personnel.
On October 20, 1986, all the wells at the Conoco Refinery were sounded for static water
levels and for total depth. An oil/water interface probe was used for this purpose. The
elevation and thickness of any oil phase was also measured and recorded. The probe was
decontaminated after each measurement was taken using hexane and distilled water.
The wells which contained an oil phase (light) are R-3-NC, R-ll-PN, R-4-EC and the
culvert wells. Well R-12-PE had several feet of dense heavy oil at the bottom of the well.
The nature and source of this material is not known at present. As previously mentioned,
several of the culvert wells had measurable organic vapors and were deemed hazardous
for sampling by EPA contractors.
Before any sample was taken from the well, the well was purged using the teflon bailers.
Three well casing volumes were removed from the well. The purged water was placed
into a 55-gallon drum next to the well. The ultimate disposal of the purged water was the
refinery waste water treatment system. Purging personnel recorded the time required to
purge, the purge volume, the color, odor, turbidity and other unusual characteristics of
the water (Appendix E).
Usually four people were involved in the actual sampling; two people to bail the well, one
person to fill the sample bottles, and one person to record the time the individual sample
bottles were filled. In addition, field analysis for pH, temperature and specific
conductance was completed by another person before any sample bottles were filled.
The sampling procedure is as follows: the bailer is lowered and raised in the well in the
same manner as described for purging; the sample bottles are filled from the bottom of
the bailer; the sample containers are placed in a plastic rectangular bucket lined with a
48
-------
586cme
—slh
plastic garbage bag to contain any spilled bailed water; split samples were filled by
partially filling the split sample bottle and the EPA bottle from each bailed sample.
Quality control samples were collected at the site which included blanks, field duplicates
and laboratory samples. The EPA contractor prepared three blanks, a trip blank, a field
blank and an equipment blank. The field blank was completed on the fourth day of
sampling at the end of the day.
Field log books were carried by several personnel present at the sampling site to document
the sampling procedures and information collected.
A chain of custody record accompanied each sample shipment. The samples were shipped
to the analytical laboratory each day at the end of the sampling day.
5.1 Analytical Results (Groundwater Task Force)
Samples collected by the Task Force confirmed that groundwater beneath the
Conoco site contained hazardous waste constituents or other indicators of
contamination. The analytical parameters, containers, and preservatives, utilized
by the Task Force are presented in Table 10. Task Force sample results that were
above detection limits for organics, as well as results that exceeded the EPA
Interim Primary Drinking Water Standards (40 CFR 265 Appendix III) and the
Secondary Drinking Water Standards (40 CFR 143.3) are presented in Table 11. In
addition, Table 11 presents a quality control evaluation summary. The raw data
are too massive to be presented as an appendix, but may be found at EPA Region
VIII. A data quality evaluation, performed by PRC Consultants under contract to
EPA, of the labs performing the Task Force analysis is presented in Section 5.2. In
addition, the data validation report prepared by PRC is located in Appendix F for
reference.
Organic Analysis Laboratory analytical results for organics were obtained from
Compu Chem of Research Park, North Carolina, an EPA CLP participating
laboratory. The data indicates that at least six monitoring wells (R-12-PE, R-ll-
PN, R-6-NE, R-5-NNE, R-4-EC and R-3-NC) clearly contain organic hazardous
waste constituents. Monitoring well R-12-PE was sampled twice. The first sample
was taken above the layer of oil at the bottom of the well, and before the well was
purged. The second sample was taken after three casing volumes were removed.
The analysis for both R-12-PE samples contained 1,1-dichloroethane (960 and
52ppb), 1,1,1-trichloroethane (100 and 220 ppb), benzene (490 and 20 ppb), phenol
(130 and 26 ppb), pyrene (35 and 21 ppb), and chrysene (40 and 27 ppb). The
analysis of R-12-PE taken before purging also contained benzo(a) anthracene (21
ppb). Results of R-12-PE after purging also included 2-butane (18 ppb), 4-
methylphenol (110 ppb), naphthalene (57 ppb), 2-methylnapthalene (56 ppb),
dieldrin (.10 ppb) and 4-4' DDE (.10 ppb). The results for the pesticides dieldrin
and 4-4' DDE and for phenol are considered unreliable according to the PRC
quality evaluation report (Section 5.2) because the results were greater than the
data quality objectives. The levels of 1,1-dichlorethane, 1,1,1-trichloroethane,
benzene, and phenol taken from the well R-12-PE before purging could be due to
the higher density of the constituents present. The higher the density of the
material, the more likely it is to sink to the bottom of the well whether soluble or
insoluble. The first sample from well R-12-PE was taken near the bottom of the
well, therefore, the heavier constituents were captured.
49
-------
t-X-586
Table 10
Groundwater Task Force Parameters Collected at Conoco Refinery
en
o
Parameter
1. Volatile organic analysis (VGA)
Purge and trap
Direct inject
2. Purgable organic carbons (POC)
3. Purgable organic halogens (POX)
4. Extractable organics
5. Pesticide/herbicide
6. Dibenzofuran/dioxin
7. Total metals
8. Dissolved metals
9. Total organic carbon (TOC)
,1
10. Total organic halogens (TOX)
11. Phenols
12. Cyanide
13. Sulfate/chloride
14. Nitrate/ammonia
15. Conductance
16. pH
17. Turbidity
Bottle
2 - 60 ml VGA vials
2 - 60 ml VOA vials
1 - 60 ml VOA vial
1 - 60 ml VOA vial
4 - 1 quart amber glass
1 - 1 quart amber glass
1 - 1 quart amber glass
1 - 1 quart plastic
1 - 1 quart plastic
1 - 4 ounce glass
1 - 1 quart amber glass
1 - 1 quart amber glass
1 - 1 quart plastic
1 - 1 quart plastic
1 - 1 quart plastic
field measurement
field measurement
field measurement
Preservative
HNO-,
HNO-,
H2S04
NaOH
-------
TABLE 11 Analytic Results (Task Force)
Organic Analysis, Summary
Parameters
Acetone
1,1 Dichloroethane
1,1,1 Trichloroethane
Benzene
Phenol
4-Methyphenol
Pyrene
Trichloroethene
Benzo(a)anthracene
Chloroform
Chrysene
Heptachlor
2-Butanone
4-Methylphenol
Methylene Chloride
2-Methy1naphthalene
2-Methylphenol
Dieldrin
4-4'-DDE
Vinyl Chloride
trans-1,2.-Dichloroethane
Toluene
Total Xylenes
Ethyl Benzene
2,4Dimethyphenol
Aldrin
Heptachlor Epoxide
Naphthalene
Fluorene
Phenanthrene
Task Force Sample Location (ppb)
1
R-2-SC
12
R-12-PE R-12-PE R-ll-PN
960
1100
490
130(3)
35
21
40
52
220
20
26(3)
21
27
10
110
550
270
190
R-ll-PN
100
560
230
180
R-7-WC
R-l-W
R-6-NE
140
56
30
.10(3)
.10(3)
66
1200
52
76
57
8.6
12
18
130
23
1200
44
58
15
29
7.5
1 Sample results before purging of monitor well
2 Duplicate sample results
3 Unreliable result
R-5-NNE
87
~
R-4-EC
66
90
100
16000(3)
21000
6.5
.45(3)
23
25
17
26
38
810(3)
16000
170
280
570
5-4
5000
800(3)
300(3)
-------
TABLE 11 Analytic Results (Task Force)
Organic Analysis Summary
Parameters
Task Force Sample Location (ppb)
R-3-NC Culvert F Culvert E Culvert L
Culvert A Culvert A Culvert B
Acetone
1,1 Dichloroethane 210
1,1,1 Trichloroethane 490
Benzene 33 2100
Phenol
4-Methyphenol
Pyrene
Trichloroethene 27
Benzo (a)anthracene
Chloroform
Chrysene
lleptachlor
2-Butanone
4-Methylphenol
Methylene Chloride
2-Methy1naphthalene
2-Methylphenol
Dieldrin
4-4'-DDE
Vinyl Chloride
trans-l,2-Dichloroethane 620
Toluene 3500
Total Xylenes i 5600
Ethyl Benzene ! 620
2,4 Dimethyphenol
Aldrin
Heptachlor Epoxide
Naphthalene 1000
Fluorene 520
Phenanthrene 1200
4200
13
73
7.6
12000
460(3)
9000
14000
5100
81
3.4(3)
780
200
460
140
600
32
700
550
1000
16
30
34
18000
14000
900
120
.05
170
3.1(3)
1200
330
610
14000
14000
1500
200
1.3
270
7200
14000
9100
.51
4800
1 Sample results before purging of monitor well
2 Duplicate sample results
3 Unreliable result
-------
TABLE 11 Analytic Results (Task Force) (cont.)
Inorganic Analysis Summary
Parameters
Aluminium
Arsenic
Calcium
Cadmium
Iron
Magnesium
Manganese
Nickel
Potassium
Sodium
POC
TOG
Chloride
Bromide
Total Phenols
TOX
POX
Ammonia Nitrogen
Cyanide
Sulfate
Task Force Sample Location (ppb)
Trip Equipment
Blank Blank R-2-SC
4330
102000
R-12-PE R-12-PB R-ll-PN
207 5330
205 247
154000 177000 472000
R-ll-PN
654
463000
6950 5040
115000 138000
607 1550
5000 20400
130000 318000
2980 4790
2600(3) 1800(3)
60
5340 151000 308000 16400
105000 520000 496000 610000
1300(3) 2700(3) 1200(3)
7200(4) 60000(3) 65000(3) 92000(3)
40000 182000 850000
140 290 380
52 110(4) 172(4) 64(4)
21 1060 1450 1120
1450(3)
155 10000 2400
20
800000
110(4)
1060 1450
1190(3) 2840(3)
10000
20
625000
R-10-SE
2840
89400
3560 5900
307000 68500
4680 785
40
15700 6860
598000 251000
1300(3)
93000(3)-- 7600(4)
840000 26000
320 120
30(4) 38 (4)
1320 12
1440(3)
R-7-VC
10100
72500
9250
10900
224
5540
82000
R-9-TEL
11700
161000
14800(3)
122000
1830
45
10300
356000
2400 (4) 15000(3)
7000 66000
R-8-SW
609
142000
4220
121000
292
7710
355000
16000(3)
65000
R-l-W
1170
161000
R-6-NE
1080
62.4
116000
3300 7830
126000 98000
328 5190
70 (4)
27
5
11
13
2500
20
800000
740
10
110
11500 5700
374000 409000
280(3)
14000(3) 30000(3)
75000 102000
120 120
62(4) 90
22 94
105
140
156
375000
1 Sample results before purging of monitor well
2 Duplicate Sample results
3 Qualitative result
4 Unusable result
5 Semi-Quantitative result
-------
TABLE 11 Analytic Results (Task Force)
Inorganic Analysis Summary
(cont.)
Parameters
Task Force Sample Location (ppb)
Aluminium
Arsenic
Calcium
Cadmium
Iron
Nagnesium
Manganese
Nickel
Potassium
Sodium
POC
TOC
Chloride
Bromide
Total Phenols
TOX
POX
Ammonia Nitrogen
Cyanide
Sulfate
R-5-NNE
1290
124000
8260
106000
5450
6220
432000
650(3)
30000(3)
205000
90
28
93
95
400
R-4-BC
447
113
13300
760 ( 4 )
18500
192
1030000
3000 (3)
178000 (3)
135000
120
7600
280
2670 (3)
400
1500
288000
R-3-NC
1930
374000
8240
204000
6290
106000
546000
1000 (3)
40000 (3)
640000
33 (4)
850
930
840
53
750000
Field Blank Culvert F
1100
92500
10
7730
47600
4320
7440
89400
3900(3)
2100 (3) 1320000(3)
190
45(5)
Culvert E
210
57000
452(4)
22800
1650
76900
1600(3)
150000(3)
325000
90
210(4)
36
1U5)
Culvert L
880
56000
17900
1620
5660
122000
270
130000
37500
20
30
14
(3)
(3)
(4)
(5)
Culvert A
261
99400
1480
75500
1780
13000
33900
36000 (3)
66000 (3)
103000
260
3000
52
100 (5)
1200
Culvert A
329
93800
X
1520(3) ~
72300
1785
11900
319000
28000(3)
55000(3)
100000 •
240
3000
44
490(5)
1600
*
Culvert B
606
56700
3380
41400
1700
5150
236000
62000(3)
240000(3)
25000
340
670
28
' 310(5)
1 Sample results before purging of monitor well
2 Duplicate Sample results
3 Qualitative result
4 Unusable result
5 Semi-Quantitative result
-------
Ol
en
T.bU 11
An«lvtlc»l Beiulti (T»»k force)
(coot.)
IBS BfiJM IHfJ. MSSE El1?!!
PH
pH Avenge
Teop (C°)
Temp Average
Conductivity
Conductivity
Average
Tenp
-------
586cme
--slh
Two samples were taken from well R-ll-PN. Both samples of R-ll-PN included
1,1-dichloroethane (550 and 560 ppb), 1,1,1-trichloroethane (270 and 230 ppb),
benzene (190 and 180 ppb), 2-methylnaphthalene (30 and 23 ppb), trans 1,2,-
dichloroethane (1200 ppb), toluene (52 and 44 ppb), and total xylenes (76 and 58
ppb). ,The first of the samples also contained vinyl chloride (66 ppb) while the
second contained acetone (100 ppb), and 2-butanone (130 ppb).
Well R-6-NE contained 1,1-dichloroethane (140 ppb), trichloroethane (8.6 ppb),
methylene chloride (15 ppb), trans 1,2-dichloroethane (29 ppb), and total xylenes
(7.5 ppb). The results for monitoring well R-5-NNE included 1,1-dichloroethane
(87 ppb), chloroform (6.5 ppb), methylene chloride (23 ppb), 2-methylnaphthalene
(25 ppb), trans 1,2-dichloroethane (17 ppb), total xylenes (26 ppb) and heptachlor
(.45 ppb). According to PRC's quality evaluation report, heptachlor should be
considered an unreliable result.
Monitoring well R-4-EC contained acetone (66 ppb), 1,1-dichloroethane (90 ppb),
benzene (100 ppb), phenol (16,000 ppb), 4-methylphenol (21,000 ppb),
trichloroethane (38 ppb), 2-methylphenol (16,000 ppb), trans 1,2-dichloroethane (170
ppb), toluene (280 ppb), total xylenes (570 ppb), ethyl benzene (54 ppb), 2,4-
dimethylphenol (5000 ppb), heptachlor (810 ppb), aldrin (800 ppb), and heptachlor
epoxide (300 ppb). Again, the results for the pesticides, heptachlor, aldrin and
heptachlor epoxide, should be considered unreliable according to the PRC quality
evaluation report. The results for R-3-NC indicated 1,1-dichloroethane (210 ppb),
1,1,1-trichloroethane (490 ppb), benzene (33 ppb), trichloroethane (27 ppb) and
trans 1,2-dichloroethane (620 ppb).
Monitoring wells R-7-WC and R-l-W both contained chloroform (12 and 18 ppb,
respectively). Acetone was the only constituent found in well R-2-SC at 12 ppb.
The quality control evaluation concluded that acetone was detected in three
instrument blanks and contaminated nine samples. The sample for well R-2-SC is
not mentioned as being affected by acetone contamination. However, since nine of
the other samples were affected, the detection of acetone in the sample from well
R-2-SE could be from laboratory contamination.
In addition, all five culvert well samples indicate contamination by hazardous
waste constituents. Culvert well A was a duplicate sample. The results for both
included benzene (12,000 and 9000 ppb), 4 methylphenol (780 and 1200 ppb),
naphthalene (170 and 270 ppb), 2-methylnaphthalene (200 and 330 ppb), 2-
methylphenol (460 and 610 ppb), toluene (18,000 and 14,000 ppb), total xylenes
(14,000 and 140,000 ppb), ethyl benzene (900 and 1500 ppb), 2,4-dimethylphenol
(120 and 200 ppb), heptachlor (3.4 and 3.1 ppb), and aldrin (.05 and 1.3 ppb). The
first sample of the duplicate also included phenol (460 ppb). The results for
heptachlor and aldrin are considered unreliable as stated in the quality control
evaluation (Section 5.2).
Culvert well B analysis included benzene (14,000 ppb), 2-methylnaphthalene (7000
ppb), toluene (14,000 ppb), total xylenes (9100 ppb), aldrin (.51 ppb), and
naphthalene (4800 ppb). Culvert well E contained 1,1-dichloroethane (13 ppb),
benzene (73 ppb), 2-methylnaphthalene (5100 ppb), toluene (140 ppb), total xylenes
(600 ppb), ethyl benzene (32 ppb), naphthalene (700 ppb), fluorene (550 ppb), and
phenanthrene (1000 ppb).
The results for culvert well F included benzene (2100 ppb), 2-methylnaphthalene
(4200 ppb), toluene (3500 ppb), total xylenes (5600 ppb), ethyl benzene (620 ppb),
56
-------
586cme
—slh
naphthalene (1000 ppb), fluorene (520 ppb), and phenanthrene (1200 ppb). Culvert
well L contained benzene (7.6 ppb), 2-methylnaphthalene (81 ppb), total xylenes (16
ppb), fluorene (30 ppb), and phenanthrene (34 ppb).
The results for the field blank, equipment blank, trip blank, and wells R-8-SW, R-
9-TEL and R-10-SE indicated no organic contamination.
Inorganic Analysis The inorganic analysis for the Task Force was performed by
Centec of Salem, Virginia, an EPA CLP Lab. Inorganic results are presented in
Table 11, Inorganic Analysis Summary. Potential problems may exist because of
the excess turbidity in analyzed samples.
Samples for monitoring well R-12-PE, R-6-NE, and R-4-E contained concentrations
of arsenic (247, 62.4 and 113 ppb, respectively), exceeding the EPA interim primary
drinking standards of 50 ppb. Results indicate that cadmium was at the standard
(10 ppb) in culvert well F.
Under the secondary drinking water standards, chloride exceeded the 250,000 ppb
standard in monitoring wells R-ll-PN (850,000 ppb), R-3-NC (640,000 ppb), and
culvert well E (325,000 ppb). The quality control evaluation states that the data
for chloride from wells R-9-TEL, R-4-EC, culvert well E and culvert well A
duplicate are unusable.
All of the sample locations exceeded the standard of 50 ppb for manganese.
Sulfates exceeded the standard of 250,000 ppb in R-12-PE (625,000 ppb), R-ll-PN
(800,000 ppb), R-6-NE (375,000 ppb), R-4-EC (288,000 ppb), and R-3-NC (750,000
ppb). In addition, iron exceeded the standard of 300 ppb at all of the sample
locations except culvert well L.
Total phenols were detected in wells R-5-NNE (2800 ppb), R-4-EC (7600 ppb), R-3-
NC (33 ppb), R-12-PE (110 ppb), R-ll-PN (64 ppb), R-10-SE (38 ppb), R-7-WC (70
ppb), R-l-W and culvert well E (218 ppb), and in culvert wells L (20 ppb), A (300
ppb) and B (670 ppb). In addition, the trip blank and equipment blank indicated
total phenols of 60 and 52 ppb, respectively. Data for R-3-NC, R-12-PE, R-ll-PN,
R-10-SE, R-7-WC, R-l-W and culvert wells E and L are considered unusable for
total phenols by the quality control evaluation.
Indicator Parameters The indicator parameter TOC, is detected in all samples
including field, equipment, and trip blanks. The results for TOC for the field,
equipment and trip blank are 190, 1800 and 2600 ppb, respectively. These levels of
TOC in the blanks are low compared to the monitoring well and culvert well
sample results. In addition, the QC evaluation of the data states that the results
from R-2-SC, R-10-SE and R-7-WC are unusable and the remaining results for the
samples should be considered qualitative.
Elevated levels of POC are also evident in monitoring wells R-12-PE, R-ll-PN, R-
6-NE, R-5-NNE, R-4-EC, R-3-NC, and in culvert wells F, E, L, A, and B. These
samples correlate with the detection of organic constituents in these wells.
However, the QC evaluation states that those should be used as qualitative results.
The samples that detected high levels of TOX and POX which include R-12-PE, R-
11-PN, R-6-NE and R-4-EC correlate with the elevated levels of chloride, sulfates,
and field results for conductivity (Table 11, Field Analysis Results). The quality
57
-------
586cme
~slh
control evaluation states that R-12-PE, R-ll-PN and R-4-EC should be used as
qualitative results and all culvert well samples are semi-quantitative for POX.
In summary, it is apparent that a contaminant plume containing numerous
Appendix VIII constituents (40 CFR 261) exists at the site. Constituents of concern
were detected in wells R-3-NC, R-4-EC, R-5-NNE, R-5-NE, R-ll-PN and R-12-PE
in addition to numerous culvert wells. These constituents (Table 11) may appear as
both light and dense phase immiscible and soluble components. Wells which
contained no hazardous waste constituents or extremely low concentrations include
wells R-l-W, R-2-SC, R-7-WC, R-8-SW, R-9-TEL and R-10-SE. Based on Figures 9
and 10, these wells all appear to be upgradient at various times in relation to the
wells completed within the plume. Although a plume exists, the full extent in a
vertical and horizontal direction has not been defined, especially since no RCRA
monitoring wells exist within the northern section of the site in the vicinity of the
culvert wells, and wells R-4-EC and R-6-NNE located on the northeast property
boundary contain contamination which may indicate the potential for off-site
migration.
5.2 Data Quality Evaluation
The following discussion is based on an evaluation of quality control data and
analytical data collected by the Task Force and reviewed by PRC Engineering
under contract to EPA. The evaluation (data validation) was made to detect and
discuss specific or general inadequacies of the data and to determine if these are
correctable or inherent in the analytical process. The following discussion was
taken from the PRC data quality evaluation report (Appendix F).
Metals - Performance Evaluation Standards Metal analyte performance evaluation
standards were not evaluated in conjunction with the samples collected from this
facility.
Metals - OC Evaluation Total metal matrix spike recoveries were calculated for 23
metals spiked into two low concentration groundwater samples. The sample from
well R-ll-PN was spiked for all metals except mercury and the sample from well
R-ll-PN (duplicate) was spiked for mercury only. Nineteen of the 23 low
concentration metal spike recoveries were within the data quality objectives
(DQOs) for this program. The selenium spike recovery was outside the DQO with
a value of 178 percent and the iron, magnesium, and manganese spike recoveries
were not calculated as the sample concentrations of these metals were greater than
four times the concentration of the spike.
Total metal matrix spike recoveries were also calculated for the 23 metals spiked
into two medium concentration groundwater samples. Sample culvert well A was
spiked for all metals except mercury and sample culvert well A (duplicate) was
spiked for mercury only. All 23 of the medium concentration sample metal spike
recoveries were within the DQO.
The average calculated relative percent differences (RPDs) for all metallic
analytes, except lead in the low concentration matrix, were within program DQOs.
RPDs were not calculated for some of the metal analytes because the
concentrations of one or more of the metals in the field samples used for the RPD
determination were less than the contract required detection limit (CRDL).
58
-------
586cme
—slh
Required analyses were performed on all metals samples submitted to the
laboratory.
No contamination was reported in the laboratory blanks. The field blank
contained 217 ug/L of total iron. This value is above the iron CRDL of 100 ug/L.
Furnace Metals The graphite furnace metals (antimony, arsenic, cadmium, lead,
selenium, and thallium) quality control was generally acceptable. Several of the
deficiencies are listed below.
The duplicate injection RPD for lead sample from well R-ll-PN was outside the
DQO. All lead results should be considered semi-quantitative.
The low concentration matrix selenium spike recovery (sample from R-ll-PN) was
outside the DQO with a recovery of 178 percent. Low level selenium results should
be considered semi-quantitative.
The method of standard addition (MSA) correlation coefficient for cadmium in the
sample from well R-7-WC was outside control limits. There was possible
interference in this analysis due to the presence of a large sulfate concentration.
Cadmium results for sample R-7-WC should not be used.
The date of the thallium analysis was not recorded by the laboratory. This does
not affect the data quality.
Low level (5.3 ug/L, CRDL equals 60 ug/L) antimony contamination was found in
the field blank.
The antimony sample from well R-ll-PN and arsenic spiked sample recoveries
exceeded their calibration range. Spiked sample data for these two metals in these
two samples should be considered qualitative.
Field duplicate RPD results for arsenic in duplicate sample pair from well R-ll-
PN were excessive. The comparative precision of the field duplicate results is not
used in the evaluation of sample results. It is not possible to determine the source
of this imprecision. It may be reflective of sample to sample variation rather than
analytical precision. Therefore, field duplicate precision results are presented for
information purposes only.
All arsenic, antimony, and thallium results should be considered quantitative.
Cadmium results, with the exception of results for the sample from well R-7-WC,
should also be considered quantitative. Cadmium results for well R-7-WC should
not be used due to a poor MSA correlation coefficient. All lead and selenium
results should be considered semi-quantitative.
ICP Metals The field blank contained iron contamination at a concentration
greater than the CRDL (200 ug/L) at 217 ug/L. Based upon HWGWTF convention,
the iron results for samples culvert well A and culvert well A (duplicate) should be
considered qualitative and the iron results for the samples from well R-4-EC,
culvert well E and culvert well L should be considered unusable due to this
contamination. Aluminum contamination of 180, 178, and 174 ug/L (CRDL equals
200 ug/L) was found in the field, trip, and equipment blanks, respectively. This
suggests a common source of contamination such as the water used for these
blanks. This contamination may be an artifact of the sampling team's preparation
59
-------
586cme
-slh
or field procedures. It is not possible to assess whether this contamination affects
the aluminum sample results. Low levels of barium, cadmium, calcium, iron,
potassium, and sodium were also found in one or more of the sampling blanks.
The low level (twice CRDL) linear range checks for chromium, nickel, and silver
had poor recoveries. The low level linear range check is an analysis of a solution
with elemental concentrations near the detection limit. The range check analysis
shows the accuracy which can be expected by the method for results near the
detection limits. The accuracy reported for these elements is not unexpected.
Chromium, nickel, and silver results for all samples were affected and should be
considered to be biased low by approximately 50, 25, and 25 percent, respectively.
Field duplicate RPD results for aluminum, chromium, and iron in duplicate sample
pairs from well R-ll-PN were excessive. The comparative precision of the field
duplicate results is not used in the evaluation of sample results. It is not possible
to determine the source of this imprecision. The poor precision may be reflective
of actual sample to sample variation rather than laboratory analytical precision.
Therefore, field duplicate precision results are presented for information purposes
only.
All aluminum, barium, beryllium, calcium, chromium, cobalt, copper, magnesium,
manganese, nickel, potassium, silver, sodium, vanadium, and zinc results should be
considered quantitative. Iron results, with exceptions listed below, should also be
considered quantitative. The iron results for samples from culvert well A should
be considered qualitative and those for samples from culvert well A (duplicate),
well R-4-EC, culvert well E, and culvert well L should be considered unusable due
to blank contamination.
Mercury All mercury results should be considered quantitative with an acceptable
probability of false negatives.
Inorganic and Indicator Analvtes - Performance Evaluation Standard Inorganic
and indicator performance evaluation standards were not evaluated in conjunction
with the samples collected form this facility.
Inorganic and Indicator Analvte OC Evaluation The average spike recoveries of
all of the inorganic and indicator analytes, except for TOC in the low
concentration matrix spike sample and chloride and POX in both the low and
medium concentration matrix spike samples, were within the accuracy DQO limits
(accuracy DQOs have not been established for bromide and nitrite matrix spikes).
The TOC spike recovery was zero percent (no recovery), the chloride recoveries
were 232 (254 on a second analysis) and 230 (240 on a second analysis) percent, and
the POX average recoveries were 50 and 58 percent. The bromide and nitrite
nitrogen spike recoveries were acceptable with values of 98 and 103 percent in the
low concentration sample and 100 and 107 percent in the medium concentration
sample.
Average RPDs for all inorganic and indicator analytes, when calculated, were
within program DQOs. The RPDs were not calculated if either one or both of the
duplicate values were less than the CRDL. Precision DQOs have not been
established for bromide and nitrite nitrogen.
Requested analyses were performed on all samples for the inorganic and indicator
analytes.
60
-------
586cme
«slh
No laboratory blank contamination was reported for any inorganic or indicator
analyte. Contamination involving TOC and total phenols was found in the
equipment and the trip blanks at levels above CRDL. TOC contamination was also
found in the field blank.
/
Inorganic and Indicator Analvte Data No problems were detected with the
cyanide, sulfate, bromide, ammonia nitrogen, and TOX results. All data for these
analytes should be considered quantitative with acceptable probabilities of false
negatives.
The holding times for the nitrate nitrogen and nitrite nitrogen analyses ranged
from 24 to 26 days from receipt of samples. This is longer than the recommended
48 hour holding time for unpreserved samples. Therefore, all nitrate and nitrite
nitrogen results should be considered to be semi-quantitative.
Each of the two chloride matrix spikes was analyzed twice. All of these chloride
matrix spike recoveries were above the DQO limits. The chlorine low
concentration matrix recoveries were 232 and 254 percent and the medium
concentration matrix recoveries were 230 and 240 percent. The chloride results for
all samples should be considered qualitative.
Total phenol contamination was found in the equipment blank and the trip blank
concentrations of 52 and 60 ug/L, respectively. These values are above the total
phenol CRDL of 10 ug/1. Based upon HWGWTF conventions, all total phenols in
the sampling blanks or less than the detection limit are considered quantitative.
Total phenols results for the trip blank, equipment blank and wells R-2-SC, R-9-
TEL, T-8-SW, R-4-EC, culvert well A, culvert well A (duplicate), culvert well B and
the field blank should be considered quantitative. All total phenols results greater
than five but less than ten times the highest concentration of sampling blank
contamination are considered qualitative and all other data are considered
unusable. Total phenols results for all samples, except those mentioned above,
should not be used. One of two sets of field duplicates showed poor precision with
total phenols concentrations of 64 and 38 ug/L reported. The comparative
precision of the field duplicate results is not used in the evaluation of sample
results. It is not possible to determine the source of this imprecision. The poor
precision may be reflective of actual sample to sample variation rather than
laboratory analytical precision. Field duplicate precision is reported for
informational purposes only.
A low concentration matrix sample from well R-I1-PN (duplicate) was analyzed
twice to determine the TOC matrix spike recovery. Both results, 139 and zero (no
recovery) percent, were outside of control limits. The trip blank, equipment blank,
and field blank contained TOC at concentrations of 2600, 1800, and 2100 ug/L,
respectively, which are above the CRDL of 1000 ug/L. TOC contamination
exceeding the CRDL has been a recurring problem with HWGWTF sampling blanks.
The source of this problem has not been adequately addressed. It may be due to
high levels of carbon dioxide or charcoal in the water used for the sampling
blanks. Although it is not possible to assess whether this contamination affects the
TOC sample results, as a HWGWTF convention, all TOC results greater than ten
times the highest field blank concentration or less than the detection limit should
be considered quantitative. All TOC results greater than five but less than ten
times the highest concentration of sampling blank contamination are considered
qualitative and all other data are considered unusable. TOC results, with the
61
-------
586cme
—slh
exception of results for well samples from R-2-SC, R-10-SE, and R-7-WC, should be
considered qualitative. TOC results for these samples should not be used due to
blank contamination.
InitiaJ and continuing calibration standards for POC were not analyzed. A POC
spike- solution was run during the analytical batch but the "true" value of the spike
was not provided by the laboratory. The POC results should be considered
qualitative.
Two pairs of POX laboratory duplicates showed poor duplicate precision with 25
percent PRD for both pairs. Matrix spike recoveries for POX samples for well R-
11-PN, culvert L and culvert A (duplicate) were low with recoveries of 10, 68, and
zero (no recovery) percent, respectively. POX results should be considered
quantitative except for the results for samples from culvert F, culvert E, culvert L,
culvert A, culvert A (duplicate), and culvert B which should be considered semi-
quantitative and the results for samples from wells R-12-PE (before purge), R-12-
PE (after purge), R-ll-PN, R-ll-PN (duplicate) and R-4-EC should be considered
qualitative.
Organics and Pesticides - Performance Evaluation Standard Organic performance
evaluation standards were not evaluated in conjunction with the samples collected
from this facility.
Organic OC Evaluation All matrix spike average recoveries, with the exceptions of
acenaphthene in the low concentration matrix sample and toluene, benzene, and
heptachlor in the medium concentration matrix samples were within established
program DQOs for accuracy. Individual matrix spike recoveries which were
outside the accuracy DQO will be discussed in the appropriate sections below. All
surrogate spike average recoveries were within DQOs for accuracy.
All matrix spike/matrix spike duplicate average RPDs were within program
precision DQOs with two exceptions. The average RPDs for heptachlor and aldrin
were greater than the DQO. Individual matrix spike RPDs which were outside the
precision DQO will be discussed in the appropriate sections below. All average
surrogate spike RPDs were within DQOs for precision. All organic analyses were
performed as requested.
Volatiles Quality control data indicate that volatile organics were determined
acceptably. The chromatograms appear acceptable. Initial and continuing
calibrations, tunings and mass calibrations, blanks, matrix spikes and matrix spike
duplicates (with the exception of benzene and toluene), and surrogate spikes were
acceptable.
Estimated method detection limits were CRDL for all samples except from well R-
12-PE (before purge) (8.3 times CRDL), R-ll-PN (6.2 times CRDL), R-ll-PN
(duplicate) (7.1 times CRDL), R-4-EC (2.4 times CRDL), R-3-NC (5.3 times CRDL),
culvert well A (143 times CRDL), culvert well A (duplicate) 17.1 times CRDL), and
937 (100 times CRDL), culvert well F (20 times CRDL), and culvert well E (2 times
CRDL). Dilution of the samples was required. The possibility of false negatives is
significant in the more highly diluted samples.
The laboratory blank analyzed on October 27, 1986 was analyzed prior to the
continuing calibration standard on instrument 14 and prior to the initial
62
-------
586cme
—slh
calibration on instrument 18. This did not affect the results of the data
evaluation.
Acetone was detected in three instrument blanks at concentrations of 12, 6, and 9
ug/L ,which are near the CRDL of 10 ug/L. Acetone results for samples from wells
R-12-PE (before purge), R-12-PE (after purge), R-ll-PN, R-9-TEL, R-l-W, R-6-NE,
R-5-NNE and R-8-SW were affected and should not be used. Acetone results were
also incorrectly reported on the Form I for a sample from well R-9-TEL. It should
have been, but was not, noted on the Form I that the sample from well R-9-TEL
was associated with a laboratory blank containing acetone contamination.
The percent recoveries of benzene from the matrix spike and matrix spike
duplicate for samples from culvert well A (duplicate); and toluene from the matrix
spike duplicate for samples from culvert well A (duplicate), were above control
limits.
The volatiles data are acceptable. The volatile compound results should be
considered quantitative with the exception of the acetone data for the samples
mentioned above. The negative results for samples from culvert well F, culvert
well A, culvert well A (duplicate) and culvert well B should be considered
unreliable due to an increased probability of false negative results because of high
sample dilution. The probability of false negative results for all other samples is
acceptable.
Semivolatiles
Initial and continuing calibrations, tuning and mass calibrations, blanks, holding
times, and chromatograms were acceptable for the semivolatiles. Some problems
were encountered with matrix spike/matrix spike duplicate recoveries and
surrogate spike recoveries.
Estimated method detection limits were twice CRDL for all samples except well R-
4-EC (200 times CRDL), culvert well F (40 times CRDL), culvert well E (40 times
CRDL), culvert well A (10 times CRDL), culvert well A (duplicate) (10 times
CRDL), and culvert well B (80 times CRDL), Dilution of these samples were
required. The possibility of false negatives is significant in the more highly
diluted samples.
Di-n-butylphthalate contamination was detected in a laboratory blank at a
concentration of 2.2 ug/L which is below the CRDL. This contamination was not
reported by the laboratory on their Form IV (Method Blank Summary) submitted to
EPA. It was not noted on Form I that samples from the field blank or the well
were associated with a laboratory blank containing di-n-butylphthalate
contamination.
The semivolatile matrix spike compounds were not recovered from sample culvert
well E due to the 40-fold dilution of the sample. The recoveries of
pentachlorophenol from the sample R-12-PE (after purge) (107 and 119 percent)
were above the DQO of 9 to 103 percent. The pentachlorophenol recoveries were
above the DQO range but as the pentachlorophenol DQO range is very broad, the
high recoveries have only a minor significance. The relative percent difference
between the matrix spike and matrix spike duplicate recovery of pyrene in sample
R-12-PE (after purge) was above the DQO.
63
-------
586cme
—slh
The surrogate percent recovery for nitrobenzene-DS in the sample from well R-ll-
PN was above DQO. The surrogate percent recoveries for nitrobenzene-D5,2-
fluorobiphenyl, terphenyl-D14, phenol-D5,2-fluorophenol, and 2,4,6-tribromophenol
in one or more samples were below their respective DQOs. Samples from well R-4-
EC, culvert well F, and culvert well B, and all of the surrogate spikes were
completely diluted out during sample preparation. Acid fraction results for the
sample from well R-ll-PN should be considered unreliable due to high acid
surrogate recovery. Acid fraction results for samples from wells R-ll-PN
(duplicate), R-6-NE, and R-5-NNE should be considered unreliable due to low acid
surrogate recoveries.
The semivolatile data are acceptable and the results should be considered
quantitative with the exception of the acid fraction of samples from wells R-ll-
PN, R-ll-PN (duplicate), R-6-NE, R-5-NNE, and R-3-NC which should be
considered unreliable due to poor acid recovery. The probability of false negatives
is acceptable for all samples with the exception of samples from well R-4-EC,
culvert well F, culvert well E, and culvert well B. For these four samples the
probability of false negatives is unacceptable due to raised detection limits caused
by dilution.
Pesticides The initial and continuing calibrations, blanks, holding times, and
chromatograms for pesticides were acceptable. Some matrix and surrogate spike
recoveries were outside control limits.
Estimated method detection limits are CRDL for all samples except from well R-4-
EC (400 times CRDL), culvert well F (10 times CRDL), culvert well E (11 times
CRDL), and culvert well A (duplicate) (2 times CRDL).
The matrix spike and matrix spike duplicate recoveries and their RPD for
heptachlor in sample culvert well A (duplicate) are all above control limits. The
matrix spike duplicate recovery and the RPD for aldrin in the sample for culvert
well A (duplicate) are above control limits.
Dibutylchlorendate was not recovered from the surrogate spikes for samples from
well R-4-EC, culvert well F, and culvert well E as it was diluted out in the
preparation of these samples.
Many of the sample chromatograms contained non-pesticide HSL contamination.
Additionally, a peak was present at an elution time of approximately 17 minutes
on pack 07 which has also been present in past cases.
The presence of aldrin, heptachlor, and heptachlor epoxide were confirmed by
GC/EC but not by GC/MS in sample from well R-4-EC although they were present
at high concentrations (300 to 810 ug/L). This indicated that unknown compounds
are eluting at the same retention times. Pesticide target compounds were also
detected by GC/EC but not confirmed by GC/MS in samples from well R-5-NNE,
R-4-EC, culvert well A, culvert well A (duplicate) and culvert well B. The
pesticide analyses must be considered suspect because the GC/MS does not confirm
the GC/EC results. It is possible that pesticide-like compounds may be present at
this facility.
The pesticides positive results should be considered qualitative. There is an
enhanced probability of false negatives (unrecovered pesticides in the sample)
64
-------
586cme
—slh
based upon the inability of the GC/MS method to confirm the presence of
pesticides or pesticide-like compounds.
5.3 Data Comparison (Groundwater Task Force and Conoco)
t
The Conoco facility obtained eight split samples from the Task Force. The samples
were split from samples collected from the following wells: R-l-W, R-3-NC, R-4-
EC, R-6-NE, R-8-SW, R-10-SE, R-ll-PN and R-12-PE. Northern Engineering and
Testing, Inc. collected the splits on behalf of Conoco, and Rocky Mountain
Analytical Laboratory performed the analyses. The results are presented in
Appendix G. Groundwater samples were not filtered in the field or the laboratory
(verbal communication between Bob Olson [Conoco] and Barbara Jones [DHES]). It
should be noted that the detection limits for organic parameters in well R-4-EC
were approximately 150 times larger than the other well samples.
The Task Force made a comparison of the results from both Task Force and
Conoco data. This comparison is presented in Table 12. Most of the data compares
favorably within the variability of analytic methods and laboratories. Howerver,
several exceptions were noted. For example, benzene was not reported by Conoco
in well R-3-NC while the Task Force reported 33 ppb. Phenol was reported by
Conoco in well R-3-NC at 16 ppb, but not by the Task Force. Pyrene was found in
well R-12-PE at 21 ppb by the Task Force, but not by Conoco. Of a more
significant importance, 1,2-Dichloroethane was reported by the Task Force in well
R-3-NC at 620 ppb, while Conoco reported a value below the detection limit of 5
ppb. A similar situation was reported in well R-4-EC for the identical parameter
by the Task Force at 170 ppb. Several other discrepancies were noted, but not
described herein due to the redundant nature.
The inorganic analyses differed more than the organic analyses when both values
(Task Force and Conoco) were reported. The parameters which were noted as
being extreme include, but are not limited to, the following: Potassium was
reported in well R-6-NE by Conoco at 3000 ppb, while the Task Force reported
5700 ppb. For the identical parameter in well R-12-PE, Conoco reported 52,000
ppb and the Task Force 308,000 ppb. Conoco reported 296,000 ppb of sulfate in
well R-l-W while the Task Force results were below applicable standards. Total
phenols in well R-4-EC were reported as 98,400 ppb and 7600 ppb by Conoco and
the Task Force, respectively.
65
-------
566-t12
Table 12
Comparison of Conoco and Task force Data (ppb except as noted)
Parameters (Organic)
Benzene
Phenol
Pyrene
Chloroform
Toluene
Ethyl Benzene
2,4-Dimethyphenol
Naphthalene
Phenanthrene
Total Xylenes
1,2-Dichloroethane
C1 TF2 C TF C TF C TF C TF C TF
R-1-U 1-1-U R-3-NC R-3-NC R-4-EG R-4-EG R-6-NE R-6-NE R-11-PN B-11-PN 0-17-P? R-1?-PS
33 130 100 130 190 12 20
16 27,000 16,000(I) 45 2O<3>
21
18 • ,5
270 280 27 52
61 54
8200 5000
1* 20 59 57
12
550 570 7.5 22 76
13 620 170 29 16 1200 19
|
1 Conoco Data 10-21/23-86
2 Task Force Data 10-20/23-88
3 Unreliable Data
-------
586-112
table 12 (continued)
Conpacison o< Conoco and Task Force Data (pcb except as noted)
Parameters (Inorganic)
IOC
TOX
POC
POX
Aluminum
Arsenic
Calcium
Iron
Magnesium
Potassium
Chloride
Ammonia (as N)
Sutfate
Sodium
C/anide
Phenols
Manganese
C If C If C
R-1-U R-1-W R-3-NC R-3-NC R-4-E6
12,000 11,400(4) 40,000{4>
28 ug C1*/l 22 850
1000(4>
930
700 1170 1200 1930 200
140
163,000 161,000 363,000 374,000 12,000
2650 3300 7740 8240 660
126,000 126,000 207,000 204,000 18,000
13,000 11,500 90,000 106,000
77,000 75,000 704,000 640,000 118,000
1 860 840 560
296,000 1,140,000 750,000 446,000
357,000 374,000 511.000 546,000 1,000,000
82 53 870
62(5) 33 98,400
6570 6290
If
R-4-EG
178,000(4)
280
3800(4>
2670(*>
447
113
13,300
760<5>
18,500
135,000
400
288,000
1,030,000
1500
7600
C
R-6-ME
26,000
124 ug Cl'/l
100
90 ug Cl'/l
900
100
117,000
8,200
108,000
3000
113,000
210
541,000
405,000
120
5650
If
R-6-ME
30,000(*'
94
105
1080
62.4
116,000
7830
98,000
5700
102,000
140
375,000
409,000
156
90
5190
C
R-H-PM
44,000
1510 ug d'/l
1,200
1280 ug C1*/l
2400
483,000
19,300
318,000
17,000
941,000
2870
840,000
564,000
16
10
5180
If
R-11-PM
92,000(4)
1120
1450(4>
1200«>
5330
472,000
20,400
318,000
16,400
850,000
2400
800,000
610,000
20
64<5>
4790
C
R-12-PS
69,000
1840 ug cl'/l
2900
1900 ug C1"/I
200
240
185,000
4780
139,000
52,000
355,000
10,200
388,000
502,000
12
182
3090
IF
R-12-PS
65,000"
1450
2840(4>
2700«>
247
177,000
5800
130,000
308,000
182,000
10,000
625,000
496,000
20
172<5>
2980
4 Qualitative Result
5 Unusable Result
-------
586cme
~slh
6.0 REFERENCES
Barcelona, M.J.; Gibb, J.P.; Miller, R.A., 1983, A Guide to the Selection of Materials for
Monitoring Well Construction and Groundwater Sampling, Illinois State Water
Survey, SWS Contract Report 327.
Exxon, Inc., 1983, Part B permit submittal for hazardous waste facility at Exxon-Billings
Refinery.
Gosling, A.W., and Pashley, E.F., Jr., 1973, "Water Resources of the Yellowstone River
Valley, Billings to Park City, Montana", U.S. Geological Survey Hydrologic
Investigations Atlas HA-454.
Hall, G.M. and Howard, C.S., 1929, "Ground Water in Yellowstone and Treasure Counties,
Montana", U.S. Geological Survey Water Supply Paper 599, 118 p.
Lemire, P., 1986, Field Investigation Report, Montana Department of Health and
Environmental Sciences, October 20, 1986.
McDermott, J., 1982, "A Site Reconnaissance and Drilling History of the Conoco Refinery,
Montana", private document submitted to Conoco, Incorporated.
O'Dcll, L.G., Northern Engineering & Testing, Inc., Correspondence with Robert A. Olsen,
Senior Engineer, CONOCO, August 24, 1984.
Stoner, J.D., and Lewis, B.D., 1980, "Hydrogeology of the Fort Union Coal Region, Eastern
Montana", U.S. Geological Survey Miscellaneous Investigations Series, Map 1-1236.
Todd, O.K., 1959, "Hydrology", John Wiley and Sons, New York, 336 p.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1985, Practical Guide for Ground-Water Sampling.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1986a, RCRA Groundwater Monitoring Technical
Enforcement Guidance Document, Final, September 1986.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1986b, Protocol for Hazardous Waste Groundwater
Task Force Evaluations, October 1986.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1987a, Preliminary Assessment Report, CH2M Hill,
January 9, 1987.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1987b, Final Report, RCRA Facility Assessment -
Visual Site Inspection, Conoco Refinery, prepared by Jacobs Engineering Group
Inc., September 30, 1987.
68
-------
"i"r""i*****iT—.^^-^-..
-** .£..£».-
—J ^
f^-
>i I n • ! or-£i»!
A!; • " .. •'
^ I
S
t^^L
- ^
V '
x ^ N^
^
•^T^ J.
5
N
a
SOLO WASTE MANAGEMENT FACILITIES
-------
CRETACEOUS
-------
2102.22'
WATER SURFACE
IN YE3EN OR
ON 4-7-
DRUM STORAGE
AREA
/ R-6-NE
....
IMPOUNDMENT / -O0
. STORAGE AHEA ~-v <*
OLD LANDFILL) /~t—
= ' AREAX ^ 1/1 O *3
H -J / • / '-^J? ,V ^ «
•1-w . /i > ^ /-VR-4-EC
X * . ' / / -^ * i t
L'ANC/AP=L!CATION
EGEND
CONCCO INC.PROPERTY ECUNDARY
HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT UNIT
ss-2-SC MON!TORING WELL
GROUND WATER ELEVATION CONTOUR
LAW ENGINEERING
TESTING COMPANY
DENVER. COLORADO
DW 4212.3
FIGURE 4.5 •
F1EZOMETR1C SURFACE
MAY 21,1962
-------
BILLINGS
CITY
LIMITS
J-
(J
en
o
i ;
OFFICE
OLD SURFACE
IMPOUNDMENT
STORAGE AREA
OLD LANCrltlel
AREA
3102.29*.
WATER SURFACE
IN YEGEN DRAIN
ON 4-7-84
DRUM STORAGE
AREA <
OLD LANDFILL
ARE'A
I \*
OLD TEL-- *.
TR£Ax*?.£NT a DISPOSAL
OLD/SURFACE
IMPOUNDMENT
-D/SrCSAL AREA
I '/ /OLD LAND APPLICATION '
/ / AREA I
/ • .XR-2-SC I /
/ ^/' f. _ji/
SCALE (JU
LEGEND
CONOCO INC.PROPERTY BOUNDARY'
1
HAZARDOUS "WASTE MANAGE.MENT UNIT
MONITORING WELL
-3104.5
GROUND WATER ELEVATION CONTOUR
LAW ENGINEERING
TESTING COMPANY
DENVErt. COLORADO
DW 4212.3
FIGURE 4.6
PIEZOMETRIC SURFACE
AUGUST 5, 1S82
-------
3102.22
WATER SURFACE
IN YEGEN DRAIN
CN 4-V-84
DRUM STORAGE
AREA
^ SURFACE -O
IMFOUNCMENT
AREA
LD TEL
TREATMENT>a"DISPOSAL
AREA i/ ' 1
, _ __ LAND APPLICATION '
I I / ' AREA\ I
' ' / ^R-2-SC \ I
LEGEND
^R-2-SC
•3103.0
CONOCO INC. PROPERTY BOUNDARY
HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT UNIT
MONITORING WELL
GROUND WATER ELEVATION CONTOUR
LAW EHGINHHHING
TESTING COMPANY
DENVER. COLORADO
DW 4212.3
FIGURE 4.7
PIEZOMETRIC SURFACE
NOVEMBER 4, IS83
-------
BILLINGS
CITY
LIMITS
rA
DRUM STORAGE
AREA i
OFFICE
OLD SURFACE
IMPOUNDMENT
STORAGE AREA
OLD LANCFiL'-l : ~^^
"<9
AREA
AREA
R-I-W
©
OLD TEW
TREATMENT & DISPOSAL
n j 7
-1-. ' Icnrr;
S I ®
7 R-A?C
J\ CL3 SURFACE
iL-1 IMPOUNDMENT
DISPOSAL AREA
DSAL / _
, ~ ,-._ A?°L!CAT1CN '
/ S\ AREA I
/ R-2-SC I 1
/ *• i i
3102.29'
WATER SURFACE
IN YEGEN DRAIN
ON 4-7-84
SCALE (f I.)
LEGEND
CCNOCO INC. PROPERTY BOUNDARY
L. Ti HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT UNIT
<5R"2"Sv* MONITORING WELL
•3105.0-
GROUNO WATER ELEVATION CONTOUR
/ ENGINEHF2ING
1NG COMPANY
DCNVE^.'CCLCRAOO
c * -i c: 2 . i
FIGURE 4.8.
P1EZOMETRIC SURFACE
T C ! I A C V 1~ ICC.1
-------
IT
i 'A
r
BILLINGS
CITY
LIMITS
OFFICE
3102.29'
WATER SURFACE
IN YEGEN DRAIN
j, CN 4-7-
£ °r ' \
DRUM STORAGE1^ "^ K-5-NNE
/""•^ ! 1°
is. \
\ R-6-
,, 'O OLD\.ANDFlCb
w/0 / /CLC LAND APPLICATION '
!__' / / ( AREA I I
. I R-2-SC t
/ L ___ £__/ ____ L ___ I
LD SURFACE
IMPOUNDMENT
DISPOSAL AREA,
1
o
o
If)
/r\
viy
i
II
i w
0 ICO
u«^-
•J
^
300 iOC
SCALE (il.)
CONOCO INC. FROFErxTY BOUNDARY .
L. j HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT UNIT
«n'2"SC MONITORING WELL
GROUND WATER ELEVATION CONTOUR
v -
LAW ENG1MEHR1NC
TING COMPANY
. COLORADO
D W -J 2 I 2 . 2
FIGURE 4.9
P1EZOMETR1C SURFACE
A CD' ! C I C C ^
-------
R-10-SE
0 Location of previous rr.oni icring wells
Q Location of monitoring wells installed by Northern
._ ,10Q 0_J_ C0nt;cur line of tcp of plczometrlc surface
DATE: July 10, l^S^
l.'nrthcrn Cr.r, i nee r fr.g ar.e TcscTng.
B i 1 1 i ng s . I'.or.: ona
Dr.-.-..Ing Ho. £'-,-575-1
1 nc .
Ccjnoco Inc.
E i 11 i r.gs . M
Rcf inery
\.'as t r. Tac i 1 i i i cs
EPA ID l.'O MTO - CCcZo-C
Pi c ro-r.cir 1 c surface emu
-------
Emergency
Slora
-------
CONOCO, INC,
BILLINGS REFINERY
MTDQ06229405
GROUNDWATER QUALITY ASSESSMENT PROGRAM
tiO CFR 265,93
JL.NE
-------
Refining Department Conoco Inc.
P.O. Box 2548
Billings. Montana 59103
(406) 252-3841
June 7, 1984
Mr. Roger C. Thorvilson
Solid Waste Management Bureau
Department of Health and
Environmental Sciences
Cogswell Building, Room A201
Helena, MT 59620
Dear Mr. Thorvilson:
Our statistical analysis of groundwater contamination parameters,
sampled on 2/22/84, 2/23/84, and 3/23/84, for the Billings Refinery
showed several statistical positives. Results of the analyses are
included in Attachment I.
In accordance with the requirements of 40 CrR 265.93 (d) (2), the Conoco
Billings Refinery Grcundvater Quality Assessment Program is attached.
As documented in our letter to your office dated 2/10/84, we have
already commenced work on Ground-water Quality Assessment. It was
determined in February 1984 that & hydrcgeologic s'cudy was required at
the Refinery and a contract was awarded to Law Engineering in. March
1984. A copy of this study is included as Attachment II. Grsundwater
flow direction changes at different times of the year and this may be
due to a number of factors. To better understand these factors and
seasonal variations, and to determine the extent of migration, location,
and concentration, if contamination does exist, we propose that four
additional wells be drilled at the Refinery at locations described on
Attachment III.
We request formal approval of the Grouncvater Quality Assessment Program
as soon as practicable. Our schedule of implementation is contingent on
approval by June 22, 1954.
Very truly yours,
'
R. B. Blomeyer
Plant Manager
Billings Refinery
Enc • .'
cc:
Jim Harris, EPA Helena
-------
GROUNDWATER QUALITY ASSESSMENT PROGRAM
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. Certification
II. Number, Location, and Depth of Wells
III. Sampling and Analytical Methods
IV. Evaluation Procedures
A. Schedule of Implementation
B. Rate and Extent of Migration
C. Concentrations of Constituents
V. References
A. Attachment I - Results of Statistical Analysis of Grcundwate:
Contamination Parameters
B. Attachment II - Law Engineering Final Report - Hydrogeologic
Characterization of the Southern Portion of the Conoco -Inc.
Refinery
C. Attachment III - Eiv"M Area Groundwater Monitoring Well -
Locations
D. Attachment IV - Outline of Groundwarar Analysis
-------
Richard H. Fuller Conoco Inc.
Director Suite 2136
Ground Water & Solid Waste Programs Post Office Box 2197
Environmental Conservation Depanment 5 Greenway Plaza East
Houston. TX 77252
(713) 965-3674
June 4, 1984
Mr. Roger C. Thorvilson
Solid Waste Management Bureau
Department of Health and Environmental Sciences
Cogswell Building, Room A201
Helena, Montana 59620
Dear Mr. Thorvilson:
I have been involved in the formulation of the Ground Water Assessment
Plan for the Conoco Billings Refinery and have reviewed the plan
technically. I hereby certify that it is my professional opinion, based
upon knowledge and belief, that the Ground Water Assessment Plan for the
Conoco Billings Refinery is technically appropriate and meets the
regulatory requirements of the state of Montana. The plan will-'
adequately determine the rate and extent of migration of hazardous waste
or hazardous waste constituents and will determine the concentrations of-
hazardous waste or hazardous waste constituents.
Sincerely,
Richard H. Fuller
Certified Professional Geological Scientist
Certificate Number 6527
RHF/ljt
••I /
-------
NUMBER, LOCATION, AND DEPTH OF WELLS
Six groundwater monitoring wells were drilled in the Billings Refinery
by Davis Drilling. Location of the existing six wells and proposed fou:
new wells is shown in Attachment III. Two of the six wells were drillec
as up-gradient or background wells and the remaining four were drilled
as down-gradient wells to the Hazardous Waste Management area.
Details of well construction, including depth of wells, are documented
in geologic -logs provided by Davis Drilling and included in
Attachment II.
-------
k -O E?" c" iO 5* ITt 600 South 25th SI.
\j^B t.5 Es>=>i S t
" " i
Box 30615
Billings. Montana 59107
Engineering (406)248-9161
and Testing. Inc.
June 7, 1984
Continental Oil Company
P 0 Box 2548
Billings, MT 59103
ATTENTION: Mr. Bob 01 sen
Gentlemen:
The enclosed attachments and tables define the analytical methodology and
quality control procedures used by cur laboratory and the laboratories
Northern will subcontract to fcr the Conoco grouncwater monitoring
program of 1934.
Sample Collection
All samples will be collected using the field procedures outlined in either
EPA-FY-81, "iMinimurr. Quality Assurance Requirements for a Water Monitoring
Program," or E?A-600/4-£2-029, "Handbook for Sarncling and Sample
Preservation of Water and V.'astev.'ater." Samples will be obtained using
dedicated bailers constructed of FVC type material. These bailers will be
cleaned with detergent scrubbing, as well as succersive rinses of wash
acids, commercial bleach (as a disinfectant) and deionized water. Wells
containing significant amounts of organic^ constituents will be sampled
with dedicated glass bailers to minimize absorption and volatilization. .
Before samples will be obtained at each sampling site, the cbservation
wells will be cleared of at least three casing lengths of "standing" water
using a diaphragm-type sucticr, lift pump. This pump will bs cleaned
between individual wells with deicnized water and bleach solutions.
Sample Preservation and Hanc'l: r.c
All samples will be collecte: ar.c preserved in containers consistent with
Table 17.1, "Required Containers, Preservation Techniques, and Holding
Times," EPA-600/4-S2-Q29. Sample holding times will be adhered to as per
above EPA-600/4-S2-029, Table 17.1. Chain of custody procedures will be
followed as per EPA-FY-S1, Appendix A, "Chain of Custody Guidelines,"
Minimum Quality Assurance Recuire-.ents for a Water Monitoring Proc-rem.
Attachment I provides an example of the chain of custody fcrm to be used
by Northern'on this project. In addition to this form, a brur.d field
-------
Continental Oil Company June 7, 1984
Billings, NT Paae 2
notebook will be maintained by the field personnel who perform the sampling.
This notebook contains such information as field procedures used, determined
analytical parameters in the field, names and affiliation of field personnel,
date and time of sampling, sample location point, and observations pertinent
to sampling activity. The samples (and accompanying forms) will then be
transferred to a designated sample custodian at the time of receipt by the
laboratory and kept in a secure area.
Methodology
The methodology to be used by Northern in analyzing samples obtained in this
project follow the techniques set forth in EPA-60Q/4-79-020, Methods for
Chemical Analysis of Water and Wastes, Standard Methods for the Examination
of Water and Wastewater, 15th Edition, 1980, APHA-AWWA-WPCF, or EPA Method
200.7, Inductively Coupled Plasma-Atomic Emission Soectrometric Method for
Trace Element Analysis of Water and Wastes, November 1980.Specific
descriptions of these methods can be found in Attachment II.
The following methodology will be used by subcontractors in the analysis of
the samples obtained in this project. Chain of custody procedures will
follow all samples to outside labs. Detection limits for this work are
based on the primary drinking water standards of the US-EPA.
Pesticides. All samples will be analyzed using Method 608, "Organochlorine
Pesticides and PCB's" described in the Federal Register. Vol. 44, No. 233,
Monday, December 3, 1979. The method involves extraction of samples with
methylene chloride, concentration using Kuderna-Danish evaporative concen-
trators, and analysis by electron-capture gas chromatography.
Herbicides. All samples will be analyzed using the "Method for Chlorinated
Phenoxy Acid Herbicides in Industrial Effluents," described in the Federal
Register. Vol. 38, No. 75, Pt. II. The method involves extraction of the
samples with methylene chloride, der'ivatization with boron trifluoride,
and analysis by electron-capture gas chromatography.
TOX. All samples will be analyzed using Interim Method 450.1, "Total
Organic Halide," issued in November, 1980, by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Environmental Monitoring and Support Laboratory,
Cincinnati, Ohio. The method involves absorption of organics onto charcoal,
pyrolysis of the absorption column, and detection by a microcoulernetrie
titration system.
The following methodology will be used by Acculabs Research, Inc., formerly
Camp, Dresser, & McKee, Inc. of Wheat Ridge, Colorado in the analysis of
the samples obtained in this project. Chain of custody procedures will
-------
Continental Oil Company June 7, 1984
Billings, MT Page 3
follow the samples to Acculabs. The detection limits of the analysis are
based on those developed by the USEPA in the Primary Drinking Water Act.
Gross Alpha and Gross Beta:
a) Radiochemical Analytical Procedures for Analysis of Environmental
Samples, Report No. EMSL-LV-0539-1, US-EPA, 1979.
b) Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wasteweter, 14th
Edition, APHA-AKWA-WPCF, 1975.
Radium 226
a) Standard Methods, Ibid.
b) HA.SL Procedures Manual, HASL-300, U.S. Energy Research and Development
Administration, J.H. Harley, ed., 1972.
Quality Assurance
The subcontractor used for organic analyses will employ a strict quality
assurance program based on the quality assurance verification data section for
organic priority pollutants as specified in the December 3, 1979 Federal
Register. A summary of all quality control data will be maintained and
available upon request.
Acculabs Research, Inc.'s Radiochemistry Laboratory operates under a
rigorous Quality Assurance (QA) Program designed to comply with the Criteria
for Nuclear Power Plants set forth in Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations,
Part 50, Appendix B (10 CR F 50). This program also complies with the
United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Quality Assurance specifications
described in Regulatory Guide 4.15. •
Northern Engineering & Testing, Inc. has developed and is using a quality
assurance program based on the Handbook for Analytical Quality Control in
Water and Wastewater Laboratories, EPA-600/4-79-019, March 19/9. A brief
overview of the quality control program is as follows:
1) The laboratory services available to Northern's technical analysts
are monitored to provide adequate sources of materials which are
routinely used by the analyst. Examples of these services are
deionized water, compressed air, and vacuum sources.
2) Calibration and calibration checks of all instrumentation are
routinely scheduled.
-------
^rj. Ir.c.
Continental Oil Company June 7, 1984
Billings, MT Page 4
- 3) Glassware is of analytical quality and kept clean and contamination
free.
4) Reagents are of sufficient purity to perform analyses under the
US-EPA methodological restrictions.
5) Analytical performance is monitored by the use of duplicate determi-
nations and spike recovery values. A copy of the criteria used to
.judge analytical correctness can be found in Attachment III.
6) Data is handled and reported to provide meaningful and exact terms.
7} The technical analyst of Northern has been trained and his work
assignments reviewed according to policies developed by Northern.
If there are further questions, please do not hesitate to call us.
Respectfully submitted,
Kathleen A. Smit
Chemistry Laboratory Manager
KAS:ga
Attachments
In duplicate
-------
f O l\o« 30015
dOfJ Smilit ?Sm Sliccl
Hillings. Montana 59107
OIGI
CHAIN np CUSTODY nnconn
PflOJ, NO. PnOJCCTNAMU
'•'*
SAMf'LlinS:
STA.NO.
DATE
TIME
ft' ."••••,-. '.• •• I- i •
• '•' • i';' •;':..;. .' v- •'.-.••'•.' ••••'.'
STATION LOCATION
tin.
or-
con-
TAINEnS
REMAOKS
d by;
/Itlinqtiiihcil by; (Si
rU-lilU|uilllC(l by: ISiynj
i
Dalo /Tlmo
Oalo /Timo
/lirno
Hocuivi'd by: ISi
'i
Rclinquiihcil by:
llclinquithoil by;
deceived lor Laboratory by:-
Dale /'I lino
Dato /Tlmo
Oito /Timo
Received by: Isif
rUceivotJ by:
Mcmaiki
-------
ATTACHMENT II
Parameter
Arsenic
Barium
Cadmium
Chromium
Iron
Lead
Manganese
Mercury
Selenium
Silver
Sodium
Chloride
Fluoride
Nitrate+Nitrite as N
Sulfate
Total Coliform*
Bacteria
PH '
Conductivity
Phenols
Total Organic Carbon**
Methodology
Hydride, AA, EPA 206.3; Furnace,
AA, EPA 206.2
ICP; AA, EPA Method 208.1
ICP; Furnace AA, EPA Method 213.2
ICP; Furnace AA, EPA Method 218.2
ICP; Furnace AA, EPA Method 236.2
ICP; Furnace AA, EPA Method 239.2
ICP; Furnace AA, EPA Method 243.2
Cold Vapor; EPA Method 245.1
Furnace, AA, EPA Method 270.2; Hydride,
AA, EPA Method 270.3
ICP; Furnace, AA, EPA Method 272.2
Flame Photometry, SM 326; AA, EPA
Method 273.1
Titrimetric, EPA Method 325.3
Potentiometric, ion selective electrode,
EPA Method 340.2
Colorimetric, Automated, EPA Method 353.
Gravimetric, EPA Method 375.3
Membrane Filtration, SM 909
Electrometric, EPA Method 150.1
Specific Conductance, EPA Method 120.1
Spectrophotometric, 4-AAP, EPA
Method 420.1
Oxidation Method 413.1
Routine Reporting
Level , mg/1
0.005
0.1
0.005
0.02
0.05
0.02
0.02
0.001
0.005
0.02
1
1
0.01
2 0.05
1
1 colony/100 ml .
0.1
1
0.005
1
"EPA" implies:
11 SM" implies:
"ICP" implies:
EPA 600/4-79-020
"Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater,
15th Edition.
EPA Method 200.7, 'Inductively Coupled Plasma-Atomic Emission
Soectrochotometric Method for Trace Element Analysis of Water
and Wastes
* performed for Northern by Amatec Labs, Billings, Montana.
** performed by Ccncco laboratory.
-------
Cadmium
ANALYTICAL METHODOLOGIES AND
ROUTINE REPORTING LEVELS
Direct Aspiration, ICP
Direct Aspiration, AA, EPA Method 213.1
Furnace, AA, EPA Method 213.2
ATTACHMENT I
Routine Reporting
Parameter
cidity
ikalinity
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
B^ryl lium
Jcron
Methodology*
Titrimetric, EPA Method
Titrimetric, EPA Method
Colorimetric, Automated
EPA Method 310.2
Direct Aspiration, ICP
AA, Furnace, EPA Method
Direct Aspiration, ICP
Furnace, AA, EPA Method
Hydride, AA, EPA 206.3
Furnace, AA, EPA 206.2
Direct Aspiration, ICP
Direct Aspiration, AA,
Direct Aspiration, ICP
Direct Aspiration, AA,
Furnace, AA, EPA Method
Direct Aspiration, ICP
305.1
310.1
Methyl Orange,
202.2
204.2
EPA Method 208.1
EPA Method 210.1
208.2
Level, mg/1
1
1 "
0.1
0.05
0.005
0.05
0.02
0.1
0.005
Cal ci urn
Diract Aspiration, ICP
Direct Aspiration, AA, EPA Method 215.1
Titrimetric, EDTA, EPA Method 215.2
Chloride
Titrimetric, Mercuric Nitrate, EPA Method 325.3
Colorimetric, Automated Fe_(CN)fi, AAII,
EPA Method 325.2 J • b •
chlorophyl1-a
Spectrophotometric, SM1002G
**
*See Index to Abbreviations (last page)
dependent upon sample characteristics
-------
irameter
Methodology*
Routine Reporting
Level, mg/1
Direct Aspiration, ICP
Furnace, AA, EPA Method 218.2
0.02
Dbalt
Direct Aspiration, ICP
Furnace, AA, EPA 219.2
0.05
Dior
Colorimetric, Platinum Cobalt, EPA 110.2
Spectrophotometric, EPA 110.3
1 color unit
Dpper
Direct Aspiration, ICP
Furnace, AA, EPA 220.2
0.02
/anide:
Photometric
Determina-
tion of
Simple
Cyanide
J Total
Cyanide
After
Distillation
Spectrophotometric, EPA 335.1
Spectrophotometric, EPA 335.2
.ickel
Direct Aspiration, ICAP
Furnace, AA, EPA 249.2
0.01
0.01
joride
srdness
ron
ead
agnesium
.anganese
,ercury
.olybdenum
Potentiometric, Ion Selective Electrode,
EPA 340.2
Colorimetric, Automated EDTA, EPA 130.1
Titrimetric, EDTA, EPA 130.2
Direct Aspiration, ICAP
Furnace, AA, EPA 236.2
Direct Aspiration, ICAP
Furnace, AA, EPA 239.2
Direct Aspiration, ICAP
Direct Aspiration, AA, EPA 242.1
Direct Aspiration, ICAP
Furnace, AA, EPA 243.2
Cold Vapor, Manual, EPA 245.1
Direct Aspiration, ICAP
Furnace, AA, EPA 246.2
0.01
1
0.05
0.02
1
0.02
0.001
0.05
0.03
-------
arameter
Methodology*
Routine Reporting
Level, mg/1
.rogen:
'.} Ammonia
)} Kjeldahl
:) Nitrate
1} Nitrite
--) Organic
jil and
'-ease
Oxygen:
) Biochemical
Demand
Chemical
Demand
c) Dissolved
•_*
H"
fhenols:
a) Direct
Photometry
After
Disti llation
0 Chloroform
Extraction
After
Distillation
Phosphorus:
i) Ortho
b) Total
: as si urn
Colorimetric, Titrimetric, Distillation
•Procedure, EPA 350.2 0.01
Colorimetric, Titrimetric, Potentiometric, 0.01
EPA 351.3
Colorimetric, Automated Cadmium Reduction, ' 0.05
EPA 353.2 .
Colorimetric, Automated Cadmium Reduction, 0.05
EPA 353.2
Kjeldahl minus Ammonia (see above) 0.01
Gravimetric, Separatory Funnel Extraction, 5
EPA 413.1
BOD - 5 Day, 20°C, EPA 405.1 1
Titrimetric, Lov/, Mid, High Level, EPA 41 0.1 -.3 1
Electrometric, EPA 150.1 0.1 standard
unit
Spectrophotometric, Manual 4 - AAP, EPA 420.1 0.02
Spectrophotometric, Manual 4 - AAP, EPA 420.1 0.005
ALL FORMS -- Colorimetric, Automated Ascorbic
Acid, EPA 365.1 0.01
Colorimetric, Ascorbic Acid,
Single Reagent, EPA 365.2 0.01
Flame Photometric .Method, SM 322B 1
AA, Direct Aspiration, EPA 258.1
-------
.rameter
Methodology*
r\ u u u i 11 c r\ c fj u i
Level, mg/1
I en i urn
AA, Furnace, EPA Method 270.2
AA, Hydride, EPA Method 270.3
0.005
licon
as SiO,
Direct Aspiration, ICP
Color'imetric, EPA 370.1
0.1
ilver
Direct Aspiration, ICP
AA, Furnace, EPA 272.2
0.02
Flame Photometric Method, SM 325B
AA, Direct Aspiration, EPA 273.1
residue:
Filtrafale (TDS) Gravimetric at 180°C, EPA 160.1
Suspended
°
Gravi/r.etric at 103-105C, EPA 160.2
Settleable Volumetric, Imhoff Cone, EPA 160.5
Volatile
Gravimetric. Ignition at 550°, EPA 160.4
iductivity
Specific Conductance, EPA 120.1
1 micrornho/cm
Sulfate
Gravimetric, EPA 375.3
Colorimetric, Automated Methyl Thymol
Blue, EPA 375.2
"ulfide
Titrimetric Iodine, EPA 376.1
0.5
Thailium
AA, Furnace, EPA 279.2
0.05
Turbidity
Nepheicrnetric, EPA 180.1
0.02 NTU
'cnadiufn
Direct Aspiration, ICP
AA, Furnace, EPA 286.2
-0.1
line
Direct Aspiration, ICP
AA, Furnace, EPA 289.2
o.o:
Jicestion
Technique
for
Total
:overable
'• rsetals
Metal S-6, EPA 4.14
-------
Abbreviations used in above listings:
EPA: Methods for Chemical Analysis of Water
. and WastesTTPA-6QO/4-79-02Q ..
SM: Standard Methods for the Examination of
Water and Wastewater,15th Edition,
APHA-AWWA-WPCF, 1980
ICP: Inductively Coupled Plasma-Atomic Emission
Spectrometric Method for Trace Element
Analysis of Water and Wastes, Method 200.7,
United States Environmental Protection Agency,
Environmental Monitoring and Support Lab-
oratory, Cincinnati, Ohio, 45268, November
1980.
-------
MliU MLLUKKLI
Precision
Parameter
Acidity
Alkalinity
Aluminum, total
and dissolved
Ammonia as N
Antimony, total
and dissolved
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
BOD
Boron
Cadmium
Calcium
Range
mg/1
10 - 1000
,10 - 50
50 - 100
100 - 500
500 - 1000
0.1 - 1.0
1 - 5
5 - 10
0.01 - 1.0
1.0 - 10.0
0.05 - 1.0
1.0 - 5.0
5.0 - 50
0.005 - 0.010
0.010 - 0.050
0.050 - 0.100
O.T - 1.0
1.0 - 10.0
0.005 - 0.010
0.010 - 0.1
1 - 10
10 - 25
25 - 100
0.1 - 1.0
1.0 - 5.0
5.0 - 10.0
100 - 5000
0.005 - 0.10
0.1 - 0.5
0.5 - 100
1 - 10
10 - 50
50 - 100
100 - 500
Re
10*
1
2
5
6
0.1
0.2
1.0
0.01
0.7
0.1
0.3
1.0*
0.004
0.020
0.030
0.08*
0.1
0.003
0.007
3.0
8
21
0.2
0.3
0.4*
10
0.010
0.2
0.7
0
1.3
17
19
Accuracy
LCL UCL Detection
% Recovery % Recovery Limit, mq/1
64 (total)
66 (diss.)
90*
46 (total)
50 (diss.)
91 (total)
88 (diss.)
71
84 (total)
89 (diss.)
134 (total)
133 (diss.)
110*
195 (total)
194 (diss.)
106 (total)
126 (diss.)
123
135 (total)
124 (diss.)
54 (total)
64 (diss.)
82 (total)
85 (diss.)
80
150 (total)
144 (diss.)
121 (total)
126 (diss.)
121
10
1 mg/1 ; 0.01 mec
0.1
0.01
0.05
0.005
0.1
0.005
1.0
0.1
0.005
1 , 0.01 meq/1
*Arbitrary value; data base very small or nonexistent
-------
Precision
Parameter
COD
Chloride
Chromium
Conductivity
Copper
Fluoride
Hardness
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Range
mg/1
1 - 10
10 - 100
100 - 500
-1-10
10 - 50
50 - 100
10,000 - 50,000
0.02 - 0.10
0.1 - 1.0
1.0 - 10.0
0.1 - 1.0
1 - 100
200 - 1000
0.02 - 0.10
0.1 - 1.0
1 - 10
0.01 - 0.5
0.5 - 1.0
1 - 5.0
10 - 50
1 - 10
10 - 50
50 - TOO
100 - 500
500 - 1000
0.05 - 1.0
1 - 5
5-10
10 - 50
0.02 - 0.10
0.1 - 1.0
1 - 10
10 - 50
50 - 100
100 - 500
500 - 1000
Re
1*
10*
50*
1
1
2
65
0.02
0.1*
0.4*
0.3*
7*
13
0.02
0.1
0.3
0.01
0.1*
0.2
3
0
1
4*
7
14
0.04
0.1
0.4
1.0 •
0.05
0.1*
0.5
2
5
25
25
Accuracy
LCI UCL Detection
% Recovery % Recovery Limit, mg/1
90*
82
55 (total)
78 (diss.)
no*
147
157 (total)
142 (diss.)
93 (total)
87 (diss.)
79
100
90 (total)
85 (diss.)
73 (total)
83 (diss.)
91
113 (total)
131 (diss.)
123
128
115 (total)
122 (diss.)
133 (total)
122 (diss.)
112
1
1, 0.01 meq/
0.02
0.1 micromho/c
0.02
0.01
1, 0.01 rr.eq/
0.05
0.02
1 , 0.01 meq/
''Arbitrary value; data base very small or nonexistent
-------
Accuracy
LCL UCL
% Recovery % Recovery
Detection
Limit, mg/1
74 (total)
100 (diss.)
88
85*
78 (total)
86 (diss.)
90
127 (total)
13 (diss.)
107
115*
143 (total)
122 (diss.)
113
82
76 (total)
76 (diss.)
96
124
156 (total)
121 (diss.)
115
0.02
0.0001
0.05
0.02
0.05
0.1
0.01
1, 0.01 meq/'
0.005
0.1
94 (total) 129 (total)
85 (diss.) 136 (diss.)
0.02
97
107
1, 0.01 meq/'
)nexistent
-------
Precision Accuracy
Parameter
Sulfate
Titanium
Total Dissolved
Solids
Range
mg/1
1
50
100
500
1000
0.05
0.1
0.5
0
100
500
1000
5000
- 50
- 100
-•500
- 1000
- 5000
- 0.1
- 0.5 .
- 1.0
- 100
- 500
- 1000
- 5000
- 10000
LCL UCL Detection
Re % Recovery % Recovery Limit, meq/1
1.6 96 109 1, 0.01 meq/1
4
5
15*
23
0.02 88 (total) 101 (total) 0.05
0.03 91 (diss.} 104 (diss.)
0.3
10* 1
33
59
86
370
Total Suspended
Solids
Vanadium
•1 - 10 1.3
10-50 5
50 - 100 15
100 - 500 68
50CL- 1000 196 .
0.1 - 1.0* 0.1*
51
145
0.2
Zinc
0
.02
0.1
1
- 0.1
- 1.0
- 10
0
0
0
.04
.07
.3
96
93
(total)
(diss.)
114
122
(total)
(diss.)
0
.02-
*Arbitrary value; data base very small or nonexistent
-------
DEFINITION OF TERMS:
Range: The range is the boundary of "lowest to highest values
to which a statement pertains.
Re: ' Critical range; the maximum allowable' difference between
a sample value and its duplicate value.
LCL: Lower control limit; the smallest acceptable percent
recovery allowed for a spiked sample.
UCL: Upper control limit; the highest acceptable percent
recovery allowed for a spiked sample.
Example: A sample is analyzed for calcium. Values determined were 33.4 and
35.0.' Is this within acceptable duplicate criteria?
From the quality control statement on the range of 10-50
the maximum allowable difference in calcium duplicate is
1.3. Since the difference of these values is 1.6 ppm,"
the sample determinations are not acceptable.
Example: A sample is determined for dissolved Arsenic content. This value is
0.011 ppm. The sample is spiked to a total concentration of 0.020
and 0.017 ppm is recovered. Is this acceptable?
In the range 0.010 to 0.050 the lowest percent recovery
allowed is 88 percent (on a dissolved determination), the
highest percent recovery allowed is 126 percent.
u-uj^ x 100 is 85 percent recovery and determination does
not meet with the acceptance criteria of the QC table.
-------
r
Analyze
ample, stand
'dards, blanks &
quality control
duplicate and
Check standard linearity with
linear regression technique. At
95% confidence, correlation coef-
ficient of standard line must ex-
ceed given values.
\5piKea bo
\
Standard
line not
within • .
acceptance /|
criteria V-J
\
£
/^S"top7"\
' seek superX
/isor, method \
3r technique \
error
/
v_y
See Diagran IT
unacceptable" <^
duplicate cor-
>- 2 r f i n n
See Diagram III
unacceptable spik2<^
recovery cor-
inp i tfi
Standard
line not
within
acceptance
criteria
1
0
x V
Make-new
standards ,
rerun blan
samples ,
etc.
£
Determine
standard
line
correlatic
coeff icier
^
Siianaard
line
within
criteria
3r--
cs,
n
t
Duplicate data
no acceptable
Number of Correlation
•Standards Coefficient
3
4
. 5
6
7
8
9
10
V
O
Standard
line
within
acceptance
criteria
V
Calculate
r^ quality
i^ — 3 control
data
I
S7
Exami ne
^C^{ — criteria
fnr
arrop4.,nrc —
Spike recovery
data not accept-
able
^<-—
0.997
0.950
0.878
0.811
0.755
0.707
0.666
0.632
/Duplicate
/ and spike
. /values acce
lable, data
\ valid
\ ^
ept-
-------
r L,i
-------
QUALITY CONTROL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION DIAGRAM iii
CORRECTION OF UNACCEPTABLE SPIKE RECOVERY DATA
Retest all work,
double number of
spiked samples
Standards
within ac-
ceptance
criteria
80% of all
spikes not
within accept
ance criteria
'Spi
for
ke standa
recovery
rds
Rerun all work
with method of
standard
additions*
Determination not;
n'thin constraints
jf method
Determination
within constraints
of method of
standard
additions
Stop,
seek super-
isor, incor-
rect methodol-
ogy
80% of all
spikes within
acceptance
criteria
Standards not
within accept-
ance criteria
Spike stand-
ards by method
of standard
additions*
Recovery not
within con-
straints of
method of
standard
additions
Recovery with-
in constraints
of method of
standard
additions
Stop, seek supervisor,
if limits of method of
standard additions observed
data may be valid
Method of standard addi tioncSrrTjefound in EPA 600/4-79-020, page metals-12, part 8.5
-------
C. CONCENTRATION OF CONSTITUENTS
The Law Engineering hydrogeologic study, has determined that the existing
four monitoring wells (R-3-NC, R-4-EC, R-5-NNE, and R-6-NE) are located
down-hydraulic gradient from hazardous waste management (HWM)
facilities; consequently they should be capable of detecting affected
groundwater if a plume exists or develops. Installation of the four new
wells should aid in determining if a plume exists.
Statistical analysis of analytical data, as proposed in Attachment IV -
Outline of Groundwater Analysis, will determine if a plume of
contamination exists. The testing as proposed in the outline should be
capable of determining the concentration of constituents.
-------
o ,->
.1
r> )
o
ii .';
>
m
,
U/
,
V
IA
fi
rh
rf-
c
r
-------
:--.i iMn.i.i/iTC'C' KIOMT TnpT KIO c-r/iT T OT T Pc
v —i '-t i '4 *_ •/•* H i i_ i x i 1 0 1 t i i w n. 1 I i •— » w i H t 1 w I 1 L- *-i
OTI I TMpC OC'C'TMC-r-V ,-, U
!.• J. U_ 1_ I I >l LJ ^f I 1 1_ I 1 I •( I _ l\ I P •*
•••~i--T:C'rii |i\in i.ic1! i MI IMOCTC- pir—i
". —I'-. *— I \t— »\-IlN J_/ l-4h_L_L_ l'l',jl tJU-'l — 1\ iVl 1
.,-,'i BACKGROUND DATA IS
7.3 7.2 7.2 7.2 7.3 7.3 7.3 7.3 7.7 7.S 7.S 7.2 7.8 7.7 7.7 7.7
>-*:"- M T-rnp T MI— • i.jtri t K;I iiv'-rjcrc- orr_i *"« /T'T /O'T / P / - /
IW.^X I U.-1. »lt'J3 V/U.!_ I— I .^Jt .i_'f-.P. » V.I A -1. / -^--.'/ '_'-T I f\ J *
j^r M-iNi T Trio T MI- r> '"'T/l T •-
. — i i »-j 1 « j. i r_J i \ j. ; , uj ij i-t 1 H X O
7 7. I 7. 1 7
"'•"CKGRO'jrJD WELL STATISTICS
i~OAr;c— ~7 =••••!.•-'"•'=•
^ *. • \ *~1 UJ 4^ ~" / . O*. W.tat_/
I :/• ~- T ••> Mi— CT— i. =:-ri=pOT.1 C" —.•'I'"'
t-r-..\j.t-ii i .— —
,-. : i - c> ••• i~ r~ — T t~i =•
(— . v ii .i-i'jt— .- . ', «J
•.it.'rr' T ~.'JTCTS T— "^ •" C'O
•**•-— .4 W'lltvLrf' i~" •«'. XW-^_
~:>~ ~T~c TA T T CT T r r^.-,i i— i ii AT'— r-. err-to TJJTO ri'i"1"^— - il^i i n™
i — I w i i-i i i wi » 1 ^^ i-* .1 _ I— Lji_H i i_j^ i »_ji \ i 1 > 1 _• UtH t H — <_» . -rtj j. 1 *.-•-•
_i~ l.icr T rsujTcm T cnc- pr-.MO«p T oi— IM 4. o T/'IT/T -j
. • — I-/ 1 — j. w i i i L_ i^ I i •-/ 1 \ U» ^— • i 1 1 r i r*. i ^ O » ^ ~ -^ • --"-^ . / •-• x
VCTC
-------
ND WATER MONITORING STATISTICS
BILLINGS REFINERY pH
U--I- oni i»%tn Kicri i KII IMOITP RF— 1
.'•. '—'I » *_. LJ I '-I ^/ ^L-L.!— I (l_ll li_'k~ri l\l X
d.". r"..'f:c-ni IMP !V%.T'A T*^
^'I1'_*l st_ll \U wl t L/ jJH I l~l .L W
"~ "7 *"> ~7 *"S "7 O ~7"7 ~7T "7 "T
•.:• / . -C. / • «i t ' ^~ /.-_' /••_• /.-_•
r.3 7.7 7.S 7.S 7.S 7.S 7.7 7.7 7.T
-I T TI-.C- TKIf5 l.liri t (•IMMrjpC-
•* 1 i v.vi •. j. >•*«./ V^ _ i _ I— l^wiiwl—ix
— MOM T T-IC-TKin PijTci TC
-* -
— !--T:=-rt! IMp I.ICTI I CTATTCTTi— C
. ^ i . i_- 1 . >-» uj i -* 1.' *- i u. i_ L. ^_' > i-l i 1 «i i 1 O *J
— . _
. _ r n *» o «_ ~ ^™ • -_j y <~j •_!-•• ~~ ^_ *_• *_
: I.T T OUTCT1, T— ^ 1 T 1
. i_ j. v.- 1 i . ._ 1 i n — -
r ;.irr T '~.T.i~rcr> T pnc- ppiric-^p T cpMj. *•> i "T 1
— i% t-_ i •_• i i I i — i^- i I U i *. L- '— * i 1 1 i-t i * 1 ^j W t -i • *. • j. •— • —
^l^l vc T .T cum. io MO C'C>npi C:M
l-lh-ll _ Iwy4.w/ «.'ll'^*V-_l 1-4'^ I l\.i-/i_'l — I — ll
-------
^DUNE-WATER MONITORING STATISTICS
BILLINGS REFINERY pH
^CKGRGUND WELL NUMBER RF-1
-E BACKGROUND DATA IS
.3 7.2 7.2 7.2 7.3 7.3 7.3 7.3 7.7 7.S 7.S 7.S 7.S 7.7 7.7 7 .'
MITORING WELL NUMBER RF-4 2/23/84
.'E MONITORING DATA IS
7. 1 7. 1 7. 1 7. 1
~ t- p Q p '"I I t.Mn I.IC1 I CTAT TOT rfC?
i-wi •. Jl \<_"_»i *jj rvt.i_l_ «3 i M i J. O i lU^j
'•iTC'T^T — -r cr,-,^_^cr
•' — (V •" <-* u_ —~ *• • vj *.' *.J .L. wj
'•,!-; I A.NCE= 6 . 595834E-02
{WEIGHTED T= 2. 131
.— »• I T T~iO T MO I.IITt I
/ 1 ^ j. i •_ i * j. i H •_( »> i_ L. i—
•'ZF:AGE= 7. 1
riRIfiWCE= 0
f n.:rr T."Lj-rrrn -r— T 1 c-^/
1 * !_ .1. tw I 1 i l_ <_/ I — •_' • J.^.^.^.
^T "r_c"r.2»T T '-~r T ~ p AI r*i ti AT1^"7"-
. i — I \-' i i-t i I w* i 1 '— U. ft i— v- LJ i_ r^ 1 i_ ^
Ljr: i.icr T i-uT-crn T crno P<"IMC-AP r
i.i— 1-* i— x »— • i t 4 i_ J— ' i i w i \ L- •_• » U H n. A
j r T ,^K»/4i V-T T c (rurjitjc A c-ncvr T o r i TTV ntr nnMTAM TMAT T
i j. wj »~ii -,r-lL_ i _j A ,_) ^jt i-_J W^_» rt i •— * ^j -_• J. i_- j. 1_ i i i t_ -t u.i-11 •* t f-u i i i i«-i I i
-------
3CUNDWA-TER MONITORING STATISTICS
BILLINGS REFINERY pH
=,CKGRGU.\'D WELL NUMBER RF-1
-!H BACKGROUND DATA IS
'.3 7.2 7.2 7.2 7.3 7.3 7.3 7.3 7.7 7.S 7.S 7.8 7.S 7.7 7.7 7.7
JMITCRING WELL NUMBER RF-4 3/23/34 (/ 3 -
!E MONITORING DATA IS
7777
'ilC1! I CT/ST T CTT r^r%
V'.^^L. w I M I i C3 i 1L.O
.'EF:AGE= 7.50625
M-c I ANCE= 6 . 595S34E-02
WEIGHTED T= 2. 131
JNITGRING WELL STATISTICS
:ERAGE= 7
••"• T .".MI^ST— f'i
-i i : J. .— ! I 1 u- w — U
:: i~ T i~ i_!"rrrr\ T— ~ 1 c-~>
-i >_ - '-J i ' i i— — I — •_• . JL w —
-:E T-STATI3TIC CALCULATED FOR THIS DATA= 7.SS479
:Z WEIGHTED T FOR COMPARISON* 2.131
iI3 ANALYSIS SHOWS A POSSIBILITY OF CONTAMINATION
-------
'.WATER MONITORING STATISTICS
BILLINGS REFINERY pH
i-i! if-.jj) WELL NUMBER RF 1
>-i--'i~C'ni iMn n/>Tfl> T Q
W t' . '—' I X •—' '-J t 1 jj xj i~t I I-l JL C?
TO ~7 ^ ~f "> "7T ~7T ~7T "7~7 ~f ~7 ~7 O "7O "7O ~7O "7T rr"? -7 —•
/.j- /.x. /.x. /.•_• /-•_• *.-_• /.-_• /./ /.a /.c /. o /. fa /./ /./ /./
t'TMr; i.iirt i KI: iMticrc- o~_~
l.t!tt^ Wt- L_I_ |HO1IWU«IV IVI •_•
!ITORING DATA IS
UND WELL STATISTICS
= 7.50625
r— i =;a=io~/inr_r«'-i
_ — u. O '•_*_<•—'*~tu_ *.'^.
rCT^, T— '• 1T1
i C.
-------
ifcOUNDWATER MONITORING STATISTICS
BILLINGS REFINERY pH
WELL NUMBER RF-1 ' .
7.3 7.2 7.2 7.2 7.3 7.3 7.3 7.3 7.7 7.8 7.S 7.a 7.S 7.7 7.7 7.7
~M T T— iC'TMi— I.ICT1 1 Ktl IMtjITO QC-_i T- /T-T /O/l (PC — AM/.C }
—•I ** J. I Ol . 1 I -t^J V. »_L— 1_ I t *_J» li-'l_l \ l\l W dl. /*—•-•' '-t ~T \ t\ & /V/VJ ~ )
— :r M--)KIT TP-Q T MU n-^T^: T<^ ^-
' '-
.- i i _'i -,
7.2 7.2 7.2 7.2
.- - . ._
>*. i \ 1 r~. J •« O » — — t^ . O / *J -^ -_• 'T C. '-' -^
"j'.itr T ••sijTC'n T— "? <~1
I N V* L_ A <_f t t I t_ iy I — - ^. . i •„» i
.! "1f-l T "TfiQ T Mil I.IC7I 1 CTATTCTT|~>C
• _• I • 1 i w » \ j. i i u *-« i« 1_ L- *j i .-• i j. r-/ i 1 L- %j
i 1 1- 1;. /-. i— — _ -r «-.
v — . ..— iwZii— / . —
A--. T .-VK;,T— (-1
* . . . J. rn » >t L- t« ~~ l_'
•J^WEIGH.TED T= 3. 1S2
Hi 7-STATISTIC CALCULATED FOR THIS DATA= 4.7692-14
TU'T I-'CT mUTCT) T C"»~C- pnMC'f^Q T CpKlj. O 1 "T 1
I 4 . — t% l_ A LT t I . L_ t- t I Lj 1 V L_r <_/ 1 I * '"I t ^. J. W l-J I "* ' -i- - 1 •—• i
i^ T c: /*.:• ij\t vo T
-------
BILLINGS REFINERY pH
AGROUND WELL NUMBER RF-1 .' • "
I BACKGROUND DATA IS .
.3 7.2 7.2 7.2 7.3 7.3 7.3 7.3 7.7 7.S 7.S 7.S 7.S 7.7 .7.7 7.7
NITCRING WELL NUMBER
.4 7.4 7.4 7.4
ERAGE= 7.50625
WEIGHTED T= 2.131
• * A i L. r~* j. i -« LJ vl* z. u. u- ^- J f~i i i ij I 11— +~*
;~ C' •"•."" ™ — ~7 n
^..'1—. ^«-—* t .*T
-. T -•* S-.-'C'— M
. v - ri i * i_ i — V
•-.•EIGHTED T= 3. 1S2 '
fl T-STAT.ISTIC CALCULATED FOR THIS DATA= 1.65493
Z WEIGHTED T FOR CDMPARISC-fJ-i- 2.131
IS ANALYSIS SHCWE NO PROBLEM
-------
:RQUNDWATER MONITORING STATISTICS
BILLINGS REFINERY CONDUCTIVITY
BACKGROUND WELL NUMBER RF-1 19S2
>IJE BACKGROUND DATA IS
500 2550 2500 2550 1SOO 1910 1930 1930 2610 259O 2430 2430 2430
^400 2430 2510
•N I TOR ING WELL NUMBER RF-1
: .'cr MI-II\I T T.-IC:' T MI- ric,T.a Tc
I . ,i _ i i«J»N x 1 wl\ 1 » ••»•—/ L .1 I 1-1 JL *~i
2430 2490 2430 2490
: iCKSROL'ND WELL STATISTICS
AVERAGES 2353. 125
1 A:F: I ANCE= 77009 . 5S
,'UEIGHTED T= 1.753
1 I • C
j — L. •*si
CTATTC'TT
'..A?.IANCE= S25
|:*MEIGHTED T= 2.353
•'= T-STATISTIC CALCULATED FOR THIS DATA= 1 . 6S49a .
7HZ WEIGHTED T FOR COMPARISON* 1.777655
-.IS ANALYSIS SHOWS NO PROBLEM
-------
Jl.
DUNDWATER MONITORING STATISTICS . • •
BILLINGS REFINERY CONDUCTIVITY
SKSROUND WELL NUMBER RF-1 19S2
I BACKGROUND DATA IS • .
300 2550 2500 2550 1SOO 1910 1930 19SO 2610 2590 2430 2430 2430
400 2430 2610
UITCRING WELL NUMBER RF-2 2/23/84 //?2-5. i I— I 1 ^ »^ I _ - / / «.- '.- 4 • ^J '-J
:.IT T O'— !Tcrr\ T— ^ ~7<=:~z
;-.i i o> i i C.jJ I — i . / ^j---
^ I T T r-.O Th.lO l.liri I CT/\f T wf Ti^O
ii.4«_>i\^i4-_^ vv:_h_u_ ^_/lr^iA^-'iA^*«^
C.^i-.WLl -~ OOO
RIANCE= 592.6667
WEIGHTED T= 2.353
E T-STATISTIC CALCULATED FOR THIS DATA=-21 . 1 1307
~ i.:cr T .-LJTC-M T PI~C- rr.MC'Ac-T qr-Mi. i -T-7(-
-------
:CUNDWATER MONITORING STATISTICS
E ILL INGS REFINERY CONDUCTIVITY
.CKQROUND WELL NUMBER RF-1 19S2
JS BACKGROUND DATA IS
.'500 2550 2500 2550 1300 191O 1930 19SO 2610 2590 2430
:400 2430 2610 " -
24~O 2430
:-NITCRING WELL NUMBER
IE MONITORING DATA IS
O 1 C\ ~Z "7 T f"l "^ "7 O «"l T i. "7 *
"-J J. l.J ^-' / •_'*-' •_• / * ».' ^.'W / «
RF-4 2/23/S4 (R3-flI(L\
^ -^
n Uic-i I C
w V1J *-_ L_ »_ ^_j
•ERAGE= 2353. 125
iR I ANCE= 77009 . 58
x'WEIGHTED T= 1.753
• M T TnQ TMf2 i.i cri I
. ' I >« dL J U- 4 * O. I ^ l_> VV l__ i_ L—
nr z- -\ «~ rr — T -7 cr /••
v^ *«. . , n »_• ^- — ^_« / -wj * J
" R I A1MCE= 4000
T\ T— »? -?=:•?
— tj I — *z. . ._•»_(-»•
I.JCT TiT
• -
LJC7 T _ CTATTCTTP P&I Pill £.-"":", CT"iO
-_ i ^j i H i j. >j i 1 U L-Hi_U,Ui_.'-i i 4_i_' t <_M \
.rr I.IT T !-LJTpr\ T CT-IQ ppi'v^'CC1 T-SI— IMJ. 1 c
fcv b*«t»4Wlll^i,L/ I I «^l\ -
— 1C T^ 1 1O
— i \± . vJji 1 1 T
LJ T c /\M.'M vc
--
c'—ini.ic A C-OCCTOTT TTV
w.-i*i_!»-v>_i H i i_rv-^^j.4.>xL^l I T :
-------
-COUN'DUIATER MONITORING STATISTICS
BILLINGS REFINERY CONDUCTIVITY
.CKGROUND WELL NUMBER RF-1 19S2
-IE BACKGROUND DATA IS
500 2550 2500 2550 1800 1910 1930 19SO
400 2430 2610
610
590 2430 2430 2430
RF-4 3/23/8
(j?3 -
-MT T-.C- T hIR IJCT1 I M' |^.•|OC•E:•
I 1 J. I l~l I \ 1 I *t II? V£J t_ W I— I •« <_H I J_< I—1\
E MONITORING DATA IS
J.500 3500 3500 3500
CKGROUND WELL STATISTICS
vERAGE= 2353.125
=..RIANCE= 77009.58 '
WEIGHTED T= 1.753
•DM I TOR ING WELL STATISTICS
"ERAGE= 35OO
— . 7 'visir^c' — t~\
i . J. t-liN >- i_ — '-'
^"•iEIGHTED T= 2.353
E T-STATISTIC CALCULATED FOR THIS DATA= 16.53118
,-,E WEIGHTED T FOR COMPARISON-*- 1.753
IS ANALYSIS SHCWS A POSSIBILITY OF CONTAMINATION
-------
-,-OUNDWATER MONITORING STATISTICS
BILLINGS REFINERY CONDUCTIVITY
..^GROUND WELL NUMBER RF-1 1932
-d BACKGROUND DATA IS .
500 2530 2500 2550 1SOO 1910 1930 1930 2610- 2590 2430 2430 2430
400 2430 2610
"\'ITGRING WELL NUMBER RF-3 2/23/S4 (/? V ~
H MONITORING DATA IS
~.1=V) cr/!<-i|-, er *=•-. cr/!<-j<-)
— ••.j^j'J w-r^.1.1 vJuw1.' O-r — •-'
.-n.'nor-ii ihm i.irri i c-TO'T T CT T Pc
^ 4 • . w i\ «-j »-j i •* 4_c »^i — t^u. ^j I ri I J. ^> J 1 L^^^
•> C' T £*Mr^c— "y^i'w'iO >=;o
.— 1 1 » 1 l-i i x <_ tl — / / '-• •-•' < . O u
.icr r i^LjTirn T— 1 VS"
.-«»— J. Ul * I I_X/ I — J. • / O'
.— ^.: TT-IQ T Kin i. icr: i
•_» . H .^ » *..• tV 1 1 S w w i __ u-
— »~» r-i w t— " " vj «— ' •— • vj "
-- 7 -•VM.-^C'— ITi^T TT
- . ~ ni ^trfC-""" X • *—•*••—• • •_••_•
^'WEIGHTED T= 2.353
E'T-STATISTIC CALCULATED FOR THIS DATA= 33.13477 .
-E WEIGHTED T FOR COMPARISON* 2.0'393.32
IS ANALYSIS SHOWS A POSSIBILITY OF CONTAMINATION -.
-------
400 2430 2610
"NITORING WELL NUMBER
E MONITORING DATA IS
L2SO 1330 1320 1340
RF-6 2/23/34
CKGROUND WELL STATISTICS
. ERASE= 2353. 125
Nc- T
-
1.1C" Ti"2LJTCT\ T— 1 TS"^
.% — a. \~r» i I k_ij I — .L • s O-_»
:-NITORIN6 WELL STATISTICS
"EF;AGE= 1317.5
F:IANCE= 691.6667
-UCEIGHTED T= 2.353
Z T-STATISTIC CALCULATED FOR THIS DATA=-14. 66647
-E WEIGHTED T >QR COMPARISON* 1 . 773SOS
IS ANALYSIS SHOWS NO PROBLEM
-------
tCDL'ND WATER MONITORING STATISTICS
BILLINGS REFINERY . CONDUCTIVITY .
-,CKGROUND WELL NUMBER RF-1 19S2 ' •
-fE BACKGROUND DATA IS ' --
500 2550 2500 2550 1EOO 1910 1930 1980 2510 2590 2430 243O 2430
_400 2430 2610
NITORING WELL NUMBER RF-5 2/23/S4
E MONITORING DATA IS .
CKGRCUND WELL STATISTICS
v;£RAGE= 2353. 125
- C' T &Kli~-C1= -7-TpfiO «=;p
—11 >. x Ml *^-.i— / /«.'«.'/• *J**J
WEIGHTED T= 1.753
ONITORING* WELL STATISTICS
FxIANCE= 900
•"WEIGHTED, T= 2.353
Z T-STATISTIC CALCULATED FOR THIS DATA=-1.100669
HZ WEIGHTED T FOR COMPARISON* 1.779796
IS ANALYSIS SHOWS NO PROBLEM . - "
-------
ROUNDWATER MONITORING STATISTICS . '
BILLINGS REFINERY TOC • '
»
r-.JKGROUND WELL NUMBER RF-1 19S2 ' -
HE BACKGROUND DATA IS * .
: i.9 26.4 25.1 -26.6 -12.7 12.2 12. S 12.7 12. E 13.7 12. 3 - 12.5 14. S
.5.416.314
•« •
r- -II TOR ING WELL NUMBER RF-1 2/23/84 (/? / - *
i £ MONITORING DATA IS i
14.214.31414.3
: 3KGROUND WELL STATISTICS
VERAGE= 16.575
AR I ANCE= 3 1 . 40467
I WEIGHTED T= 1.753
ONITQRINQ WELL STATISTICS
' ERAGE= 14.2
'. :;IANCE= 2.000003E-02
— .:rr T P-JTCTT^ T— ^ ~'=',~
i L x L.- 1 i 1 i_ irf- I — ^u . ^-* O •— •
- E T-STATISTIC CALCULATED FOR THIS DATA=-1 . 693067
>-.£ WEIGHTED T FOR COMPARISON-*- 1.754525
, IS ANALYSIS SHOWS NO PROBLEM
-------
..OUND WATER MONITORING STATISTICS
BILLINGS REFINERY TOC " . •
CKGROUND WELL NUMBER RF-1 1982 . .
HE BACKGROUND DATA IS
-4.9 26.4 25.1 26.6 12.7 12.2 12.8 12.7 12.8 13.7 12.3 12.5 14.8
5.416.314 .
r.MITQRING WELL NUMBER RF-2 2/23/34 (/? 3 ~
E MONITORING DATA IS
5 5.4
.CKGROUND WELL STATISTICS
.'ERAGE= 16.575
ARIANCE= 31.40467
'WEIGHTED T= 1.753
CN I TOR INS WELL STATISTICS
< i cr c- -Mt: cr — «=• A =;
k_i\n%jt— -"*—/•"*—'
R I AN:CE= . 350"OOO 1
,%r;EIGHTED T= 2.353
IE T-STATISTIC CALCULATED FOR THIS DATA=-7. 769485
.IE WEIGHTED T FOR COMPARISON-)- 1.77S606
IIS ANALYSIS SHOWS NO PROBLEM
-------
-CUNBWATER MONITORING STATISTICS • '
BILLINGS REFINERY TOC '
, CKSROUND WELL NUMBER RF-1 19S2
KE BACKGROUND DATA IS
4.9 26.4 25.1 26.6 12.7 12.2 12.8 12.7 12.8 13.7 12.3 12.5 14.8
5.4 16.3 14
NZTQRING WELL NUMBER RF-4 2/23/34
E MONITORING DATA IS
.CKGROUND WELL STATISTICS
>'ERAGE= 16.575
ARIANCE= 31.40467
WEIGHTED T= 1.753
01 4 1 TOR ING WELL STATISTICS
R 3 ~ NC )
'
•F.IANCE= .1153331
""WEIGHTED T= 2.353
.*
!E T-STATISTIC CALCULATED FOR THIS DATA= 6.447984
-IE WEIGHTED T FOR- CCMFARISON+ 1.761724
IIS ANALYSIS SHOWS A POSSIBILITY OF CONTAMINATION
-------
GROUNDWATER MONITORING STATISTICS
BILLINGS REFINERY TOC
BACKGROUND WELL NUMBER'.- RF-1 1932
"HE BACKGROUND DATA IS . '
: !4.9 26.4 25.1 26.6 12.7 12.2 12.S 12.7 12.S 13.7 12.3 12.5 14.8
5.4 16.3 14
j --NITCRING WELL NUMBER ' RF-4 3/23/24 fa J -,
1 iE MONITORING DATA IS
, 31.9 29.6 30.1 28.2 . .
•c -.CKGRQUND WELL STATISTICS
AJERAGE= 16.575
'ARI ANCE= Z1. 40467
M i:r T f=LjTC-T*. ~r= -\ ~!<=.~r
_ * »% k— 1 O I I I l~ ^/ I .1. . / I T TriC-TM(2 I.ICTI I CTA"T T CT T'~*C
iwii.i. iL.'iv^ii«^ \-vi i«_k- wlr-tt ^^^1 ^.u^^j
'•-*"WEIGHTED T= 2.353
j -IE T-STATISTIC CALCULATED FOR THIS DATA= S.3S0751
•;HE WEIGHTED T FOR COMPARISON-*- 1.390615 _ ' - "
-IIS ANALYSIS SHOWS A POSSIBILITY OF CONTAMINATION
-------
I^ROUNDWATER MONITORING STATISTICS •• •
BILLINGS REFINERY TOC
.BACKGROUND WELL NUMBER RF-1 19S2
'HE BACKGROUND DATA IS • ':
; 4.9 26.4 25.1 26.6 12.7 12.2 12.S 12.7 12.8 13.7 12.3 12.5 14.S
' 5.4 16.3 14 ' • -.
i~-NITQRING WELL'NUMBER RF-3 2/23/84
T .E MONITORING DATA IS
r 59.3 59.7 57.3 57.7
't .CKGROUND WELL STATISTICS
:.ic- T puTrrn T— i 7^"^
. *«t_ x Ui i 4 t_iJ I — L . / <_*•_'
<*".f » T Tno T MR MCTI I C-TAT T OT
. \_- 1 -i i i w i \ A i ^ w I1* w L. L. w i H i JL *j i
c"z- A i~s c — =• o =;
W.t .(-I1-(U_— wJCJ • -~J
« Z- T AM'-T— 1 TO t- L ^-7
% tt^.r-tt-*\wL_ •"" A •-_•«—/ <^< u^ •—//
•""WEIGHTED T= 2.353
~ :E T-STATI5TIC CALCULATED FOR THIS DATA= 27.5S726 -
~HE WEIGHTED T FOR COMPARISON-!- 1 . S4306S
'!
r
!IS. ANALYSIS SHOWS A POSSIBILITY . OF CONTAMINATION
-------
G..OUNDWATER MONITORING STATISTICS . - . . -.
I"! BILLINGS REFINERY TOC - -' • . -
i
E CKGROUND WELL NUMBER RF-1 19S2 _ '
(•"HE BACKGROUND DATA IS ' .
j -4.9 26.4 25.1 26.6 12.7 12.2 12. S 12.7 12.8 13.7 12.3 12.5 14.3
5.4 16.3 14
! TiNlTORINS WELL NUMBER RF-6 2/23/84
1, E MONITORING DATA IS
^.9 19.2 13.8 13.9
I
| fL'-T^C'i-il ll\IT-. I.ICTI I CT/VT T CTTPC
1 _ -_^ P-. 'J I \ »J Lj I N ±f »•>» L U. l-~ ^J I n I 1. w^ I J. l-r ^J
£ ERAGE= 16.575
[''ARIANCE= 31.40467
! - WEIGHTED T= 1.753 '
"vC^ilTORING. WELL STATISTICS
i.'irr^ccr— i o 0-7=;
i_iir-it^i_"~ A*_f. t r *J
\ RIANCE= 2.9166S9E-02
L..WEIGHTED T= 2.353
.*
. E T-STATISTIC CALCULATED FOR THIS DATA= 1.709393
T..E WEIGHTED T FOR COMPARISON-!-'1.755221 - *
! IS ANALYSIS SHOWS NO PROBLEM
-------
•\=;OUNDWATER MONITORING STATISTICS
BILLINGS. REFINERY TOC
BACKGROUND WELL NUMBER RF-1 19S2
HE BACKGROUND DATA IS -—'
: i.9 26.4 25.1 26.6 12.7 12.2 12.S 12.7 12.S 13.7 12.3 12.5 14.S
^o.4 16.3 14
) JITORING WELL NUMBER RF-5 2/23/S4
T: E MONITORING DATA IS
24.9 25.4 24.S 24.9
£:, :KGROUND WELL STATISTICS
•'-VSRPGE= 16.575
TRIANCE= 31.40467
ul WEIGHTED T= 1.753
D:~IITORING WELL
I ? ;• T ^\<<-*C — ' ~J TTTTTOIT _ «"»*?
f t . : j. l-ii»wCl — / . ^-•--••_-_-_- y i— V1 —
>:'^EIGHTED T= 2.353
T; I T-STATISTIC CALCULATED FOR THIS DATA= 5.9S5687
— U~ I^IC" T f2l_STC"n T FnC- pn^C-/"* C- T COKt-i. 1 -Terete;'-}
"^_ %>*_ x Oi * 1 t_L/ I Pv^i\ L~LJiitr-ii\*wwi'«* l./^j'-j^j-wJ-^
M A I vc TC CLjni.ic
- <
c TC CLjni.ic
%^^1^ ^i t\_i*<«^_f
-------
V )
SrcGUNDWATER MONITORING STATISTICS
BILLINGS REFINERY TOX
BACKGROUND WELL NUMBER RF-1 1982
>IZ BACKGROUND DATA IS
4 15 13 14 20 19 19 16 44 49 5O -48 63 64 57
'1C-.MITQRING WELL NUMBER RF-1 2/23/S4 fa I - L
""= MONITORING DATA IS
9 23 24 27
» r^CKGROUND WELL STATISTICS
•p ERAGE= 35.0625
Jv r-3> I ANCE= 405. 6625
JNWEIGHTED T= 1.753
- r-_r-JITQRING WELL STATISTICS
' iVZRA6E= 23.25
rr* T AKHT— 1 e\ a -f i i~7
. \ j. H ( H »_, i_ — JL »_•' . yluu/
L WEIGHTED T= 2.353
I T-STATISTIC CALCULATED FOR THIS DATA=-2.229O49
1 E WEIGHTED T FOR COMPARISON* 1.811309
'HIS ANALYSIS SHOWS NO PROBLEM
-------
-'BROUNDWATER MONITORING STATISTICS • •
BILLINGS REFINERY TOX
.BACKGROUND WELL NUMBER ' RF-1 "19S2
'THE BACKGROUND DATA IS
| 4 15 13 14 20 19 19 16 44 49 50 43 63 64 57 56
"•ION I TOR ING WELL NUMBER RF-2 2/23/S4
F E MONITORING DATA IS
. 4 9 10 10
E '.CKGROUND WELL STATISTICS
~P 'ERAGE= 35.0625
VARIANCE= 405.6625
JNWEIGHTED T= 1.753
r-.J.MITORING WELL STATISTICS
" Vv'£RAGE= 10.75
.. . iRIANCE= 4.916667
L WEIGHTED T= 2.353;
. .£ T-STATISTIC CALCULATED FOR THIS DATA=-4'. 715492
1 IE WEIGHTED T FOR COMPARISON* 1. 7S0743
• - - -... t
THIS ANALYSIS SHOWS NO PROBLEM ' '
-------
V.
f-ROUNDWATER MONITORING STATISTICS
; BILLINGS REFINERY TOX
£.-,CKGROUND WELL NUMBER • RF-1 19S2 • -
". -HE BACKGROUND DATA IS
4 15 13 14 20 19 19 16 44 49 50 '43 63 64 57 ' 56
•rC'NITORING WELL NUMBER RF-4 3/23/34
ME MONITORING DATA IS
300 1500 1500 1500
BACKGROUND WELL STATISTICS
•r 'ZRAGE= 35.0625
VxRIANCE= 405.6625
•WEIGHTED T= 1.753
r-.JNITORING WELL STATISTICS
i -VEF:AGE= 1500
;*IANCE= 0'
L .'WEIGHTED T= 2.353
"" i
I T-STATISTIC CALCULATED FOR THIS DATA= 290.9355
: -IE WEIGHTED T FOR .COMPARISON-!- 1.753
'HIS ANALYSIS SHOWS A POSSIBILITY OF CONTAMINATION
-------
rlROUNDWATER MONITORING STATISTICS .- . .
I . BILLINGS REFINERY TOX . ' .
rBACKGROUND WELL NUMBER RF-1 19S2 . •"'/•"
" 'HZ BACKGROUND DATA IS
4 15 13 14 20 19 19 16 44 49 50 43 63 64 57 56
1QNITCRIN6 WELL NUMBER RF-3 2/23/S4 (jt*4~ *=£•)
IE MONITORING DATA IS •
'90 250 300 • 2SO
•••YCKGRCUND WELL STATISTICS
{• 'ERA6E= 35.0625
l-'ARIANCE= 405.6625
INWEIGHTED T= 1.753
hJ'JITQRING WELL STATISTICS . \
1VERAGE= 2S7.5 ' •
.. ,RIANCE= 91.66666
I WEIGHTED T= 2.353
, S T-STATI3TIC CALCULATED FOR THIS 'DATA= 36.33396
1 IE WEIGHTED T FOR COMPARISON-!- 2.037S53 . --•:---'-- - -•
'HIS ANALYSIS SHOWS A POSSIBILITY OF CONTAMINATION
-------
V. )
RKOUNDWATER MONITORING STATISTICS
BILLINGS REFINERY TOX
E. .CKGROUND WELL NUMBER RF-1 1982
"'HE BACKGROUND DATA IS
4 15 13 14 20 19 19 16 44 49 50 A3
".CNITORING WELL NUMBER RF-6 2/23/S4
'"E MONITORING DATA IS
0 44 40 36
!£CKGRCUND WELL STATISTICS
^ ERAGE= 35.0625
V«RIANCE= 405.6625
iNV.'EIGHTED T= 1.753
:•; NITORING WELL STATISTICS
i~.VE.RAGE= 40
• - -• T ^fvjfgr — i ;-j ±<.~,&ij~7
ij [•JP'IGHTED T= "•"' "^5"^
1 T-STATISTIC CALCULATED FOR THIS DATA= .9327572''
': E WEIGHTED T FO'R COMPARISON-!- 1.210101
f 'HIS ANALYSIS SHOWS NO PROBLEM
-------
• --fa.
.T.ROUNDWATER MONITORING STATISTICS
BILLINGS REFINERY TOX
i . _
BACKGROUND WELL NUMBER "" RF-1 1932
"'HE BACKGROUND DATA IS
i 4 15 13 14 20 19 19 16 44 49 50 43 63 64 57 5s
'iONITORING WELL NUMBER RF-5 2/23/34 {R & ~ ft E)
1 "=. MONITORING DATA IS
j D 52 53 53
^•CKGROUND WELL STATISTICS
<-, ERAGE= 35.0625
_V«RIANCE= 405.6625
T= 1
I X -
K.NITORING WELL STATISTICS
r,VERAGE= 52
* r.> T «Mf^^— r>
. , A ni H*™it_"~ ^1.
U WEIGHTED T= 2.353
, £ T-STATISTIC CALCULATED FOR THIS DATA= 3.3310S9
'f E WEIGHTED T FDR COMPARISON* 1.764604
'' "HIS ANALYSIS SHOWS A POSSIBILITY OF CONTAMINATION
-------
LAW ENGINEERING TESTING COMPANY
«i>.»u'»ii«nm I ccratnjOan matenafs consultant!
12700 EAST BRIARWOOO AVENUE. SUITE 160
ENGLEWOOO. COLORADO 63112
P03) 790-«641
June 1, 1984
Continental Oil Company
P.O. Box 2548
Billings, Montana 59103
Attention: Mr. Robert A. Oisen
Subject:
Final Report Submittal
Kydrogeologic Characterization of the
Southern Portion of the Conoco Refinery
Billings, Montana
Conoco Register Ticket 262/AFE
LAW Project Number DW4212.3
Gentlemen:
Law Engineering Testing Company (LAW) is pleased to submit
this Final Report of our . Hycrogeologic Characterization of the
Conoco Inc. Landfami. This report has been prepared with the
April 3, 1984 authorization of Mr. R. A. Olsen. The scope of
this report,, which is sumarized in Section 1.2 of the report, was
specified in a March 30, 1984 letter supplement to LAW's March 2,
1984 proposal to Continental Oil Company (CONOCO INC . ) .
In accordance with the provisions of LAW's proposal to
Conoco, Inc., a craft version of the characterization "report was
prepared for CONOCO INC review. This Final Report incorporates
review comments provided by CONOCO INC.
LAW has appreciated the opportunity to work with CONOCO INC.
on this project. We look forward to further association with you
on this and other projects.
Very truly yours,
ENGINEERING
L
LAW
— yi — - --- -
Stepihen L. Wamplet,
Project. Manager
TESTING COMPANY
SLW-.JPK: c'f. '
Enclosures
cc: Richard K. Fuller, Conoco, Inc.
P.E.
Joseph P. Klein, III, P.E
Chief Engineer
-------
FINAL REPORT
HYDROGEOLOGIC CHARACTERIZATION OF THE
SOUTHERN PORTION OF THE CONOCO INC REFINERY
BILLINGS, MONTANA
Submitted to
CONTINENTAL OIL COMPANY
' Billings/ Montana
Prepared by
LAW ENGINEERING TESTING COMPANY
Denver, Colorado
June 1, 1984
Project No. DW4212.3
-------
TABLE OF CONTESTS
Page No,
1.0 INTRODUCTION . . . . 1-1
1.1 AUTHORIZATION 1-1
I
1.2 SCOPE OF WORK 1-1
2.0 SUMMARY ' 2-1
3.0 STUDY AREA CHARACTERIZATION 3-1
3.1 LOCATION AND PHYSIOGRAPHY 3-1
3.2 AREA CLIMATE 3-1
3.3 AREA GEOLOGY 3-3
3.4 AREA HYDROLOGY 3-4
3.4.1 Area Ground Water Conditions 3-4
3.4.2 Area Surface Water Conditions 3-5
3.4.3 Area Water Use 3-6
4.0 SITE CHARACTERIZATION 4-1
4.1 SITE GEOLOGY 4-1
4.2 SITE GROUND WATER HYDROLOGY . . . *." ~C'Y . . . . 4-4
4.2.1 Aquifer Identification and Description . 4-4 -
4.2.2 Aquifer Properties 4-5
4.2.3 Monitoring System Evaluation 4-8
5.0 STUDY METHODS 5-1
5.1 FIELD DATA COLLECTION 5-1
5.1.1 Water Level Measurement 5—1
5.1.2 Step-Drawdown Tests 5-2
5.1.3 Surveying 5-2
5.2 EVALUATION OF STEP-DRAWDOWN TEST DATA 5-3
REFERENCES- '
APPENDIX A - Step-Drawdown Test Data ar.d Calculations
APPENDIX B - Monitoring Well Logs
i
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Table 3.1
Table 4.1
Table 5.1
Water-Bearing and Lithologic Characteristics of
Geologic Unit
Summary of Step-Drawdown Test Data
/
Static Water Levels at CONOCO INC. Refinery
Figure 3.1
Figure 3.2
Figure 3.3
Figure 3.4
Figure 4.1
Figure 4.2
Figure 4.3
Figure 4.4
Figure 4.5
Figure 4.6
Figure 4.7
Figure 4.8
Figure 4.9
LIST OF FIGURES
Study Area
Mean Monthly Precipitation
Mean Monthly Temperature
Mean Monthly Pan Evaporation
Site Plan
Cross-Section A-A1
Cross Section B-B'
Cross Section C-C1
Piezometric Surface: May 21, 1982
Piezometric Surface: August 5, 1982
Piezometric Surface: November 4, 1983
Piezometric Surface: February 23, 1984
Piezometric Surface: April 5, 1984
11
-------
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 AUTHORIZATION
J
This report presents the results of ground water investiga-
tions performed for Continental Oil Company (CONOCO INC.) at the
refinery in Billings, Montana. The study was verbally authorized
by Mr. Robert Olsen of CONOCO INC. on April 3, 1984 as a supple-
ment to studies authorized under CONOCO INC. Register number
262/AFE. The work to be performed under this contract is
described in a supplement to Law Engineering Testing Company
(LAW) proposal DP4073 dated biarch 30, 1984. The work described
in this report was performed between April 4, 1984 and April 25,
1984.
1.2 SCOPE OF WORK
CONOCO INC. operates a refinery in Billings, Montana, at
which hazardous wastes have been stored in on-site impoundments.
In response to 40 CFR Part 265 RCRA regulations, CONOCO INC.
installed a shallow ground water monitoring system in late 1981
and early 1982. On-site storage of hazardous wastes ceased in
mid-1982. Since that time, all hazardous wastes have been
shipped to off-site locations for ultimate disposition. CONOCO
INC. does not intend to utilize on-site impoundments for the
'storage of hazardous wastes in the future. It is the intention
of CONOCO INC. to close these facilities under RCRA Interim
Status Standards (40 CFR Part 265).
1-1
-------
As one element in the collection of environmental data to
support closure planning for the Billings Refinery, CONOCO INC.
requested assistance in preparing a characterization of shallow
ground water conditions for the southern portion of the refinery
property. In response to this request, LAW prepared a Scope of
Work to develop this characterization. The specific objectives
of the study are:
to prepare a hydrogeologic characterization of the
shallow ground water system beneath the closed
hazardous waste management facility at the refin-
ery; and
to prepare an evaluation of the direction and velo-
city of ground water movement beneath the site.
This report presents the results of these hydrogeologic studies
for the southern portion of the CONOCO INC. refinery site.
1-2
-------
2.0 SUMMARY
\
Based on existing data and data collected by LAW during
field investigations conducted in early April 1984, LAW prepared
/
a hydrogeological characterization of the shallow ground water
system beneath the hazardous waste management facility at the
CONOCO INC. refinery in Billings. The characterization included
an identification of the uppermost aquifer beneath the site and
an evaluation of the direction and velocity of ground water
movement beneath the site.
The uppermost aquifer beneath the site consists of alluvial
material (Sandy Gravel) deposited by the Yellowstone River. This
alluvial aquifer extends off-site. Its lower boundary is the top
of the Gray Shale, which probably is part of the Colorado Shale,
and its upper boundary is the ground water level. Its average
thickness beneath the site is about 14 feet.
Based on pump tests conducted by LAW, the transnissivity of
the Sandy Gravel beneath the site ranges from 8.9 x 10^ to 2.5
x 104 gpd/ft; hydraulic conductivities range from 3.5 x 10~2
to 9.1 x 10~2 cm/sec. These values are comparable to other
estimates made for similar geologic materials in the Billings
area.
Piezometric maps constructed by LAW indicate a general
ground water flow direction to the northeast, east, or southeast;
however, recent water level data indicate that there is some
2-1
-------
3.0 STUDY AREA CHARACTERIZATION
3.1 LOCATION 'AND'PHYSIOGRAPHY
/
The study area is located in the southwestern portion of
Yellowstone County, Montana. The study area includes the area
within 15 miles of the CONOCO INC. Refinery in Billings, Montana
as is shown on Figure 3.1. The refinery is on the southeast side
of Billings near the Yellowstone River.
The study area is located within the Missouri Plateau
Section of the Great Plains physiographic province. The Missouri
Plateau consists of relatively flat plains interrupted by
mountains and moderately incised rivers (Hunt, 1967).
The land surface within the study area is gently rolling to
moderately rugged with occasional steep cliff areas. The differ-
ences in terrain are generally the result of differential erosion
of sandstone and shale strata. Elevations range from about 4,600
feet above mean sea level (ft msl) in the southern portion of the
study area to about 3,000 ft msl along the Yellowstone River.
The study area is drained 'by the northeastward-flowing
Yellowstone River and several tributaries to the Yellowstone.
3.2 AREA'CLIMATE
/
The climate in the study area is classified as semiarid-
continental. Based on long-term records from Logan Airport at
3-1
-------
Billings, average annual precipitation is about 15 inches and
average annual temperature is about 47 degrees Fahrenheit (°F).
Figure 3.2, which shows the monthly distribution of precipi-
/
tation, indicates that peak precipitation occurs during April,
May and June, when monthly precipitation is about two inches.
Minimum amounts of precipitation occur in July and November,
December, January and February. During these months, the average
monthly precipitation is less than one inch.
Figure 3.3, which shows the monthly distribution of mean
temperatures. The maximum mean monthly temperature of 72.3°F
occurs in July and the minimum mean monthly temperature of 20.9°F
occurs in January. Diurnal temperature fluctuations are rela-
tively great at all times of the year (Snyder, 1984).
Long-term evaporation data are not available from the 'Logan
Airport Station at Billings. The nearest station for which long-
term records are available is the Montana State University South-
ern Agricultural Research Center, which is located about twelve
miles northeast of Billings in Huntley. Figure 3.4 shows monthly
evaporation potential in the region. This distribution is based
on Class A pan evaporation data collected between 1910 and 1983.
The maximum monthly potential evaporation, 10 inches, occurs in
July. Evaporation is not measured at the Huntley Station between
October and March when the minimum monthly evaporation potential
occurs. Total -average pan evaporation between April and Septem-
ber is 44.8 inches, or approximately 30 inches greater than total
average precipitation.
3-2
-------
3 . 3 AREA GEOLOGY
Sedimentary rocks of Cretaceous age crop out in the study
area. These rocks, consisting predominantly of sandstones and
shales, dip to the northeast and are locally overlain by Quater-
nary alluvial and colluvial deposits.
In order of decreasing age, the Cretaceous formations which
crop out in the study area are: Colorado Shale, Telegraph Creek
Formation, Eagle Sandstone, Claggett Formation, Judith River
Formation, Bearpaw Shale, and the Fox Hills or Lennep Sandstone.
The Colorado Shale crops out in the southern and western
portion of the study area. Progressively younger strata are
exposed as northwest-southeast trending bands to the northeast of
Billings (Kail and Howard, 1929, Gosling and Pashley, 1973).
Table 3.1 summarizes the lithologic and hydrologic properties of
these rocks.
Quaternary alluvium is present as floodplains and terraces
along the Yellowstone River and some of its tributaries. Gosling
and Pashley (1973) map three terraces along the Yellowstone River
near Billings. The alluvium present beneath the youngest (Ti)
terrace surface is generally coarse-grained (sand and gravel).
The alluvial materials in the older terraces include increasing
amounts of.fine-grained material (silt and clay). The composite
thickness of the Yellowstone River alluvium ranges up to about
120 feet (Gosling and Pashley, 1973).
3-3
-------
In addition to the terrace and river channel deposits, there
are several other types of Quaternary unconsolidated deposits in
the region, including alluvial fan deposits, slope wash deposits,
and lacustrine deposits. These deposits are highly localized and
cover relatively small portions of the study area.
3.4 AREA HYDROLOGY
3.4.1 Area Ground Water Conditions
The unconsolidated terrace and river channel deposits repre-
sent the most prolific source of ground water in the study area.
Of the consolidated rock formations in the area, only the Judith
River Formation, Eagle Sandstone, and Fox Hills Sandstone are
capable of yielding small to moderate amounts of fair quality
water (Gosling and Pashley, 1973; Stoner and Lewis, 1980).
Water-bearing properties of the consolidated and unconsolidated
units are summarized in Table 3.1.
The water-bearing portion of the terrace and river channel
deposits along the Yellowstone River is referred to as the allu-
vial aquifer. Ground water generally flows toward the Yellow-
stone River in this aquifer with an average gradient of about
0.005. Based on data from pump tests in the alluvial aquifer,
well yields of several hundred gallons per minute (gpm) are
possible an'd transmiss ivities range up to 2.7 x 10^ gallons per
day per foot (gpd/ft) (Gosling and Pashley, 1973).
3-4
-------
: data regarding ground water flow directions and the
uifer properties of consolidated rock aquifers were
.ed. These formations are not extensively used as a
round water except for local domestic or stock water
I
jneral data indicate" that the Fox Hills Sandstone,
x- Formation, and Eagle Sandstone may yield up to
s of gallons of water per minute. Yields in the. other
ions are reported to be significantly less.
quality is acceptable in the alluvial aquifer, but
er from consolidated rock aquifers is usually highly
/
!, particularly in formations which include appreciable
e predominant chemical constituents in ground water in
i acoear to be sodium and sulfate (Hall and Howard,
a Surface Water Conditions
Yellowstone River above Billings drains 11,795 square
he average annual volume of water which passes Billings
000 acre-feet. Average discharge for the Yellowstone
Billings varies from about 2,300 cubic feet per second
•January to about 25,000 cfs in June. The high flows
)ril, May and June are the result of snowmelt and spring
er quality of the Yellowstone River is generally good;
d solids concentrations are usually less than 500
3-5
-------
Specific data regarding ground water flow directions and the
hydraulic aquifer properties of consolidated rock aquifers were
not identified. These formations" are not extensively used as a
source of ground water except for local domestic or stock water
t
supply. General data indicate that the Fox Hills Sandstone,
Judith River Formation, and Eagle Sandstone may yield up to
several tens of gallons of water per minute. Yields in the other
rock formations are reported to be significantly less.
Water quality is acceptable in the alluvial aquifer, but
ground water from consolidated rock aquifers is usually highly
/
mineralized, particularly in formations which include appreciable
shale. The predominant chemical constituents in ground water in
the region appear to be sodium and sulfate (Kail and Howard,
1929) .
3.4.2 Area Surface Water Conditions
The Yellowstone River above Billings drains 11,795 square
miles. The average annual volume of water which passes Billings
is 4,840,000 acre-feet. Average discharge for the Yellowstone
River at Billings varies from about 2,300 cubic feet per second
(cfs) in January to about 25,000 cfs in June. The high flows
during April, May and June are the result of snowmelt and spring
rainfall.
Water quality of the Yellowstone River is generally good;
dissolved solids concentrations are usually less than 500
3-5
-------
milligrams per liter. The water is a calcium bicarbonate type
(Gosling and Pashley, 1973).
3.4.3 Area Water Use
J
Based on a study of the Yellowstone River valley; annual
water use ranges from 200,000 to 400,000 acre-feet per year.
Agricultural use accounts for 180,000 to 360,000 acre-feet per
year. Municipal useage is about 20,000 acre-feet per year and
industrial use is about 5,000 acre-feet per year. The Yellow-
stone River provides 98 percent of the water used, while ground
water, primarily from the alluvial aquifer, accounts for the
remaining 2 percent (Gosling and Pashley, 1973).
3-6
-------
TAb,.., 3.)
WATER-BEARING AND LITIIOI.OG1C CIIARACTEIIISTICS OF GEOLOGIC UNITS
SYSTEM
SERIES
APPROXt-
STRATICRAPIHC MATE
UNIT THICKNESS
(feet)
1.ITII01.0CIC CHARACTERISTICS
WATER-BEARING CHARACTERISTICS
£1 llolocene
£3
a Quaternary and
[i
3 Pleistocene
Miocene
Tertiary to
Plelstoccnc
Rive r—channol
alluvium
Slopcua sh
deposits
Alluvial-fan
ilupoults
Trlbtitnry Alluvion
Terraces on valley
floor
High-terrace
clepos Its
0-20 Well-sorted sand and gravel; contains large
cobbles.
0-120 Silt and sllty clny derived by erosion of
Cretaceous rocku.
0-100(1) Silt and sllty clny derived |iy erosion of
Crctaoeoitu rocks-.
0-30
0-60
Sllt and 6IIty clay.
Yields more than SO gpra of good quality water to
wells.
Yields small quantities «I gpm) of highly
mineralized water. "—
Yields small quantities (1-3 gpm) of highly
ml nor.-i I Jzed water.
Yields small quantities «10 gpra) of highly
mineralized water.
Gravel and sand layers near the river grading to Yields 10-60 gpcn to wells tapping gravel layers,
predominantly silt at north edge of terrace 13. hut sllty layers yield very little water.
0-10 Well-sorted uand nnd gravel.
Usiinlly lies above water table capping topograph-
ic highs.
g
Upper
Cretaceous
8
Cretaceous
8
Fox IlllIs < 300 Gray to yellowish 6ray fl"e- to medluo-graincd
Sandstone sandstone with occasional gray shale and shaly
si 1 tsconc.
Bcarpaw Shale 0-1100 Gray to black marine «haly claystone and shale
with occasional thin slltstone, sllty sandstone,
and biintonlte bodti.
Judith River 580 Alternating beds of yellow to brown sandstone and
Formation dark-gray shale.
Claggett 620 Yellow-gray to llgHt-brown flnc-gralned sandstone
Formation grading to slltstonc and gray shale at the base.
Eagle Sandstone 210
Lower
Cretaceous
Telegraph Creek
Forn.it ion
Colorado Shale
Cleverly
Format Ion
Llftht-ycllow-browii fInc-grnlncd sandstone, mas-
sive at base nnd thin-bedded at top.
160 Thin-bedded brown sandntonc and shale.
2.000-
2,500
Dark-gray to black shale; contains thin sandy
members In the middle and lower ncctloim.
280 Thick basal sandstone, variegated shale middle
ncnber, and smidy chale upper member.
Significant source of water In region; yields up
to about 70 gpn to domestic and stock wells, up
Co 2OO jjpra to municipal and Industrial wells.
Very low permeability; generally docs not yield
water to wells.
Sandstone layers yield snail quantities «10 gpn)
of water of fair quality to wells.
May yield highly mineralized water.
Yields 5-10 gpm of water of fair quality to
wells.
Yields very little water to wells «10 gpn).
May yield small quantities «10 gpn) of highly
mineralized water from sandy strata.
Yields small quantities (<10 gpm) of highly
mineralized water to wells.
Sources! Gosling and Panhley (1973); and Stoner and Lewis (I9fl0).
-------
STUDY AREA
BOUNDARY
LAW ENGINEERING
TESTING COMPANY
DENVER, COLORADO
DW 4212.3
FIGURE 3.1
STUDY AREA
-------
SSS-:
I O
;o
s.y
o
is
rn
m
z
m
r
*
m
o
H
H
o
MEAN MONTHLY PRECIPITATION (inches)
H
CO
p
bt
'
01
UI
01
01
OD
Ol
00
O
r\>
_i_
m
2
>
2
C
m
o
2
H
>
H
O
01
b
CD
>
01
ID
-------
70-
60
LL,
o
LU
ID
h-
LU
CL
2
Ld
h-
50 -
40 -
30 H
20
20.9
28.4
33.8
44.6
54.9
64.0
-
72.3
70.3
59.4
49.3
MEAN ANNUAL
35.0
27.1
M
M J J A
MONTH
0 N D
NOTE:
BASED ON DATA COLLECTED AT BILLINGS
AIRPORT, ELEVATION 3567 ft. M S L, BETWEEN
1951 a I960.
SOURCE! B. SNYDER , MONTANA STATE
CLIMATOLOGY OFFICE (1904).
LAW ENGINEERING
TESTING COn/lPANV
DENVER. COLORADO
DW 4212
FIGURE 3.3
MEAN MONTHLY TEMPERATURE
-------
in i > w> EO
Z 3 5* C/5
a -t —
n r "
"
r co
en 2 a < o
o o > m >
x z r 2>n
^ w -< o
^^ ITO i^
a > en p
CD x o m
— m o c 9
— ^ >
°>
£P H
s
m
cu
0
m
2
-, $
v m
$ 3
•^ n
IN: o
>
O
0
— I -•
53
m s
>m
^o ~^
oz
33 S
> O -
Mi
v n
MONTHLY PAN EVAPORATION (inches)
o
H .c.
W
0
ro
_1_
o>
NOT MEASURED
NOT MEASURED
NOT MEASURED
NOT MEASURED
NOT MEASURED
NOT MEASURED
CD
o
Cn
(O
-------
4.0 SITE CHARACTERIZATION
4.1 SITE GEOLOGY
The area geologic map presented in Gosling and Pashley
(1973) indicates that the CONOCO INC. refinery is located on the
T2 terrace of Quaternary age. This terrace parallels the
Yellowstone River from Park City to Billings and is 20 to 40 feet
above the river. The terrace deposits consist of up to 60 feet
of sandy gravel with minor silt and clay.
The unconsolidated alluvial deposits in the refinery area
are underlain by either the Telegraph Creek Formation or the
Colorado Shale, both of Cretaceous age. The Telegraph Creek
Formation consists of thin-bedded, brown sandstone and shale; the
Colorado Shale consists of dark gray to black, marine shale with
thin sandy members in the middle and lower sections (Gosling and
Pashley, 1973) .
In order to collect site-specific hydrogeologic data, six
shallow ground water monitoring wells were drilled and completed
in late 1981 and early 1982 near the hazardous waste management
facility at the refinery by Davis Drilling of Billings. A site
map which shows the location of the wells is presented as Figure
4.1.
Drilling was performed using water well drilling equipment
with a 7 7/8-inch diameter, tri-cone bit using water or drilling
4-1
-------
mud to circulate cuttings to the -surface. The cuttings were
examined and logged by a hydrogeologist.
All holes were advanced to the top of a stratum described as
a gray shale and then completed as ground water monitoring wells.
Wells were completed with four-inch diameter, threaded-joint,
schedule 80 PVC. Each well included a 10-feet long PVC section
with 0.020 inch wide slot openings attached to sufficient blank
PVC to reach to approximately two feet above the ground surface.
All wells were developed using compressed air to flush water and
fines from the well bore.
Screened intervals were selected so that the entire thick-
ness of the Sandy Gravel zone, which extends from the top of the
Gray Shale to the base of a somewhat finer-grained material, was
screened. Geologic logs and well completion records prepared by
the Davis Drilling hydrogeologist are presented in Appendix B.
Based on the geologic logs, three geologic cross-sections
were prepared. The locations of the sections are identified on
Figure 4.1 and the cross-sections are presented as Figures 4.2 to
4.4. For reference, static water levels measured on April 7,
1984 and screened intervals are shown on the cross-sections.
The shallow subsurface materials at the site consist of an
average of about 19 feet of unconsolidated alluvial material
overlying gray shale. A one-foot thick gravel fill layer was
penetrated at the ground surface at well R-4-EC. Three types of
4-2
-------
natural unconsolidated material were penetrated in addition to
the fill. Based on descriptions presented in McDermott (1982),
these shallow subsurface materials are described below:
SILTY SAND AND' CLAYEY ' SAND: This unit generally is
present at the ground surface and extends to a depth of
between 3 and 9 feet. It consists of brown, grayish-
brown, or brownish-gray, silty sand and clayey sand
with occasional gravel.
SANDY CLAY: The Sandy Clay unit is present at the
ground surface near the Yellowstone River at wells
R-5-NNE and R-6-NE, where its thickness averages 4.5
feet. A thin (0.5 to 1 foot) Sandy Clay seam is also
present beneath the Silty Sand and Clayey Sand unit at
wells R-2-SC and R-4-EC. The Sandy Clay unit consists
of gray, brown, or black, sandy clay or silty, sandy
clay; occasionally it is referred to in the logs simply
as "clay".
SANDY GRAVEL; The Sandy Gravel underlies the units
described above and extends to the Gray Shale unit.
Its thickness ranges from 9 to 15 feet. It consists of
sandy gravel comprised of igneous and metemorphic rock
types. Based on examination of Sandy Gravel outcrops
along the Yellowstone River, a significant silt frac-
tion is also present.
The unconsolidated units described above are interpreted as
having been deposited in a fluvial environment similar to that of
the present Yellowstone River. These materials overlie a Gray
Shale unit. Based on its color, the Gray Shale most likely is
part of the Colorado Shale. However, it is not unlikely that the
Telegraph Creek Formation also includes some gray shale members.
Figures 4.2 to 4.4 indicate that the distribution of shallow
subsurface materials beneath the site is relatively uniform. At
the wells located farthest from the river, the Silty Sand and
Clayey Sand unit overlies the Sandy Gravel, which in turn- over-
lies Gray Shale. Nearer to the river, thin Sandy Clay seams or
lenses are present at or near the ground surface.
4-3
-------
4.2 SITE GROUND WATER HYDROLOGY
4.2.1 Aquifer Identification and Description
Based on site geologic data, the saturated portions of the
Sandy Gravel, Silty Sand and Clayey Sand units represent the
uppermost water-bearing zone at the site. This water-bearing
zone is part of the "alluvial aquifer" as described in Gosling
and Pashley (1973). Because static water levels occur within the
aquifer itself and, on-site, do not rise to levels within the
overlying low-permeability Sandy Clay stratum, the aquifer is
unconfined. Consequently, the ground water level forms the top
of the aquifer. The top of the Gray Shale represents the lower
boundary of the alluvial aquifer on the site. Although it is
possible that there are fractures in the gray shale capable of
transmitting water, the overall hydraulic conductivity of the
Gray Shale probably is several orders of magnitude less than that
of the alluvial aquifer.
Referring to the cross-sections presented as Figures 4.2 to
4.4, the thickness of the alluvial aquifer ranges from about 10
to 18 feet on April 7, 1984. Insofar as static water levels
fluctuate with time, the thickness of the aquifer will vary with
time.
As previously mentioned, the Sandy Clay present beneath the
site does not appear to be sufficiently thick or continuous to
represent a hydrologic barrier; consequently, the entire
4-4
-------
saturated interval in the alluvium is considered to be a single-
aquifer. With the exception of Well R-6-NE, site monitoring
• wells have been completed such that the entire alluvial aquifer
_ is within the screened interval. At Well R-6-NE, water was a few
feet higher than'the top of the screen on April 7, 1984.
4.2.2 Aquifer Properties
The results of on-site aquifer testing are summarized in
Table 4.1. The transmissivity of the alluvial aquifer beneath
the refinery ranges from 8.9 x 103 to 2.5 x 104 gallons per
day per foot (gpd/ft). The hydraulic conductivity ranges from
3.5 x 10-2 to 9.1 x 10-2 centimeters per second (cm/sec).
For comparison, the range in values of transmissivity presented
in Gosling and Pashley (1973) is 1.9 x 104 to 2.7 x 104
gpd/ft. The range presented by Exxon in the 1983 RCRA Part B
permit application for their Billings refinery, which is in a
location geologically similar to that of the CONOCO INC. refin-
ery,'is less than 1.0 x 103 to greater than 1.0 x 106 gpd/ft.
Exxon's estimates of hydraulic conductivity range from 1.7 x
10-2 to 3.7 x 10-2 cm/sec.
Transmissivity and hydraulic conductivity values estimated
for the CONOCO INC. site are generally comparable to those
presented in Gosling and Pashley (1973) and Exxon (1983). Dif-
ferences may be attributed to a lesser saturated thickness at the
CONOCO INC. site than the alluvial aquifer generally exhibits,
and subtle differences in the texture, gradation, and packing
arrangement of the local alluvium.
4-5
-------
Ground water flow directions and hydraulic gradients may be '
estimated directly from site piezometric surface maps. A series
of piezometric surface maps which depict ground water flow condi-
tions at several times since monitoring well installation are.
;
presented as Figures 4.5 to 4.9.
Ground water generally flows in a northeasterly or south-
easterly direction toward the Yegen Drain. The Yegen Drain is a
drainage canal that runs along the eastern boundary of the CONOCO
INC. refinery. Hydraulic gradients range from about 0.002 to
0.006 with a median of 0.003. The only date on which both ground
water level measurements and a measurement of the surface water
level of Yegen Drain were made is April 5, 1984 (Figure 4.9) . On
this date, the water surface elevation of Yegen Drain at the
downstream end of the culvert opposite Well R-6-NE was 3,102.29
ft msl. Based on the piezometric map presented as Figure 4.9,
ground water in the alluvial aquifer was discharging to the Yegen
Drain on April 5.
Figure 4.5 and 4.6 indicate nearly uniform ground water flow
across the site toward the Yegen Drain on May 21 and August 5,
1982. A somewhat different flow pattern is depicted by the 1983
and 1984 data shown on Figures 4.7 to 4.9. A high in the ground
water table is indicated at Well R-2-SC on November 4, 1983,
February 23, 1984, and April 5, 1984. At these times, water
locally flowed east, north, and west away from this area in the
vicinity of Well R-2-SC. Possible explanations for this feature
are enhanced recharge near Well R-2-SC by ponding of water near
4-6
-------
.he well, enhanced recharge south of Well R-2-SC, high water
"•evels in Yegen Drain, or ground water discharge from the area
iear well R-l-W (such as caused by pumping a well). Available
3ata are not sufficient to .conclude if these affects or some
other cause is responsible for the change in the ground water
flow pattern.
Ground water velocity in the alluvial aquifer beneath the
refinery site may be estimated using a modification of the D'Arcy
equation:
KI
V =
n
where: V = ground water velocity
K = hydraulic conductivity
I = hydraulic gradient
n = effective porosity
Values for hydraulic conductivity and hydraulic gradient have
been determined from site measurements. Based on a table pre-
sented in Todd (1959), the specific yield of gravelly sand and
fine gravel averages about 28 percent. Since specific yield is
roughly equivalent to effective porosity, a value of 28 percent
has been used for the estimated effective porosity of the allu-
vial aquifer. A realistic minimum value for effective porosity
of sand and gravel is 10 percent. Using this value rather than
28 percent would roughly triple the calculated ground water
velocity.
Based on a range in hydraulic conductivity of 3.4 x 10-2
-o 8.9 x 10-2 cm/sec, a median hydraulic gradient of 0.003, and
an effective porosity of 28 percent, the range in ground water
4-7
-------
velocities beneath the site is 1.0 to 2.7 feet per day. A "worst
case".ground water velocity of 15.1 feet per day can be calcu-
lated by assuming a hydraulic conductivity of 8.9 x 10-2
cm/sec, a hydraulic gradient of 0.006, and an effective porosity
of 10 percent.
4.2.3 Monitoring System'Evaluation
CONOCO INC. does not intend to utilize on-site impoundments
in the future for storage of hazardous wastes. It is the inten-
tion of CONOCO INC. to close these facilities under RCRA Interim
Status Standards (40 CFR Part 265). To support closure planning,
a general evaluation of some aspects of the ground water monitor-
ing program is presented in this section.
f
The geologic logs prepared by Davis Drilling (McDermott,
1982) appear to be sufficient for the identification of the
uppermost aquifer beneath the site. However, since no site-
specific information regarding the rock strata underlying the
alluvial aquifer has been collected, there remain some questions
regarding the identification of aquifers which might be hydrau-
lically interconnected with the alluvial aquifer. Based on data
collected at site monitoring wells, an estimate of ground water
flow directions and rates has been made [40 CFR Part 270.14(c)].
Site monitoring wells are required to be installed at
locations and depths appropriate to yield ground water samples
representative of "background" and "affected" water quality in
4-8
-------
the uppermost aquifer [40 CFR Part 264.97(a)]. Well R-l-W is
probably representative of background water quality; however, the
water level data shown on Figures 4.7 to 4.9 show it to be down-
gradient of the area near Well R-2-SC. Well R-2-SC, which has
been considered by CONOCO INC. to be a "background" well, was
downhydraulic gradient from the TEL treatment and disposal area
at the times depicted on Figures 4.5 and 4.6. At the times shown
on Figures 4.7 to 4.9, Well R-2-SC "was up-gradient of all
hazardous waste management facilities. This variability of
hydrologic conditions indicates Well R-2-SC might not be easily
defended as a "background" well. Therefore, there is some
question as to whether or not either R-l-W or R-2-SC are
dependable as "background" wells. Further investigation and
explanation of the apparent ground water high at Well R-2-SC
might provide clarification. However, the explanation might
indicate that a new "background" well location is preferred.
The remaining four monitoring wells are located down-
hydraulic gradient from hazardous waste management (HWM) facili-
ties; consequently, they should be capable of detecting affected
ground water if a plume exists or develops.
4-9
-------
TABLE 4.1
SUMMARY OF STEP-DRAWDOWN TEST DATA
WELL STEP
R-2-SC 1
2
3
R-6-NE 1
2
R-l-W 1
2
3
4
*Sw was measured
2K - T/b
Q Sw^1
(gpm) (ft)
4.3 0.20
10.0 0.48
23.1 1.09
6.4 0.98
20.0 5.80
1.1 0.25
5.2 1.25
9.1 2.53
13.0 3.96
10 minutes
> Sw/Q
(ft/gpm)
0.047
0.048
0.047
0.153
0.290
0.227
0.240
0.278
0.305
COMMENTS
.^.^
Well losses are insignificant
Well losses are insignificant
GEOMETRIC MKAN
—
Well losses' are significant
GEOMETRIC MEAN
__
Well losses are insignificant
Well losses might be signi-
ficant
Well losses might be signi-
ficant
GEOMETRIC MEAN
T
(gpd/ft)
2.83 x 10*
1.86 x 10*
2.80 x 10*
2.5 x 10*
8.88 x 103
—
8.9 x 103
7.25 x 103
2.04 x 10*
—
—
1.22 x 10*
b K(2)
(ft) (cm/sec)
13.1 1.0 x 10-1
12.9 6.8 x 1Q-2
12.2 1.1 x 10"1
9.1 x 10~2
11.9 3.5 x 10-2
— —
3.5 x 10-2
9.9 3.5 x ID"2
8.9 1.1 x 10"1
— — — —
— —
6.2 x 10~2
u(3>
0.0002
0.0003
0.0002
0.0007
"
0.0008
0.0003
—
after initiation of pumping step.
3Equation for calculating transmissivi ty is
1.87 Sr
2
Where: S
Y*
not valid unless U < 0.01.
= storage coefficient (assume
=a ua 11 Tfn\ -\ ii c
S = 0.20)
r
T = transmissivity
" time since beginning of step
-------
3102.29'
WATER SURFACE
DRUM STORAGE
AREA
OLD SURFACE
IMPOUNDMENT
STORAGE AREA
OLD LANDFILL
AREA
OLD SURFACE
IMPOUNDMENT
DISPOSAL AREA
1 V
OLD TEL
TREATMENT & DISPOSAL _
/OLD LAND APPLICATION '
I 1 / /AREA I
R-2-SC
LEGEND
CONOCO INC. PROPERTY BOUNDARY
\
A'
_J
HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT UNIT
MONITORING WELL
CROSS SECTION LOCATION (SEE FIGURES 4.2,4.3,4.4)
LAW ENGINEERING
TESTING COMPANY
DENVER. COLORADO
DW 4212.3
FIGURE 4.1
SITE PLAN
-------
O
;u
o
CO
CO
CO
m
o
H
m
.&
-n
o
3
o
tn
W
on
m
o
-
23
o
m
fo
ELEVATION w (ft. MSL)
CO
O
m
CO
H
O
33
CO
H
-------
en i
m O
m o
o
c
a
m
O
o
a
r
m
o
m
2
CD
I
CD
O
a
o
en
m
o
-I
O
O
co 2]
00 o
co c
m ;a
o m
H
W
^ELEVATION w (ft MSL) ^
o
I M I I I I II I I I I I I I I I
U> I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I
I I I ' Mil I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I '
o
u>
o
Ul
o
o
I
04
o
UI
I
04
ELEVATION (ft. MSL)
CO
o
C
_,
X
^
m
CO
m
DD
Z
O
!»-
m
co
H
-------
o
33
r-
m
cr>
m
o
a
o
m
o
O
33
O
CO
CO
CO
m
o
H
o
o
i
o
T]
CD
c
33
m
ELEVATION (ft. M S T)
O
(O
o
o
u>
01
OJ
o
o
o
Wl
o
I
u
(Jl
CD
OJ
o
u>
o
U
O
U>
in
1
OJ
o
o
I
OJ
o
en
OJ
01
ELEVATION ft. (M S T)
_J
-------
BILLINGS
CITY
LIMITS
/ / 1
3102.29
WATER SURFACE
IN YEGEN DRAIN
ON 4-7-8
/ / >-? .x
-I-W /i
O J-N OLD SURFACE
.„, _ __, . . .ft/ \,> IMPOUNDMENT
OLD TEL / * / o Z~— ni<;pn«;Ai ARFA
TREATM&NT 6 DISPOSAL/ ^ / DISPOSAL AREA
3% /_ /-4-T- —
C // "" / AREA I
/ Rr2-SC I
LEGEND
,R-2-SC
CONOCO INC.PROPERTY BOUNDARY
HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT UNIT
MONITORING WELL
-3104.0 GROUND WATER ELEVATION CONTOUR
LAW ENGINEERING
TESTING COMPANY
DENVER, COLORADO
DW 4212.3
FIGURE 4.5 -
PIEZOMETRIC SURFACE
MAY 21,1982
-------
BILLINGS
CITY
LIMITS
•D
OFFICC
DRUM STORAGE
AREA
•»/<•
3102.29*
WATER SURFACE
IN YEGEN DRAIN
ON 4-7-8
-5-NNE
OLQ LANDFILL
ARE'A
OLD SURFACE
IMPOUNDMENT
STORAGE AREA
OLD LANDF1LUI ' —
AREA >/ | I
1^ '
I ___ ^
OLD
TREAJFfflENT 8 DISPOSAL
OLDxSURFACE
IMPOUNDMENT
D/SPOSAL AREA,
I I'
__^j
/OLD LAND APPLICATION '
/ AREA I
SCALE (ft.)
LEGEND
CONOCO INC.PROPERTY BOUNDARY
HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT UNIT
®R"2"SC MONITORING WELL
•3104.5
GROUND WATER ELEVATION CONTOUR
LAW ENGINEERING
TESTING COMPANY
DENVER, COLORADO
DW 4212.3
FIGURE 4.6 '
PIEZOMETRIC SURFACE
AUGUST 5,1982
-------
BILLINGS
CITY
LIMITS
/ 1, 1
\
3102.29'
WATER SURFACE
IN YEGEN DRAIN
ON
DRUM STORAGE
AREA
OFFICE
OLD CANOFILL
AREA ------
OLD SURFACE
IMPOUNDMENT
. STORAGE AR
OLD LANDFILL) >~
AREA -^-^ I I
OLD TEL
TREATMENT>a~DISPOSAL
AREA
/'OLD LAND APPLICATION '
I t I AREA\ 1
/ .R-2-SC \ I
-N -X I
•\ OLD SURFACE 'O
IMPOUNDMENT
DISPOSAL AREA
\
LEGEND
CONOCO INC. PROPERTY BOUNDARY
HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT UNIT
eR-2-sc MONITORING WELL
— 3103.0
GROUND WATER ELEVATION CONTOUR
LAW ENGINEERING
TESTING COMPANY
DENVER. COLORADO
DW 4212.3
FIGURE 4.7
P1EZOMETRIC SURFACE
NOVEMBER 4, 1983
-------
-------
BILLINGS
CITY
LI MITS
/ / t
•>»
OFFICE
*^
DRUM STORAGE^
AREA
>
>*_
*'0~ °^J--— \ R-6-NE
- v OLD LANOFILV. -^"7-
.5 _ \AREA ^
1 OLD SURFACE R-3-NC \ ^1\^"^
IMPOUNDMENT Q\
STORAGE AREA v
IOLD LANDFILL p ^>
AREA v^^ | 1
^"*1 1
I 1 '
^2*1
« *> ^ •
n
i
i
J ©
1 R-I-W | I ,. R-4-EC
*• i 1 s* 1
s ^} OLD SU
^^ \.4 IMPO^
OLD TEL s , 2— rDISPCS
TREATMENT 8 DISPOSAL \ j
IAREA-^ / . 1 f — ;
I ! •» / ,/OLD LAND APPLICATION '
j I ! | / / AREA
/ / R-2-SC
1 / L ft__f
IL ' 'J \ t [
i
i
i
i
i
RFACE
JDMENT ,
AL AREA /
/
>•
/
/
3102.29'
WATER SURFACE
IN YEGEN DRAIN
ON 4-7-84
•tf R-5-NNE
e
o
in
o
LEGEND
CONOCO INC. PROPERTY BOUNDARY
HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT UNIT
®R'2"SC MONITORING WELL
— 3103-
GROUND WATER ELEVATION CONTOUR
LAW ENGINEERING
TESTING COMPANY
DENVER, COLORADO
DW 4212.3
' FIGURE 4.9
PIEZOMETR1C SURFACE
APRIL 5,1984
-------
5.0 STUDY METHODS
5.1 FIELD'DATA COLLECTION
/
/
LAW collected field data necessary to address the study
objectives between April 5 and April 7, 1984. Field activities
consisted of water level measurements, conducting single-well,
step-drawdown tests; and surveying the elevation of water in the
Yegen Drain adjacent to Well R-6-NE.
5.1.1 Water Level'Measurement
Water level measurements were made in the ground water
monitoring wells to obtain data necessary to construct the
piezometric maps from which ground water directions and hydraulic
gradients are calculated. Water level measurements were made on
April 5 and April 7, 1984. The results of LAW'S water level
measurements and previous water level surveys made by CONOCO INC.
are summarized in Table 5.1. For reference, Table 5.1 includes
surveyed elevations of the top of the steel casing and the ground
i
surface.
Water levels are measured by lowering an electric probe down
the well until an ammeter registers a deflection, then measuring
the distance between the measurement datum (top of steel casing)
and the water level. This number is subtracted from the
elevation of the measurement datum to obtain the elevation of the
water table.
5-1
-------
5.1.2 ' Step-Drawdown Tests " "-"-
i
LAW conducted short-term, step drawdown tests on three of
the six monitoring wells in order to estimate the transmissivity
and hydraulic conductivity of the shallow alluvial aquifer. As
is noted in Section 4.1, a Sandy Clay layer is present in the
alluvial aquifer at some of the well locations. Since this layer
does not appear to be sufficiently thick or continuous to repre-
sent a hydraulic barrier, it is considered appropriate to consid-
er the entire saturated interval of the alluvium as a single
aquifer zone.
Step drawdown tests are performed by measuring drawdown as
the well is pumped at several increasing pumping rate steps. The
method used for reducing step-drawdown test data is based on
Jacob's method which requires 'that the value of "u" be less than
0.01. In all cases, pumping steps were conducted for a suffi-
cient length of time that this requirement was satisfied. Step-
drawdown test data are presented in Appendix A.
5.1.3 Surveying
LAW personnel surveyed the elevation of water in the Yegen
drain in order to evaluate the possible interconnection between
ground water and the surface water in this ditch. The ground
surface at Well R-6-NE was used as a benchmark in the survey.
5-2
-------
» -. .'7;
s*.
The water level was surveyed on April 7, 1984 at the down--
stream end of the culvert opposite Well R-6-NE. The elevation of
the culvert invert at this point is 3,101.59 ft msl and the water
elevation was 3,102.29 ft msl.
5.2 EVALUATION"OF'STEP-DRAWDOWN TEST 'DATA
Step-drawdown test data were evaluated using procedures
recommended in Lennox (1966). This method requires that drawdown
be plotted on an arithmetic scale and time on a log scale. Time
is plotted with respect to the initiation of each pumping step.
The time-drawdown curves generated for the three wells are
included in Appendix A.
Step-drawdown tests are useful because well losses may be
evaluated through comparison of the ratio Sw/Q, in which Sw is
drawdown at a specified time and Q is pumping rate. A signifi-
cant increase in this ratio as pumping rate increases indicates
that head losses across the well screen and gravel pack are
significant. If such well loss occurs, observed drawdowns are
not representative of drawdowns in the aquifer.
Considering well losses, it is possible to correct observed
drawdowns to obtain estimates of actual drawdowns in the aquifer.
However, rather than performing these relatively complicated
analyses, LAW has chosen to use the analysis of well loss as a
criterion for eliminating data from further analysis. Pumping
5-3
-------
steps for wnich well losses'are judged • ': ;-.. • i : . ; i'-c-nt ,. c'v.M . - «•
ap.c calculations for the determinatio .• t>-c:urvr. ;, t -:r.cix A. '.h- :^-'ultr
of these analyses are presented and discussed in ,r-'ec- "n.
tli; s report.
5-4
-------
TABLE 5.1
STATIC WATER LEVELS AT CONOCO ...*f.. ?.!:?
MEASIRT.MENT
BATE R-l-W R-2-SC .J^SHf! >-4
C1/2S/82-1' 2,103.73 3,101.67 3,1CI.:' i.:o
•05/21/82 3,104,16 3,102.59 3,10?..!"
'•/OS/C.-:/82 3,104.56 3,102.79 3,104,::. l>_1^r ;^ ".JCr.l.
10/22/82 3,104.53 — 3,104.59 Jjl04._f___ :,".,:..".
12/21/81 3,104.56 — 3,104.52 3,104.1% ^,!0:,.1;:'
C6/16/33 3,104.36 — 3,104.09 3,103.76 2?i03.TC
^11/04/83 3,104.44 S^ljDS.?^ 3,104.2-, H,i
-------
REFERENCES
Exxon, Inc., 1983, Part B permit submittal for hazardous 'waste
facility at Exxon-Billings Refinery
Gosling, A.W., and Pashley, E.F. Jr., 1973, "Water Resources of
the Yellowstone River Valley, Billings to Park City, Montana",
U.S. Geological Survey Hydrologic Investigations Atlas HA-454.
Hall, G.M., and Howard, C.S., 1929, "Ground Water in Yellowstone
and Treasure Counties, Montana", U.S. Geological Survey Water
Supply Paper 599, 118 p.
Hunt, C.B., 1967, "Physiography of the United States", W.H.
Freeman Company, San Francisco, 480 p.
Lennox, D.H., 1966, "Analysis and Application of Step-Drawdown
Test", Journal of the Hydraulics Division, Proc. American
Society of Civil Engineers, November, 1966, p. 25-48.
McDermott, J., 1982, "A Site Reconnaissance and Drilling History
of the Conoco Refinery, Montana", private document submitted to
Conoco, Incorporated.
Snyder, B., 1984, Office of Montana State Climatologist (personal
communication).
Stoner, J.D., and Lewis, B ,D. , 1980; "Hydrogeology of the Fort
Union Coal Region, Eastern Montana", U.S. Geological Survey
Miscellaneous Investigations Series, Map 1-1236.
Todd, O.K., 1959, "Hydrology", John Wiley and Sons, New York,
336 p.
-------
/.'
/ ' LAW ENGINEERING TESTING COMPANY
L-.-GL^-A'C'-^L' rOiORAc^- SOMO
._ - • (303) TiC-ciii!
JOS \'O. \3 ^ H^-l 2
JOB NAME _C_«r--0^.f.
8Y Vj W'P)
CHECKCC £V C^X^J)
n. SHEET
*m -^ ^^
Pe V-.v.e
DATE
DATE
j OF L*
^•\\ ,
«-*•%— O'HlA^,^
H)|O/SH
4/U fit
DATA
TESTS -
ABULATIo/o
Tob
to
-'HiXti^ MT.
-------
TESTING COMPANY JOB NAME
i W\A/Sa__ DME i/_Lp I 5W CK
o <-°
-^L. 1 1 v >\< S JOB NO.
DATE
^^_/
4/K/
-------
•3 ENGINEERING TESTING COMPANY JOB NAME (j5Voco £e\ ^
JOB NO .
Y IA ) VoTS DATE H/ia/t^ CK *ZLAJ> DATE /-(<7-£r SHEET JO- OF ^-
- — / 1
•n;^4^wd»W:&I^U..o««wA.p iesW W. UjwiMPC-D
. •
'
-
— y
T(^ tU,v l^Vft)
?V.4\>0^ )
^o . "5
3). o
32-0
3^.0
^•o
c/0 Q
^.;v S
Ml.l
L 3.O
q i .3
un>-j-
H -^.Q
M 3. 1
i/ 3-1
MH.S
HS- 5
4 4-0
^1 0
H ^.o
Li G,.0
H-0
5b.o
S^.o
(rO O
r 2.0
(•>(.. o
1 0- 0
V
-3.3
°t • o
(o.O
12.0
I V. 0
)(o.O
/?. o
Q_P ~3.
0 . Z:
0."7
1.0
1 ~^.
1.1
o* ' G
~ f ^
P •"!
^ .5-
£/ «^"
5,0
In. O
1.0
•%to
9_ o
II. 0
/2.o
IZ.O
1 7,6
/lo
^/. o
JDSO
;> 9 • 0
.
•s.M
^. 4 /
S'.^/
^'. ^^L
5<. fc ?
£/ 43
^.^"3
'•i) "1 -
I^.'S^
?.^1
9. os
ai ._n%
^. H
9 . / S"
•3, ^2
^7- / S"
<5 . / 4
?,5-0
(9. P-^>
c?. H>
9- P^
^
o, 'it-T
O, 9S
/. o2-
1 , o£~
( . 0^-
1,03
1.07
/.ol
I. 10
1, ft
l.tl
?.?3 /-/0
^7 1 ~>
~ t e*- "*~ —
<3 Q < —
9- ^-'-/
0 ""> <"
7l C~3
<9, 2. 6
9.^5"
9. 2- "7
/• 0°\
/. /3~
I'll
/. /<2-
/• /5"
A/.3
/. /^
/• /V
£/uD T^S"/" C^ 7/-0
1
•33,1
23.1
3 3.
J^:L,^
^* ^~i
/ *•-.
rr- -/•
as-
«P5-
Ji3. 1
•
;
_
^ 3. 1
2-3-
22.1
«?-3. 1
23,. 1
33.1
as.
2.3. 1
a3. 1
^3. I
23.1
AJ//iu»f*3
i
•' .' •' i
-------
',! '/ ! : ,—,^=====31
1
V"'
v-
-------
XW ENGINEERING TESTING COMPANY JOB NAME _
j | -
* VO U3~& DATE H/IQ KM CK ^ JjjJ
- IS . \V
JOB NO.
2.12—
DATE
"~
A \ 1
SHEET
OF
NMcAl
TcsW1.
Wi-7.72fes.-V
Q.
a a
0. U
+1JJJ-
-JLS—
•0-35"
O-^O
0-23
A. 5"
. .?-
3.3
3.3
.-g^
7.41
H.?
S-2
-5.4
. -
V."/
.c !
\-C)
--f^H
n. s
\3-
\M.Q
i.ci
1 .00
\.0l
.03
6.5-
(.03
t-
?.-? w
/.0V
11-43
M
Q.3,7
"I
O.H3
as.
3-3
3-X
I ^
S.o
5.41
S.I
.4
-------
'.W ENGINEERING TESTING COMPANY JOB NAME
DATE
( '
pPiVieA^-t^l. n JOB NO.
i
SHEET ^- OF
DATE
4J l
TcsW.
P6-D
Q.
310 1 -7.0
. I
1. M
3S.O
IL_Q_
iP.b
>,*** f I
37-0
0
'-./;.
\H.o
In CAT S"
:Cj_O „
.(O, n
Sd.o
13. 11
.$"JLa
s
0
SA.o
sir
S-53
.3
3-0.0
S.S
S.S"/
"I
i- /. i
-------
oovoc
O
_I-L
1-0
Cj
•a
7
_l_l_i..l_
O.I
ULi
1/.U,-.:
^ - —
___
u t>
\
- - • •
-------
- ' Kj^x
t) . DATE
,11 '
Hh°l^, CK DATE SHEET 1 OF 3 {
NMeAl ^ l-^-^X (K-l-w") PATE TesW: sMsM'
mlh'eJ) *sl <(•»<•
TW
0,1
o.T
1.5-
l.o
33
5.o
L-o
vodU Widl. :*).
A, / ,
o-i
0.5"
1.6
i.r
3L.O
?.3
S.O
(9.0
7.3
-i — | 1
«T . ^fj-^ ^--N /£oJN /""N ^ x /^ \
10-00 O.^
\o,oG O.TJD
(o.o-l °-^
1 o . o g 0.3*3. .
lo.O'o 0-^X
10.0*3 0.3.3L |,0
lo.lo o.aH I.I
10.10 o.^q 1.1
lo.o^ 0:3.3
(o.l
- 16,0 M'^
I. ol SI
Ml s.a.
1,7 \.~1 \\.o4 i-^ 5".
\-7
a, 2
3-0
5.0
\\.o4
ll.ofe
11,02,
11.07 -
I * " L^
1.3.0
1,30.
).'»
8,
\S.o
13,5-
15.0
lto-0
><- /c ^ M i n I xU- c "i
]$,£) oiO |l'lf 1' (^ J i>-oL
3o.o ^-c? H.11 l.^ S.5.
0 1^.0 11,11 i'^5" S"'^-
o H.O u.ia
-t"uri)U warer
-------
•-* ENGINEERING TESTING COMPANY
iY \AJ\A) ^b DATE (
JOB NAME
CK
.6 JOB NO.
DATE
SHEET ^ OF 3
Vs/eAl
PATE TesW;
| \ (.rel
...n^L
4X
^
11. \3
X,— ^^ ^7
— r^- o
. .. *•
.
o.
, m
I -<2.n I'
,
SoO-
3.30.
c C"
*^ *
S.O
7leX.
35.7
7.7
. 34
Llii
_B^
jo.
13-3
1 /.o
_jyj?^..t2_
^LL-J2_
. r>
M .0
1 3 . 4 c*
S.O
1.1
17. 0
. M
^ • (ff
It.r-
I:;-. So I
. 0
-r H
L0_
13 . S)
1.1
\ - So.
IM.U
/.TTO
TU7«
l.t,
Dt.3.
i 5^.0
iLo.
3-
/3.6
1 Cl CAJ? <^o_o
SM.S
55. 3.
5.3-
3.VT
13.0
/ ^
(Or ~.
-.K
•/V.3
I I 1
-------
>w ENGINEERING TESTING COMPANY JOB NAME
DATE "1 M o I bM CK
NO.
DATE
SHEET OF
PATE Te'sW:
' fiitaJ) ^\^lc yodLn Wji/.^.'skkdr Wo uo CAM'* ^t>p JfS-Ve^ W- iMlo'B ^ P6"D
— ^- _
c
57.0
-7.0
M.lt
S-7.S
9-5"
Y. P.
73,0
/ *-> C/V
t- ( O -j
51-3
lO.o
3-13
o.
JLTL
IT:
«. A-. TT>
/"i T"f?V
-/
v
-------
0 ft
.6
1
/o-o
i i i i i i i
i i i i i i i
T
r. f I u »t yT> i • <: *" V f (.) ( r \ i ^\ ^ I -J 1.)
-------
CALCULATION REVIEW AND APPROVAL STATUS SHEET
PROJECT:
'ITLE OF CALCULATION:
"OBJECTIVE: F"
.R'i II/A/•.<.
n/ V^
Calculation No.
Job No.
r,»Jt'
\ . „ . •
>y,SM .'^S'.Vi
SUMMARY OF METHODS:
I,
REFERENCES:
Prepared by:
Checked by:
Approved by:
Date:
Date: .• /.? ?.'v"^'
Project Manager
-------
/;
LAW ENGINEERING TESTING COMPANY
13COQ ? BfiiAJV.VOC:) AV: SUiTH 150
ENGi EWCCO CO'-OFAOO £C! 12
JCBNO. IT ____ SHEET _J2.._. OF _?_'
jr.is NAVL .Ccv-P co
DATE
Qr VuLll
CAPA61TXLS
4
/U
5.1
c..l
I'i.o
0-30^
CO
(^
C3)
CO
(2.)
el \
-------
* ',
CALCULATION REVIEW AND APPROVAL STATUS SHEET '
3
...PROJECT:
Calculation No.
V
Job No.
ITLE OF CALCULATION:' (.'/lICljloAEf^ o{ UwL/V JLo Cgv.'.We/>«^i\ />,.„$ \ >&«-£ M i'4S i Vi' U.
/n 1-,-U 4-^ • «- '! i i ( K i / -i
-BJECTIVE: L,<^\coUU- T ^^SMi^ST\J cU. ^?y^ KvM/^..At/-. <: .r.v^^.4-, Oi Uj
)^ 11 v'^f> ^T- -^ "\ ^ HI< '
O
SUMMARY OF METHODS:
o4-!- — U'/.' vJ'j ,-'',J\A Qr;i.vp 4-^'Tl
r->
..* .*-. ./vA r_ .
VJ<.
/?
V t
-------
. TESTING COMPANY JOB NAME ('W ('••«- ;:. r V i N.'-V \C 7 JOB NO. UW '• L.\'L —
W ti I?j DATE -3 /1 o / s 4 • CK DATE * SHEET 3 OF 3
Ji ,
0
1 M . '
, "D "i vJ v Vcr\ , p . "2. 5 -
"
o
'rrx,
T— r • -\ 1
=• \ -'
- = - _
, /.
d
~tx.
10 *" '
o'r ^ VS.
cr{
. AM
^ AQ.
' "
AC),
-------
'
AfP. A.
LAW ENGINEERING TESTING COM'-'ANV
U'200 C BP.IARWOOD AV£.. SUITE 16C
U:CU\VCOD COLCSAOC f.O It 2
.'oU3; 7?0 .'•5-1
JOB NO. .0W_4?.|2-___ SHEET _3_. OF .5.
BY x:._.
CHECKcD BY
UATE
-a :'•
5 "
^-s oP
C f
JO
-
r
o
S
"73 -7
0- 1
P 00 9J
r?
X
,/v
3
c
3
'T)
«/•>
Tl
:
i
P
A
O
C
o
l^
in
01
c
C7'
0
Pv
Pi
r>
c
r
O
- o
r
=!
0
x. 0
-^
9
0
o
c
o
r 5
--
- c
"~
Ul "rJ —
I", ? ^
o ( 5"
j" ^_
•> o
I i.
o o o
o
X
-------
APPENDIX C
-------
"If- is
1
t^
^M N> 3>5
r" o r~* O^t
0 0
& O (
1 1
.{* p ;d
^ r*f
O r "%
f :?i
K 1 -^ "
' t %
- - — 3 ^ o
fi" + ° r
i 0 ?""
f ri
r* u
H t 2 ?r 3 - KJ
r ? ^ j- r
f1 J~"^
C^ ^ ?
v^ P /*
1 ^ /^^^ •**"W— __.— r •*" /^ \Jt**^ I' J
^T l/V= - jCr-Ji-TAP
r • 7 ?^?l?^r
^ 0-Z^ /•"" j ^- f y2*
_j_ 5* o j ~~- v '
PP_ r^'"^^
/_ y**^ v. - i^A p "I
/ • ^ cJr'*f>r-£
i_J r ? * ? s- C J-
D 7
\
\/\ *n
p O
P- fP
S ^
5
50
£ -^ I'^ti'd £ r~ 0
u* ™\4 tf XI ^* ^X • /"* ft
i' y^ />* (/ ^Q vj /N o y
T r & ^" F ^.P^i
x I / f ^ f »\
d q j ,c
? f 7 r d £ " V 3
5)^1"!':?f::J£A>-lr}
p r, fi S £ ^' =^ ..
j: " " g S 3 - /J f
J P -J *] ^. " 0 ^o
•"" p -J It ^ - L>
O "~^ - . . A
* ^" * t L/l ^
Q j <*• r &
I -* (* ^, r!>
p ' H
b
P 5!
^ , £_j
^l ' 2
T J5
1
o
6
-
p
0
Z
0
0
o
0
J
p
z,
£
pj
r
t
__
-0
00
p
V
P fT
-I
-£
rr.
i j:
4-
& 0
fc,
v
3' '1
r '
m
70
-------
3 9
f' f- A ^
/: f 2 ••
S ?. 5
J
O
I
-a
O
? r
t: i' 9
c: o o <
r lVi
f —j
-° !?- ?
c' o ,.
f it- S ./
JL .
- o
r H
1 o
(b
^
&
c
r
CO
^0
M
P
f*
-°
43
r
n»
o
_ 0
i
P1
n
o
z
0
(N
O
S
o
-------
o
C>
3
-O
J3
0
^o c> 'cOci • o^/i • 0 x<-
.;-D..o« _W V—j: / /vO,
X.
ffN
0
1
0
«y) —)
1° «
p- fK
[>•
r, o
r *
t) M
_ r
z f
-i P
^ Z-
-c)
f
0
0
z:
r
F
? J
tf n ~p p
-J £ ? ? £
- w r- o
r ^ 5'
p rj J ~
3
fl
P
r
4
'0
r ^ r
^ c
r Q 0
?'-f l.'^
i _>i i iv
o S
? ?
ii '_
x rn
o
P
<*i
6
UD
^
r
0
o
2.
0
5
0
^
£
E
t^ -
1
f
1
'i- i^r
-I-
2fs
;
rf f
'i
A
4-
tf
P*
\ v.
D
r*
0
•t A
-------
E
cJ
Oo
J
d
3
0
0
0
•z
o
0
0
fj
a
3
9
<*>
J
O
0
1
J
2
3 .
9 uj
•J
y r*
•)- oc
cr
rf
-. T-
cr
-> ° o
n.
«/ v> r --s o p J K
6 f •" 9 3 S t ? £
fc'i'-i i--i^|
z 'c
~3 «J
i ^i i>
/ 4. (/ o ~f -v
^j Q P I- 3 f
J -
'7
A. jl*
J \-
32
J "
W Q
U- w
0 '}
•0 -J
& o/
> 0
f~ t''
N
-p
0 *
a
0
id
/a
fj-,
0
c
a-
J o
cr
cr
5
o ^
jy o °
U ^xJ
V !/
^
i< H
0
~
MU°
a<
-------
o
-2
i
a:
I
J
LJU
o)
Do
J
3
F
0
d
0
•z
o
0
4
i
3
j
0
rd
P*
i
(JO
J
0
J
1
J
2
J
cr
vo •-•
cr
it
J.
r*
a
Q
t) v* z " ^> 0
k ~ r" 0, o 1
<^ r P
, • • J -J
1 7 - " of
T r H <=> B)
U
U-
0
2oJ^^&^>
3-JeJ(3PI-3 |-
- _rr
sl
d
* j ~
O (O fl
n Ms *J
£ o '2
A
U
>
t-
s>
X,
-7
7
•
V
a
o
t
X*
c*
O
/I
fl*
1
0
T
f P
p <*
M i5
cr
cr
s
u
•o
^i
-------
vP
o
2
2
D
o
0
o
2
o
J
r?
E 2
u
3 w-
a
4
*j
c/
£
1*
1-
0
cr _
o
0
•O u '^, i
5 tp *
4 X r °-
CiO r~
--' -7
J~"
to z.
> 2
'J -U
0 o
0 -J
m o
,. «J
- Jl" ~
t -J " (X
0 ^ 1 £
F P 5 j
* . J X
3 P - f
J ^ o' p
^j /a « p
rd (-
•J 2
to °
•u
W- rj
0 "i
>J ^
o o*
n- J
'J
-t-
3
a 'i -
9 v
^^-q-p-
A i 3 !-
1
-1- r\ .
H-,1
.-s
ri -
0
m
-. — *o -J I
-f , (.31 '
1 V
7 J
£ - ^ S -*• f°
.—- rf y J? ol .-
a)
r r «°
I
0
O
0
N
J J -f 7 °-
(J J -> H
M ? i
<7 3 ^ QP
^ J ^)
li-
,' B °
1
U'
o
I - *"
h J o
• o
0 «•" 2
^ J
* -1
o u
o»
V V J u)
<* «JL «
3 j -i V
•u
-------
o
o
f"
O M 4" 0
' LT'1
ct« /^ I «•»
-
•
t dtr 7°
- p P |
n r?.
£ r:
i f-;. c - l >
i * ^ **S
^o 1 tt .¥
o
J* 0 7
AT %
P-
' r>
0
c
CD
F
••*••
f
•o tr p
txl *y V*
- ^ ?
— ^ -t —
^Ht
5 J f 6
o -i
^ tr^H 5 ^
C^. JT /o /n. _..' C o r
t
0 -*
— cr
•* P~
r
00
-
5; - ^-^^ r
-{-£ ix On /c ?
i ~ .L -> rt f* "f
^ :
c
|0
mm
o
3
°\
UO ,|
r -i
(« O
p r*
\'
t o
r* -r^
&M
- r
7* -i
C
CO/
ro
?" o
?-t
io O
/
r» r n
r** A** o
r> r.*
> ?5
^°p ?
Y '- L rt '
?P3 F»-r
O J p
^ n d
:^ o
•j t E~8
H P r °
n d
H-
r -i -\ ^
6
G
r
-it
• •
CO
9
0
S
0
%
-\
J
p
0
e:
o
(^
0
o
Z
P
z
f
ft.
-------
ul
I
x
v/ .-.
0
V?
u p <(
V \j y
a
j
7
»•
j 2
U 2 =r
rf £ -
•tt - 3
7 2 ^
4 p r o-
J K.^. -
3 3 ,0 j-"
vp 3 * H
*7 i "* •» t
L- Uj yj
j ./ ^ -~ _/
r1 », *^
r o "J: O
I £-:"<58
£ *". " 2 d
n »v 2 o ^
Q p P - p
0 / \ d \
Z 0"*i ">, *-
7. « VJ H/ C»
O 0 o J "
J J _J «J ft
.
•o
1
..'J
^
J
-o
0
"
p)
j
^
P
£
U
c*
J
2
0
O
J
-^
0
J
H
-
o- r1"
Jfw
r
o
Oi
er1
0 |J
J IX
T! .
^ o
J
^ J
h ;)
9
o
T f- •
F 5.:
on U r
1 ?(
0 0
^ rJ v
j 6 ° ~
^ ~ _ v
J"j- J
-,
a •• o- <,
.9 d J t
**• **/ ~s \
~ i 1) ••
M 5 ^
d <5 J -
W £) I" £
*>• V- '
0 J o 7
2 j
O i^ 0 o
V &• To
1
f
^ iV
P
t
>
r\
, f-l
7
J §
d
'}
i
}
i •
1
7
i °
fe
•?J
"7 J3^t -? -- -5 > L j J ° o 4 V
Q J->-,2 ^ 4 ^ ^ -i f j — ' ^ F ~ ^ p 2
? i O^-'173 "^ J ^ "j "^ ^^-^ +^ 5 20/^0 ^
• tC^ " "~j ^^*°'5^.- ^-^v>;3rt''
JT x ^ 9c l-f^ «j/^ o P ", v j -,
— ^<5>_?o^ia— pul>»<)p-J
(Jut-l/)il)r>~lflj.s-(J Y \ ° y <* J ?!
_ J -^ /c o ^ t,
, 2 J 2 0 o ^
T E "^ "^ -7
^ ' >^ xn
^ tp N n 3 5 ^ 7 8 ^ 3
2n T 1 0
P L "^
^ 1 *7 I r** v
\1 *^l
vJ u 0 -X C/
i *J f .f . i
4 ^"N ^" c . ji i
0*^*' ^"™ ••* T. & y ** ** v
^» . faO*TJ'l
tJvO pi 'O'lJ.j
-V °i Jj 1" ^ ^
^ j o ^ / "5 j
^ ° <3 9. 2. "7 0-
'• ' •'
-------
APPENDIX D
-------
INC.
SPECIFIC CONDUCTANCE DATA SHEET
Site
Well No.
Date
Time of Sample Collection _/QQ
Time of Reading
Performed by
Temperature (°C)
Uncorrected Reading (umhos/an) c^
Correction Factor /. 2^2*3
Corrected Reading (umhos/cm)
/y.£
Initial
QA/QC
Date
Time of Sample Collection
Time of Reading
Performed by
A3 7
M
A^n/
Temperature <°C)
Uncorrected Reading (umhos/cm)
Correction Factor
Corrected Reading (umhos/cm)
Initial
QA/QC
Date
Time of Sample Collection
Time of Reading /04-%
Performed by /y\
(
Temperature (°C)
Uncorrected Reading (umhos/cm)
Correction Factor _ /. 2.15 I
Corrected Reading (umhos/cm)
Initial
QA/QC
Date
Time of Sample Collection
Time of Reading
Performed by
^
Temperature (°C)
Uncorrected Reading (umhos/cm)
Correction Factor /.
Corrected Reading (umhos/cm)
Initial
QA/QC
-------
INC
VERSAR WELL DATA SHEET
Rev. 1: 4/8;
Date: Beg
Site Name/Case No.
End
1.
Well No./Location
SMO No./Fac. No.
Field WeH Measurements
Sample Methods
Well Diameter (inner)
Outer Casing
Casing Height
DTW
Total Depth
Reference Point
Water Column Length
Casing Vol.
X 3 =
Time: Beg;
Personne
Sample Depth
Splits
5. Notes
• Facility Well Security
Organic Vapors (HNu, OVA, TIP)
• Disposal of Purge Water
Radiation
Sediment
Color
Odor
Dedicated Equipment
• Cas\ng Material
• Nonaqueous Phases
Time: Begin /
Personnel /
• Sampling Weather Conditions
2. General Observations
3. Purge Methods
Volume Remdved
Equipment
Lot
Purge Depth
-------
1379Y
Rev. 1: 3/85"
Facility _
Well No. /?//£
(pr/or
Sampling Order
VOA
POC
POX
Ext. Org.
Pes>/fferb
^p«5xiri
T. Metals
Di^s<^Metals
IOC
TOX
Phenols
/^\*^*^^
\*f+
m^^
SOVC]<
Rajiionuc 1 ides
Volume
£ -40/nJL
JOaJL
40*Jb
44
u
40fr.
u
u
Date
/o-ZJ'M,
N
,
/0-M-gt
/o-3/-gk
]
I
Time
/0/5 ~/O/&>
/O/7
JQ/&
/OZO-/OZ5
Wtf-fOlt*
/Q27
/03Z
/03D
Personnel
finite Anf.iSL
„
flei+ds P)i)d^
Pln+fiS finely
N/
-------
SPECIFIC CONDUCTANCE DATA SHEET
Site
Well No.
II
Date
Time of Sample Collection
Time of Reading
Performed by /A 3JjjL
Temperature (°C) X/^
Uncorrected Reading (umhos/cm) 43d D
Correction Factor 1.3.'3' .
Corrected Reading (umhos/cm)
h.S.
Initial
QA/OC
Date /n'eJ/'XC,
Time of Sample Collection /4-bk
Time of Reading J4- 1Z-
Performed by // \3J)i_.
Temperature (°C) /S- 0 V
Uncorrected Reading (umhos/cm)
Correction Factor _
Corrected Reading (umhos/cm)
Initial
* 7
QA/QC
Date
Time of Sample Collection
Time of Reading
Performed by
Temperature (°C) .
Uncorrected Reading (umhos/cm)
Correction Factor
Corrected Reading (umhos/cm)
Date
Time of Sample Collection
Time of Reading
Performed by
Temperature (°C)
Uncorrected Reading (umhos/cm)
Correction Factor ^^_
Corrected Reading (umhos/cm)
Initial
QA/QC
Initial
QA/QC
-------
1379Y
Rev. 1: 37"86
COMPLETE IN CASE OF MULTIPLE SAMPLING EVENTS
Facility /
-------
INC
SPECIFIC CONDUCTANCE DATA SHEET
Site
Well No.
Date
Time of Sample Collection
Time of Reading /4~&2
Performed by
u ^
Temperature (°C)
Uncorrected Reading (umhos/cm)
Correction Factor
J4D6
Corrected Reading (umhos/cm)
Initial
QA/QC
Date
Time of Sample Collection _
Time of Reading /"^^^L;
Performed by & tf_0j f J*s>
/7-o2
Temperature (°C)
Uncorrected Reading (umhos/cm)
Correction Factor _J. /_?_$>
Corrected Reading (umhos/cm)
Initial
J-4-OQ
QA/QC
Date
Time of Sample Collection
Time of Reading
Performed by
Temperature (°C)
Uncorrected Reading (umhos/cm)
Correction Factor
Corrected Reading (umhos/cm)
Date
Time of Sample Collection
Time of Reading
Performed by
Temperature (°C)
Uncorrected Reading (umhos/cm)
Correction Factor
Corrected Reading (umhos/cm)
Initial
QA/QC
Initial
QA/QC
-------
a J
9
COMPLETE IN CASE OF MULTIPLE SAMPLING EVENTS
Facility
NO.
Sampling Order
VOA
POC
POX
Ext. Org.
Pest/Herb
Dioxin
T. Metals
Diss.
TOC
TOX
Phenols
NH3/NH4
ides
Volume
4-/J
J-IJ
J'/J
u
Date
Time
/(./4-/UI
folt-fMG
Personnel
1379Y
Rev. 1: 3/86
-------
Vcrsat
INC
SPECIFIC CONDUCTANCE DATA SHEET
Site
Well No.
Date
Time of Sample Collection
Time of Reading _
Performed by />
J
Temperature (°C)
Uncorrected Reading (umhos/cm}
Correction Factor
/7O()
Corrected Reading (umhos/cm)
Q.S.
Initial
-3'
QA/QC
Date
Time of Sample Collection
Time of Reading
Performed by
D
Temperature (°C) //- 3
Uncorrected Reading (umhos/cm)
Correction Factor
Corrected Reading (umhos/cm)
P.S,
Initial
,2^37- T"!
QA/QC
Date
Time of Sample Collection
Time of Reading
Performed by /2
Temperature (°C)
Uncorrected Reading (umhos/cm)
Correction Factor
Corrected Reading (umhos/cm)
Initial
QA/QC
Date
Time of Sample Collection
Time of Reading
Performed by
Temperature (°C)
Uncorrected Reading (umhos/cm)
Correction Factor
Corrected Reading (umhos/cm)
Initial
QA/QC
-------
1379Y
Rev. 1: 3/86
JM CASE OF MULTIPLE
Facility
Well No.
Sampling Order
Volume
Date
Time
Personnel
VOA
ID -A* fa
($42-0344
POC
40 Adi
CP44-M&
POX
4V oJL
Ext. Org.
J*L
Mfl-B&l
Pest/Herb
Dioxin
T. Metals
\
TOG
TOX
t -t
Phenols
CN
/J
JDC7-10C3.
NH3/NH4
IJL
S04/C1
IJL
-------
Vcrsaa
•
INC.
SPECIFIC CONDUCTANCE DATA SHEET
Site
Well No.
nnrfO
Date
Time of Sample Collection
Time of Reading
Performed by //(
Temperature (°C)
Uncorrected Reading (umhos/cm)
Correction Factor
Corrected Reading (umhos/cm)
c.s.
Initial
vys
QA'/Qt
Date
Time of Sample Collection
Time of Reading
Performed by /2 i
? I J
At i
Temperature (°C)
Uncorrected Reading (umhos/cm)
Correction Factor f-3~}$3
Corrected Reading (umhos/cm)
1.5.
Initial
W\
QA/QC
Date
/Q
Time of Sample Collection
Time of Reading ,/
Performed by fj (3 Jjut^
a.
7
Temperature (°C)
Uncorrected Reading (umhos/cm) /olS~0
Correction Factor
Corrected Reading (umhos/cm) 21(^7.1 iff
Initial QA/QC
Date
Time of Sample Collection
Time of Reading /Q_
\ .
Performed bv // i-5 Oi
Temperature (°C)
Uncorrected Reading (umhos/cm)
Correction Factor f.2?f
-------
1379Y
Rev. 1: 3/86
COMPLETE IN CASE OF MULTIPLE SAMPLING EVENTS
Facility
Well No.
Sampling Order
VOA
POC
POX
Ext. Org.
Pest /Herb
Dioxin
T. Metals
TOC
TOX
Phenols
NH3/NH4
S04/C1
RadiomiClTdes
Volume
4-0 nJU
4JL
JJt
U-
LL
Date
4/
Time
/Q3HQ34
//07-/HO
/1 11 -/I It
HI8 -HZI
illZ-ltft
Personnel
^L
-------
Versa*
INC
SPECIFIC CONDUCTANCE DATA SHEET
Site
iono
wen NO.
Date
Time of Sample Collection
Time of Reading /(& 4*5
Performed by
Temperature (°C)
aO
2
Uncorrected Reading (umhos/cm)
Correction Factor
70O
Corrected Reading (umhos/cm)
AS.
Initial
QA/QC
Date
so-
Time of Sample Collection
Time of Reading
Performed by
/Z t
J
Temperature (°C)
Uncorrected Reading (umhos/cm)
Correction Factor f.tf/0
Corrected Reading (umhos/cm)
ff.S.
Initial
QA/QC
Date
Time of Sample Collection
Time of Reading
Performed by fy(
/fa MJ.
. 6 °C
Temperature (°C)
Uncorrected Reading (umhos/cm) (0 f)Q
Correction Factor f. ISS T
Corrected Reading (umhos/cm) "7(7.
Initial
QA/QC
Date
Time of Sample Collection
Time of Reading
Performed by
u.
J
Temperature (°C)
/704-
Uncorrected Reading (umhos/cm)
Correction Factor ._/•/% 3
//>
Corrected Reading (umhos/cm)
Initial
QA/QC
-------
1379Y
Rev. 1: 3/86 ».
COMPLETE IN CASE OF MULTIPLE SAMPLING EVENTS
Facility
Well No.
7/y V",
Sampling Order
VOA
POC
POX
Ext. Org.
Pest/Herb
Dioxin
TOC
TOX
Phenols
CN-
NH3/NH4
S04/C1
Radj
ides
Volume
4-Onui
4-U
J-/J
1 7
4 oz
IJf
Date
/0-J/-&
Time
/7//-/7/v3
12L4.
I7Z3-I7
/ 730-1131
17 3 /
Personnel
->^/
' &/!&*<•
-------
Vcrsai
;•
INC.
SPECIFIC CONDUCTANCE DATA SHEET
site
Well No.
Date
Time of Sample Collection
Time of Reading
Performed by //
Temperature (°C)
Uncorrected Reading (umhos/cm)
Correction Factor
Corrected Reading (umhos/cm)
Initial
QA/QC
Date
Time of Sample Collection
Time of Reading
Performed by
Temperature (°C)
Uncorrected Reading (umhos/cm/ ^ /
Correction Factor /.
Q
Corrected Reading (umhos/cm)
Initial
QA/QC
Date
Time of Sample Collection
Time of Reading
Performed by
Temperature (°C)
Uncorrected Reading (umhos/cm)
Correction Factor
Corrected Reading (umhos/cm)
Date
Time of Sample Collection
Time of Reading
Performed by
Temperature (°C)
Uncorrected Reading (umhos/cm)
Correction Factor
Corrected Reading (umhos/cm)
Initial
QA/QC
Initial
QA/QC
-------
1379Y
Rev. 1: 3A36
•COMPLETE IN CASE OF MULTIPLE SAMgfcfNG
Facility
Well No.
Sampling Order
Volume
Date
Time
Personnel
VOA
POC
J36& -
POX
Ext. Org.
4- 11
Pest/Herb
Z-1J.
-/32t>
Dioxin
z- 11
T. Metals
Diss. Metals
-4 oz,
1 1
Phenols
CN-
U
I35/-/3S3
so4/cr
iJL
Radionuclides
-------
Vcrsai
INC.
SPECIFIC CONDUCTANCE DATA SHEET
Site
Well No. &,<5AJtJ£
Date
Time of Sample Collection
Time of Reading
Performed by
y 7.7*6
Temperature (°C)
Uncorrected Reading (umhos/cm) J_
Correction Factor f.
Corrected Reading (umhos/cm)
Initial
QA/QC
Date
/O '
Time of Sample Collection
Time of Reading
Performed by
T7
Temperature (°C)
Uncorrected Reading (umhos/cm)
Correction Factor /.
Corrected Reading (umhos/cm)
as.
Initial
QA/QC
Date
Time of Sample Collection
Time of Reading
Performed by
Temperature (°C)
Uncorrected Reading (umhos/cm)
Correction Factor
Corrected Reading (umhos/cra)
Date
Time of Sample Collection
Time of Reading
Performed by
Temperature (°C)
Uncorrected Reading (umhos/cm)
Correction Factor
Corrected Reading (umhos/cm)
Initial
QA/QC
Initial
QA/QC
-------
1379Y
/
Rev. 1: 3/86
Facility
Well No.
COMPLETE IN CASE OF MULTIPLE SAMPLING EVENTS
Sampling Order
VGA
POC
POX
Ext. Org.
Pest/Herb
Dioxin
T. Metals
Diss-.'-'Ketals
TOC
TOX
Phenols
NH3/NH4
S04/C1'
Volume
40 fid
4-OnJL
J-t
407s
LL
u
IJL
Date
I
Time
I3M-I3&
1353
Personnel
-V
-------
Versa*
•
INC
SPECIFIC CONDUCTANCE DATA SHEET
site
tenop.T)
Well No.
Date
/D 'rJJ -8L>
Time of Sample Collection
Time of Reading
Performed by Q ^
Temperature (°C)
/{a.4-°C-
Uncorrected Reading (umhos/cm)
Correction Factor [.(^G-fT
Corrected Reading (umhos/cm)
0.6.
Initial
ff
QA/QC
Date
_/<2_^
Time of Sample Collection
Time of Reading
Performed by £)
/4-5 2j
z
Temperature (°C)
Uncorrected Reading (umhos/cm)
Correction Factor f. 32 V5
Corrected Reading (umhos/cm)
Initial
QA'/QC
Date
/o -
Time of Sample Collection
Time of Reading
Performed by
Temperature <°C)
Uncorrected Reading (umhos/cm)
Correction Factor
Corrected Reading (umhos/cm)
04.
Initial
QA/QC
Date
Time of Sample Collection
Time of Reading
Performed by
Temperature (°C)
Uncorrected Reading (umhos/cm)
Correction Factor
Corrected Reading (umhos/cm)
Initial
QA/QC
-------
1379Y
Rev. 1: r3/86 .
COMPLETE IN CASE OF MULTIPLE SAMPLING EVENTS
Facility
Well No. £-4 EC,
Sampling Order
VOA
POC
POX
Ext. Org.
Pest/Herb
Dioxin
T. Metals
Dis^^tair^
TOC
TOX
Phenols
ON'
NH3/NH^
S04/C1~
RadipjudtcTide s
Volume
o?" 4DfiJi*
40&JL
lOnJL
4- //
0- //
u
4 oz
H
/j>
If
IJt
IJt
Date
/£-c?m
v
'
-
/n-3>P,t>
1
Time
MlrlfMb
(fto-IMl
152HS3Z
I637-&3&
/53S-iS4b
1343-1543
IS4-5-I54.Z
iS4ir£4$
tf.$6-/553
ts*3-j*s
-------
Vcrsm
INC
SPECIFIC CONDUCTANCE DATA SHEET
Site 0Dfl DID
Well No.
Date
Time of Sample Collection
Time of Reading
Performed by
D
Temperature (°C)
Uncorrected Reading (umhos/cm)
Correction Factor /.J?
Temperature (°C) ^
Uncorrected Reading (umhos/cm)
Correction Factor
Corrected Reading (umhos/cm)
0.S.
Initial
QA/QC
Date
Time of Sample Collection
Time of Reading
Performed by D
Temperature (°C) /4-.Q 6
Uncorrected Reading (umhos/cm)
Correction Factor /-r-"fi
Corrected Reading (umhos/cm)
Initial
QA/QC
Date
Time of Sample Collection
Time of Reading
Performed by
Temperature (°C)
Uncorrected Reading (umhos/cm)
Correction Factor
Corrected Reading (umhos/cm)
Initial
QA/QC
-------
1379Y
Rev. 1: 3/86"
Facility _
Well No. X 3 A/ (L>
Sampling Order
VOA
POC
POX
Ext. Org.
Pest/Herb
Dioxin
T. Metals
Diss. Metals
TOG
TOX
Phenols
CN-
NH3/NH4
so4/ci-
Volume
J.-40/nl
t -4-0 mL
1-4-0 mi
4- i JL
L-U
L-H
'U
±01,
n
a
11
u
a
D<
JH
t
\
J
\
ate
Mb
\
f
1
f
f
Time
J&I5-IW
W-IMJ
m-iut
IkUrIM
lb&-//M
'bZHfol
fol-ltitf
IbU-l&tf
tL4b-lUl
iM-lteQ
1^/ilM
K^'/L^
HaU-ll.rt
Pers
\lhea*
onnel
StiMba
*s
\
\
-------
Vcrsai
INC
SPECIFIC CONDUCTANCE DATA SHEET
site f.nnocn fallins ,MT
Well No.
Date
Time of Sample Collection
Time of Reading Pi £-0
Performed by £LA
j
Temperature (°C)
Uncorrected Reading (umhos/cm) _J_
Correction Factor /. .?/3 5
Corrected Reading (umnos/cm)
Q.S.
Initial
QA/QC
Date
Time of Sample Collection
Time of Reading
Performed by /,.
Qnrir -fr>
Temperature (°C)
Uncorrected Reading (umhos/cm) /4-QQ
Correction Factor
Corrected Reading (umhos/cm) f~r55.$3
Initial
QA/QC
Date
Time of Sample Collection
Time of Reading
Performed by
Temperature (°C)
Uncorrected Reading (umhos/cm)
Correction Factor
Corrected Reading (umhos/cm)
Date
Time of Sample Collection
Time of Reading
Performed by
Temperature (°C)
Uncorrected Reading (umhos/cm)
Correction Factor
Corrected Reading (umhos/cm)
Initial
QA/QC
Initial
QA/QC
-------
1379Y
Rev. 1: 3/36
Facility
Well No.
COMPLETE IN CASE OF
Sampling Order
VOA
POC
POX
Ext. Org.
Pest/Herb
Dioxin
T. Metals
TOG
TOX
Phenols
NH3/NH4
so4/cr
o2 -40toJL
RadiqatKrrTdes
Volume
4+
IJL
U
11
u
u.
Date
&37-/340
Time
131.7 -Btf
&K-I3S1
&4D-/34J
1343-1344
J344
Personnel
f
-------
•
INC.
SPECIFIC CONDUCTANCE DATA SHEET
site
Well No.
ft ILL)
Date
Time of Sample Collection ,
Time of Reading SQ_Q_Q_
Performed by //,
Temperature ('°C)
Uncorrected Reading (umhos/cm)
Correction Factor _ /. ^ 5o el
Corrected Reading (umhos/cm)
Initial
QA/.QC
Date
Time of Sample Collection
Time of Reading
Performed by _ /? L
/03?
Temperature (°C)
Uncorrected Reading (umhos/cm) c20OC)
Correction Factor >.333/
Corrected Reading (umhos/cm)
0.5.
Initial
QA/QC
Date
Time of Sample Collection
Time of Reading
Performed by
Temperature (°C)
Uncorrected Reading (umhos/cm)
Correction Factor
Corrected Reading (umhos/cm)
Date
Time of Sample Collection
Time of Reading
Performed by
Temperature (°C)
Uncorrected Reading (umhos/cm)
Correction Factor
Corrected Reading (umhos/cm)
Initial
QA/QC
Initial
QA/QC
-------
1379Y
Rev. 1: 3A36
COMPLETE IN CASE OF MULTIPLE SAMPLING EVENTS
j
Facility
Well No.
Sampling Order
VOA
POC
POX
Ext. Org.
Pest/Herb
Dioxin
T. Metals
Diss_._JlefeeirS^"
TOG
TOX
Phenols
CN-
NH3/NH4
so4/ci-
Radipaadides
Volume
J-40/tL
40nJU
40nJL
4-t
3*
JJ.
1-f
4oz
//
//
/y
//
/j
Date
/£-J2J-£6
\
•
10-33-^
V
/
Time
///7-//ad
1120-1133-
//JJ-//3-3
IIM-llQ
//33-J/3&
//3(,'//3
-------
NUKIHtKM trtlaUiCLMna nnu ico 11110,
GROUNDWATER WELL INSTALLATION REPORT
Conoco Observation Wells
Well NO.. R-7-WC
84-579
Installed By B- Krueger
Location Northwest of Office
8/15/84'
iject
reject
thod of Installation Drilled to full depth of hole with 61" inside diameter hollowstem augers
staining split sooon samples at-intervals.of about five feet.'Placed pvc pipe, concrete
and and bentonite pellets through augers. A cement-bentom'te grout was placed above the
ntonite pellets if sufficient hole length remained.
LOG OF BORING AND WELL" ~ I
"c.^-
3-s
.0
U.3_
3.4 "
..!"•
4.0 -
.9:
-
BORING
i/) .
2 -t->
Description ' £ °
Oeoth 5*-
FILL, Clay;" Gravelly
SAND, Silty; medium
dense, slightly
moist, with some
silty clay zones (SM
GRAVEL, Sandy; medium
-yGWL (8/22/84)
' dense to very dense
moist to saturated,
poorly graded,
rounded to sub-
•rounded, occasional
clayey sand zones,
trace of silt
(GP-GM).
SHALE, Claystone;
moderately hard,
\ slightly moist,
\ laminated.
^Bottom of Hole
0.0-1.5
1.5-3.0
)3.0-3.5
9
10.0-11.5
13
12
50
075
34
OBSERVA'
Type ot WELL
i
xs^5*'4>
'.,. r.o
L2._LZ*
i3. 2.0
,;, n.7 L
• 3. 5.4
,c. 10.5
L7._L§J.
FION WELL INFORMATION
Groundwater Quality
' —
Vjj.>J
I
•7
I
i
y///t
t
5 _
I
I
6
1
•i
1 w 1 1
WTTT'777'7771
1
•4 ;-;-V
V*.**
i
it
'.V
:,»
i
1
$
i'"
.£
**•
1
f5 \
. ^-Vented Cap
p^S^if^/^'^^'^y-y
— 1 LD. of Riser Pioe 4"
Type of Pipe
Schedule 40 pvc
Type of Backfill Around
Ri5er Concrete
^
N Type of Seal Material
v] Bentonitp Pellets
^
^
1
-'<*• Type of Filler Material
":'j fnnrrp'l'o S^nd
~j SITE of Openings 0-013
•-;:] y b
rtj Diameter of Screened
1 Tip 4"
SJ
1
• i-'-x&Si
\--::--.--~-:---'l
-
Diim^i'er of Boring 12"
marks
*To be installed by Conoco Refinery personnel.
-------
NORTHERN ENGINLLKINli ANU itbllNb, 1NL.
6ROUNDWATER WELL INSTALLATION REPORT
Well NO. R-8-SW
jed
Conoco Observation Wells
Locntinn Southv/est corner of Refinery
8/15/84' .
oject N" 84"579 Installed By B. Krueaer
hod of ln^"""t'"" Drilled to full depth of hole with 61" inside diameter hollowstem
yagers obtaining split sooon samples at intervals of about five feet. Placed PVC pipe.
oncrete sand and.-bentonite pellets through auaers. A cement-bentonite arout was placed
ove the bentonite pellets if sufficient hole length remained.
LOG OF BORING AND WELL
BORING
f
"c.^-
",.£
U.J.
S 1
S.4 -
5.5"
"°0.2
l/l -!-)
Description ' g °
Hpoth ^^
TOPSOIL
CLAY, Silty; stiff,
dry to slightly
moist, low plastic-
ity, trace of sand,
(CD
y-GWL (8/22/84)
GRAVEL, Sandy; medium
dense to very dense
moist to saturated,
rounded to subround-
ed, poorly graded,
some cobbles and
occasional silty
zones, (GP-GM).
SHALE, Claystone; mod
erately hard, sligh
"\ ly moist, laminated
\8ottom of Hole
0.0-1.5
1.5-3.0
3.0-4.5
5.5-7.0
7.0-8.5
10.5-12.0
15.5-16.9
;i9.5-20.2
12
24
18
80
16
73
50
074
50
072
OBSERVAT
Type of WELL
^jxy/t
L,- 1-3
.,. 1-7*
.3- 2'°
,n.16.2
,.. 6.0
,c.15.2
,,,22.5
ION WELL INFORMATION
Groundwater Quality
> — ^
vis-X
I
-7
I
^
MA
L
5 _
I
I
6
W/M
2
I
u»
777777777;
1=
1
* 1
1
i
t>\
•'*
3
1
i.f
•;;r
'*•!
1
v
^-Vented Cop
pi^j^x^^x^'/
~! LD. of Riser Pioe 4"
Type of Pipe Schedule
40 pvc
Type of Backfill Around
Ri
-------
NUKIHtKiX
MHU IC.JIIIHU,
GROUNDWATER WELL INSTALLATION REPORT
. Conoco Observation Wells
'roject No..
84-579
Installed By.
B. Krueger
Well NQ R-9-TEL
Location.^ Northeast corner of TEL Are
Date.
n_ •--• —
8V21/84"
thod of Instollotion Drilled to full depth of hole with 6j" inside diameter hollowstem augers
• obtaining split spoon samples-at intervals of about five feet. Placed PVC pipe, concrete
.sand and bentonite pellets through augers. A cement-bentonite grout was placed'above—
the bentonite pellets if sufficient hole length remained.
LOG OF BORING AND WELL
BORING
o c
^
1.0
0.3
4.0
-
J.O-
in 4->
Description ' g g
Depth s4-
TOPSOIL
CLAY, Silty; firm, dry
to slightly moist,
low plasticity,
trace sand, (CL)
GRAVEL, Sandy; dense
to very dense, dry
-V- GWL.( 8/22/84) to
saturated, subangu-
lar to rounded,
poorly graded, with
some cobbles and
trace of silty
fines (GP-GM)
SHALE, Claystone;
moderately hard,
slightly moist,
-\ laminated, gray.
xBottom of Hole .
5.5-6.5
10.5-12.0
20.0-21.2
50
0.5
48
75
0.7
OBSERVA
Type of WELL
'L,. 2.3
... 4.4*
u' JM ,
,a. 12.4
L).JLJL
TION WELL INFORMATION
Groundwater Quality
>
i
•r
I
v
I
•3 _
I
I
s
•z
3
4
|
\
1
\
\
\
\
i"*'v
•**.t
—
1
•"
#*
i
^-Vented Cap
-I LD. of Riser Pice 4"
1 Tyoe of Pioe Schedule
| 4U pvc
-: Type of Backfill Around
Riser Concrete
N Type of Seal Material
o Bentonite Pellets
N
1
••••~. Type of Filter Material
•V:j Concrete Sand
-^| Size of Openings 0.013"
-..-.I
-^ Diameter of Screened
•iA -.-• d "
v-i Tip 't
1
liff
~ -— r- uiauiL-LCi ur uoriny I c.
marks *To be installed by Conoco Refinery personnel.
-------
GROUNDHATER WELL INSTALLATION REPORT
sject
.Conoco Observation Wells
Well NO..
R-11-PN
84-579
Installed By_LJ^I£L
Location North Site Waste Oil Pits
8/20/84
Drilled to full depth of -hole with 6£" inside diameter hollowstem augers
Project No..
!hod of , .__.
obtaining split spoon samples at intervals of about five feet. Placed pvc pipe, concrete
- sand and bentonjte pellets through augers. A cement-bentonite grout was placed above
the bentonite pellets if sufficient hole length remained.~
LOG OF BORING AND WELL
\-
E.*—
o
O.CL
3 5"
7 P"
/ . 5
10. Q^
BORING
^»
to +J
Description ' § §
Depth ^"-
CLAY, Silty; firm,
moist, with scat-
tered gravels,
hydrocarbon material
L visible, (CL)
\
GRAVEL, Sandy; dense t
very dense, moist to
saturated, poorly
\rtv-arlarl P'./I fQ/99/8£
- graded, unt lo/t^/os
rounded with some
f cobbles, hydrocarbon
material visible and
strong odor, (GP-GM)
SHALE, Claystone; hare
^ slightly moist, lam-
\inated.
Bottom of Hole
o 5.5-5.9
10.5-12.0
21.0-21.7
50
0.'
43
50
07;
OBSERVA1
Type of WELL
L,. 2.5
t'. 11-0,
L«. 1Q.1.
1
"ION WELL INFORMATION
Groundwater Quality
/— -
i.
7
I
•!•
i
s _
i
i
2
_
3
_
"\
\
\
\
\
\
1
< I
i
8
!*','i
Hi*
'*•
K
1- \
^— Vented Cop
— 1 I.D. of Riser Pipe 4"
1 Type of Pipe Schedule
I 40 pvc
-r Type of Backfill Around
Rj5er Concrete
| **Cement Bentonite
1 Grout
^- Type of Seal Motsrinl
\j Bentonite Pellets
\j
\j
$\
.. •:• Type of Filter NiQtericl
•H Size of Openings 0.013"
77] — Diameter of Screened
n np 4-
1
•!*..• *"••—*!
| | Diameter of Boring 12"
•mark * To be installed by Conoco Refinery personnel.
**Five feet cement bentonite grout placed above bentonite pellets.
-------
GROUNDWATER WELL INSTALLATION REPORT '
.Conoco Observation Wells
Well NO.. R-10-SH
Installed py B. Krueger '
Location Southeast corner of Refinery
ject
'reject Mn 84-579
•hod of Installation Drilled to full depth of hole with 6^"-inside diameter hollows tern augers
obtaining split spoon samples at intervals of about five feet. Placed pvc pipe, concrete
sand and bentonite pellets through augers.A cement-bentonite grout v/as placed above
the bentonite pellets if sufficient ho e length remained.
LOG OF BORING AND WELL'
n •-
i.O
- 3.7:
U -
19.6
*•
BORING
VI +-»
Description ' ^ £'
Depth S1*-
TOPSOIL
CLAY, Silty, dry to
saturated, low
plasticity, some
A- GWL (8/22/84) fine
' sand (CL)
GRAVEL, Sandy; dense
to very dense, sat-
urated, poorly
graded, hydrocarbon
odor detected (GP).
SHALE, Claystone
Bottom of Hole
0.0-1.5
1.5-3.0
4.3-5.8
9.3-10.8
15.5-15.7
19.5-19.6
9
28
33
57
50
0.2
sn
0.'
"
OBSERVATION WELL INFORMATION
Tyoe of WELL Groundwater Quality
*'//£&'//}
' i 24
i!. i.o*
t... 2.3
i,. 6.4
L', 19.6
/
y/s?\
i
-7
I
i
W/A
I
5 _
I
I
5
1
1 !
i
i
i
it
»
i
• I
S
P
ti
I.--V-
"**'
','',
y:
ii|i
'>•*
ji;
''^
^-Vented Cap
i l.U. ot hiser ripe 4
Tvoeof Reschedule
40 pvc
Riser Concrete
^
N Type of Seal Material
\J Benfnnifp ppllpts
\j
\r
%vl
"::;•• Type of Filter Material
W Concrete Sand
~i Size of Openings °-013
••:.••!
•~t Diameter of Screened
:i:-i T- d "
'•'•"i ' ' P
&
1
IIS
1 1 Diameter of Boring 12"
marks *To be.Installed bv Conoco Refinery personnel.
-------
CltblliCClMMu nnu i«_jnno,
GROUNOWATER WELL INSTALLATION REPORT
eel
Conoco Observation Wells
Well. NO R-12-PE
84-579
Installed By B. Krueger
Location
Date_8/17/84
East Side Waste Oil Pits
roject No.-
d f I s'ollotion Drilled to full .depth .of hole'with 6J" inside diameter hollowstem augers
obtaining split spoon samples .at intervals of about five feet. Placed pvc pipe, concrete
- sand and bentonjte pellets through augers. A cement-bentomte grout was placed aoove
che bentonite pellets if sufficient hole length remained.
LOG OF BORING AND WELL
BORING
j: .
c.—
" c
-o.o-
-.2"
.0-
3-
16.7
in -t->
Description ' o o
Depth s*-
FILL, CLAY, Silty;
firm, slightly
moist, scattered
gravel and cobbles
(CD
FILL, GRAVEL, Silty;
very dense, dry to
moist, with cobbles
-.\f and concrete (GM) .
GHL (8/22/84) GRAVEL,
Sandy; dense to ven,
dense, saturated,
poorly graded, some
silty fines, sub-
angular to rounded,
hydrocarbon materia
visible and strong
, odor, (GP-GM)
• SHALE, Claystone,
\ soft rock, slightly
\moist, laminated
Bottom of Hole
5.5-6.0
10.5-12.0
15.5-17.4
50
O.J
62
30
OBSERVAT
Type of WELL
•
... 4.7*
ia. 2.9
i,. 10.1.
.,. 18.8
ION WELL INFORf-IATION
Groundwater Quality
r—
vis>v
I
7
1
V
y//A
L
i
I
t
2
I
ft
1
-4 j;"j ;
i
i
P
? — \
^-Vented Cap
•—I LD. of Riser Pipe 4"
Type of Pipe Schedule ..
40 pvc
Type of Backfill Around
piw Concrete
**Cement-Bentonite Grout
^_
^j Bentonite Pellets
kM
\J
^
i:
i::Pj Concrete Sand
i" •.'/•]
'•-^j <~{}fP nf Oppninn^ 0.0 lo
H?-i
•:r-f] Diomeler of Screened
»* V"'J
*•« -«-*4
5S3
.;1:;::-!}
mm
U
1 Diamexer of Boring 12"
,
marks
* To be installed by Conoco Refinery personnel.
- • - - — —
**Two feet of cement-bentonite grout placed above bentonite pellets.
-------
(conoco)
Refining Department
Conoco Inc.
P.O. Box 2548
Billings, Montana 59103-2548
(406) 252-3841
November 26, 1986
Mr. Don Shosky
U. S. Environmental Protection
Agency
P. 0. Box 1846
Denver, Colorado 80201
Dear Mr. Shosky:
In accordance with your request, we have attached a listing of
elevations of refinery groundwater monitoring wells. The listing shows
the elevation of the steel protective cover and the top of the PVC
casing.
If any additional information is desired, please contact Bob Olsen.
Very truly yours,
G. L. Lorimor
Process Superintendent
Billings Refinery
nws
Attachment
cc: Paul LeMire, SWB Helena
Charlie Downs, Houston
RH JDC/RAO
-------
CONOCO INC.
Groundwater Monitoring Wells
Elevation
Well No.
R-l-W
R-2-SC
R-3-NC
R-4-EC
R-5-NNE
R-6-NE
R-7-WC
R-8-SW
R-9-TEL
R-10-SE
R-ll-PN
R-12-PE
:eel Pipe
3114.40
3113.35
3114.96
3113.01
3109.76
3109.35
3111.60
3116.98
3115.60
3110.91
3114.27
3113.32
PVC Casing
3111.77
3105.73
3112.02
3111.51
3108.51
3108.04
3107.79
3112.73
3112.60
3108.28
3111.08
3109.94
-------
I INC
pH CALIBRATION LOG
j
Site flnrtM D
Date /0-,3|-S6? Time
Performed by i3o-<
Instrument:
S£ Digi-Sense Model 5985-20
/
Digi-Sense Model 5986-10
Presto-Tek PA-11A
Cole Parmer pH Wand Model No. 5985-75
Nester pH pen*
Serial Number ' oDD LS A L
lO/ai l%(n Changed buffers in pH kit
Temperature of Buffers (°C)
pH of buffers at measured temperature:
7= 7>0 4=<1Q 10= (0.1
(See Table 3-3)
Calibrated at 7.0 buffer value from Table 3-3.
Readings of other buffers: 4= 3-9 10= 10. /
pH readings must be + 0.2 units from table values for proper operation of
meter.
*Nester pH pens are not temperature compensating instruments. Sample and
buffer temperatures must be equal when using these units.
Procedure performed as per Minimum Standards and Guidelines of Operation,
Process and Wastewater Sampling Standards, Section 3.7.3.
Initial QA/QC
-------
Vcrsai
INC.
I
SPECIFIC CONDUCTANCE CALIBRATION LOG
SITE
DATE
TIME
PERFORMED BY
YSI Model 33 S-C-T Meter
Serial No.
Date of 0.01N KC1 Standard Preparation /Q 15 ~
IO/3 I Changed KC1 solution in Calibration Jar
Measurements
Temperature of Standard (°C) N0-5 Q
Uncorrected Reading (umhos/cm) J { ZQ
Correction Factor
Corrected Reading (umhos/cm)
Calibration Verification
Cell Teat Deflection (umhos/cm)
Cell Constant
NOTES:
_ ., _ , . Corrected Radinq umhos/cm
a. Cell Constant = , .nQ- a ;r~,
1408.8 umhos/cm
b. Cell constant must be between 0.95 and 1.05. If not,
probe is fouled and requires cleaning.
c. Cell test deflection must be <2 percent of uncorrected
reading.
Procedure performed as per Minimum Standards and Guidelines
of Operation, Process and Wastewater Sampling Standards,
Section 3.7.2.
Initial QA/QC
-------
INC
SPECIFIC CONDUCTANCE CALIBRATION LOG
SITE
DATE
TIME
PERFORMED BY
YSI Model 33 S-C-T Meter
Serial No.
Date of 0.01N KC1 Standard Preparation
| Q/3 t Changed KC1 solution in Calibration Jar
Measurements
Temperature of Standard (°C)
Uncorrected Reading (umhos/cm) II 2.Q
Correction Factor I•
Corrected Reading (umhos/cm)
Calibration Verification
Cell Test Deflection (umhos/cm)
Cell Constant
<-
NOTES:
_ ,, „ ^ Corrected Radinq umhos/cm
a. Cell Constant = 1408.8 umhos/cm
b. Cell constant must be between 0.95 and 1.05. If not,
probe is fouled and requires cleaning.
c. Cell test deflection must be <2 percent of uncorrected
reading.
Procedure performed as per Minimum Standards and Guidelines
of Operation, Process and Wastewater Sampling Standards,
Section 3.7.2.
Initial QA/QC
-------
INC
pH CALIBRATION LOG
Site
Date fO-;D-8£ Time
Performed by
Instrument:
Digi-Sense Model 5985-20
Digi-Sense Model 5986-10
Presto-Tek PA-11A
Cole Farmer pH Wand Model No. 5985-75
Nester pH pen*
Serial Number
Changed buffers in pH kit
Temperature of Buffers (°C) /?.
pH of buffers at measured temperature:
. 7=7.0 4=4.0 10s /ft. i
(See Table 3-3}
i/ Calibrated at 7.0 buffer value from Table 3-3.
Readings of other buffers: 4= 3 .^ 10= /Q. .
pH readings must be + 0.2 units from table values for proper operation of
meter.
*Nester pH pens are not temperature compensating instruments. Sample and
buffer temperatures must be eg_uai when using these units.
Procedure performed as per Minimum Standards and Guidelines of Operation,
Process and Wastewater Sampling Standards, Section 3.7.3.
Initial QA/QC
-------
INC
SPECIFIC CONDUCTANCE CALIBRATION LOG
/
SITE .
DATE .
TIME
PERFORMED BY
YSI Model 33 S-C-T Meter
Serial No.
Date of 0.0 IN KC1 Standard Praparation
/Q • o7
-------
Vcrsai
INC
TURBIDITY DATA SHEET
Site
MT
Date & ',
Time
Well No.
Performed by
/.
Standardized on dilution of
Scale O'/OO
Turbidity of Sample*
For Turbidities above 40 NTU:
A. Turbidity of diluted sample
B. Volume of dilution water
C. Sample volume taken for
dilution
NTU
NTU
ml
ml
Date
Time
Well No.
/O
Performed by
Standardized on dilution of
Scale O'/OO
Turbidity of Sample*
For Turbidities above 40 NTU:
A. Turbidity of diluted sample
B. Volume of dilution water
C. Sample volume taken for
dilution
NTU
NTU
ml
ml
Date IQ_
Time
-&
Well No. X? / 60
Performed by /, Bl){ /£.
Standardized on dilution of Q. / NTU
Scale O-/OO
Turbidity of Sample*
For Turbidities above 40 NTU:
A. Turbidity of diluted sample
B. Volume of dilution water
C. Sample volume taken for
dilution
NTU
ml
ml
Date
Time
/O
Well No.
Performed by P.
/,
Standardized on dilution of
Scale O'/OO
Turbidity of Sample*
. /
For Turbidities above 40 NTU:
A. Turbidity of diluted sample
B. Volume of dilution water
C. Sample volume taken for
dilution
NTU
NTU
ml
ml
*For turbidity above 40 NTU use the formula:
Turbidity of Sample =
-------
«€,
in;
INC
TURBIDITY DATA SHEET
Site
Date
Time
Well No.
Performed by
rfft
Standardized on dilution of
n-in
O.I
NTU
Turbidity of Sample* A? ft MTU
For Turbidities above 40 NTU:
A. Turbidity of diluted sample
B. Volume of dilution water
C. Sample volume taken for
dilution
NTU
ml
ml
Date
Time
Well No.
Performed by
Standardized on dilution of
Scale h
0-1
NTU
Turbidity of Sample* /
For Turbidities above 40 NTU:
A. Turbidity of diluted sample
B. Volume of dilution water
C. Sample volume taken for
dilution
//- 0
/Q
NTU
ml
ml
Date
Time
/O -ft?.
Well No. P-7 IOC;
Performed by
/<£ f
Standardized on dilution of
Scale 0- JO
Turbidity of Sample*
/3 h X7
For Turbidities above 40 NTU:
A. Turbidity of diluted sample
B. Volume of dilution water
C. Sample volume taken for
dilution
NTU
NTU
ml
ml
Date
Time
Well No. /?
Performed by
Standardized on dilution of
Scale /)-//)
O,/
NTU
Turbidity of Sample*
For Turbidities above 40 NTU:
A. Turbidity of diluted sample 4-4" NTU
B. Volume of dilution water 7Q ml
C. Sample volume taken for
dilution /O ml
*For turbidity above 40 NTU use the formula:
Turbidity of Sample =
-------
war.
INC
TURBIDITY DATA SHEET
Site
MT
Date
Time <3 / 4 O
Well No.
Performed by
Standardized on dilution of
Scale /)
Turbidity of Sample* /It)
NTU
For Turbidities above 40 NTU:
A. Turbidity of diluted sample 0.7
B. Volume of dilution water
C. Sample volume taken for
dilution
NTU
ml
ml
Date
Time
Well No.
Performed by
Standardized on dilution of
Scale //)- /Q
NTU
Turbidity of Sample*
For Turbidities above 40 NTU:
A, Turbidity of diluted sample
B. Volume of dilution water
C. Sample volume taken for
dilution
ml
ml
Date
Time
Z/-55
Well No
. fi-3
Performed by
Standardized on dilution of /), f NTU
Scale
Turbidity of Sample*
- 9
For Turbidities above 40 NTU:
A. Turbidity of diluted sample o/.
B. Volume of dilution water
C. Sample volume taken for
dilution
NTU
ml
ml
220^
Well No.
Performed
Standardized on dilutionof
Scale
o./
NTU
Turbidity of Sample*
For Turbidit-ies above 4Q
idi
A. Turbidity of diluted
B. Volume of dilution water
Sample volume taken for
dilution
/lot
*For turbidity above 40 NTU use the formula:
Turbidity of Sample = Ax(^'K:)
-------
1 of 3
/ HWGWTF EQUIPMENT CHECKLIST
WELL DEPTH MEASUREMENT INSTRUMENTS
Watermarker water level indicator (Johnson Division VOP)
Serial 1085, Versar 1
Serial 985, Versar 2
Serial 1085, Versar 3
Interface Probe, Model 100 EN/M (Oil Recovery Systems)
Serial 00240
Oil-Water Sonic Interface Probe, Model B-2220-3, 200 Ft (Marine Moisture
Control Co.)
Serial 1523
\/ Lufken Steel Tape
ORGANIC VAPOR AND RADIATION MONITORING EQUIPMENT
Organic Vapor Analyzer, Model OVA-128 (The Foxboro Company)
Serial 40156
Serial 40142
Serial 50111
HNU Photoionizer, Model Pl-101 (HNu Systems Inc)
Serial HNu514
V^ Tip (Photovac Inc)
.Serial T4332
Serial T4248
Survey Meter, Model 44-9 (Ludlum Measurements, Inc)
Serial PR023973
Serial PR023953
-------
2.of 3
HWGWTF EQUIPMENT CHECKLIST
(Continued)
THERMOMETER
NBS standardized Teflon-coated mercury thermometer.
Cat. No. 14-983-17H (Fisher Scientific)
pH METERS
pH Wand, Model 5985-75 (Cole Farmer Instrument Co.)
Serial 40019
Serial 35601
Mini-mite, Model PA 11A (Presto-Tek Corp)
Versar PI
Versar P2
Digisense pH meter. Model.5985-20 (Cole Farmer Instrument Co.)
Serial 206226, Versar D-2
Digisense pH meter, model 5986-10 (Cole Farmer Instrument Co.)
Serial 128640, Versar D-l
pH pen. Part No. 554002 (Nester Instruments)
Serial 8551A Versar N-l
Serial 8551A Versar N-2
Serial 8551A Versar N-3
Serial 8551A Versar N-4
CONDUCTIVITY METERS
S-C-T Meter, Model 33 (Yellow Springs Instrument Co.)
'erial 10908
Serial 10855
Serial 13301
-------
3 of 3
HWGWTF EQUIPMENT CHECKLIST
(Continued)
TURBIDIMETERS
Model 2100A (HACK Company)
Serial V17005
Turbidimeter (H.F.Instruments)
Serial 16666
SOLUTIONS
pH. buffer solution, fisher brand, premixed
cat. no. SO-B-101, 4.00 buffer, Lot »&5333"?"34 exp. date Sfffi
cat. no. SO-B-107, 7.00 buffer, Lot # 6 ^^"34- exp. date
cat. no. SO-B-115, 10.00 'buffer, Lot %${0Qljfflffd4' exo. date Rfb
Conductivity standard prepared on iQ'l
Turbidity standards checked on [Q ')3"oU
-------
a
UJ °
"™3 ^J
- UJ
5 =.
O
a i
cc
2 5
— •
i I
a
Hal
ill
Q
a I
Co
2 I
= 2
i 2
S
o
«,/
<1J
rj
00
I
5 J
ci
0
il
O
rr
nf
-------
*
I 2 5
a = S
s s a
.<§
3
°0
Q
QC
I
1,
331
.
3 M
3 i
\j
" 2
I 2 5
ill ill
I
3 "
1
3 1
2
I
3 -
3 f I
N\
» 5
fe '
3 I I
M
W
I/
Of
0
15
r
a.
S'
r-
$
ri
r-
*\
a
1
5
Oi
w •*
I 2 5
I i i
8 <^
i 2 1
Sis
• I
3
O
00
3 ! I
o
oc
•o
s
at
-9
-^
IT
CTI
-c
J
•>.
N*.
3 §
a
o
3 - ^
. >. s |
* "S 2
rs
8
a
O"
CC
CD
g
^
U)
rt
3 i 1 i
ri
^
•s
1
3 "
or
-------
g-.sd
g Vj
i^
u.
h
0
oc
I 2 I
Q = 5
5*3
rS
2 a 1
: = 5
S J 2
Ul
5
O
Co
3
S
— Q
^•m
S
8
a
C
Hi
£">
r
2
s
•V-
i
3
2
/-a
c-
M
V:
t^
rt
I
O
r-
^
5
s
. N,
n
cr
CO
VO
1
3 i
i
X
3lS
I
6
3 1
»s
Lo
a
A
ri
H
r
rt.
it
N
rr
3
§
o1-
O
FAC
°
x. *•• J»
1
O
3 3 5
<"&
c
J
5 "
S I I 31
f~3
r-
O
CO
3
r-
O
00
r-
no
VO
v^
n
IE
8
ns
vr
IT
cc
- J
1 -1
-------
ll
\
1
3,
s
\J
N
O
X?
N
5 -
3 1
K
4
r*
s
~&c
Ir
rs
CQ
£
rz
&
1
1 -
'II
-J O
-------
I
I
n
&-> EN" «.
*f
00 §a
s
-o
O
3-
I
^
-si
-------
FACILIIV
to
0*U Sent /Q-^>a-8f>>
SHO
yO
10
D4t«
SAMPLE IDENTIFICATION tWUli-wtrcncmx;
_FIEID TEAM Pl^rr/i.S
S«t)
Date Sent
io R-IO-5£
Date Sent JQ-2Z-B6
sin
Uell 10 K / \V
Date Sent
O
lab
Cooler f
Security Seal f
I OMM Lot *
D. heUls
D. Metals-filtrate
Mf}/Mu3
so4/ci-
i
TOC 663n IrJ A M-t i f *.. ~ .
lab
Cooler f
Security Seal f
I Chen lot f
VQA
VDA-OI
Pett./tkrb
77^
lab
Cooler »
Security Seal f
I Chen lot *
vo*
VOA-OI
Pcst./llerb.
Dloxln
i
Lab
Cooler «
Security Seal *
I Chm lot f
VGA
VOA-OI
m. or,.
Pest. /Herb.
Oloxln
-------
^
V
O
-«*-;
45
u
LA
^\
=o
V
en
r
a/
8
^
r^
so
ej
l>
i>
*J
KJ
t
V
±
50
r
6"
OP
\
r*
SJ
CO
«<
£
* r
I £ i
J sffx
73
xn
-J
V
03
cJ
*_>
o
•L
0,
ww
V
£ ft
? E
? ft
03
en
3
O
su
8
O
M«~
?
O
O
S
1
*<
1?
J
-
M
O
f 15
1
•s
I
u
O
3
3)
a
8
Co
a^
O-
V
f I *
- t
f :
e f S 5 m
•- — o _ •—
* - . m R
w — i\ > C
s ° i5\ $2
fTi
f | ft | | S
f sffs
7^
OJ
^>
p r s
? = 8
!5(l
00
G-^
0)
§
" - i
^
~
S
-------
pro
Planning Research Corporation ' 303 East Wacker Drive
Suite 500
Chicago. IL 60601
312-938-0300
February 24, 1987
Mr. Anthony Montrone
Hazardous Waste Ground-Water Task Force (WH-562A)
U.S. EPA
401 M Street, S.W., Room S-6301
Washington, B.C. 20460
Dear Mr. Montrone:
PRC Environmental Management, Inc., is pleased to submit for your review the
final memorandum for QA/QC support of Work Assignment No. 548, entitled
"Evaluation of Quality Control Attendant to the Analysis of Samples from the
CONOCO, Montana Facility."
If you have any questions regarding this submittal, please feel free to contact
us.
Sincerely,
PRC Environmental Management, Inc.
Daniel T. Chow
DTC/klb
Enclosure
cc: Nancy Deck (letter only)
Bruce Bakaysa (letter only)
Barbara Elkus (w/1 copy of report)
Rich Steimle (w/1 copy of report)
Paul Friedman (w/1 copy of report)
Ken Partymiller (w/1 copy of report)
Joarn Middleton (w/1 copy of report)
Shosky (w/1 copy of report)
Gareth Person (w/1 copy of report)
Chuck Hoover (w/1 copy of report)
-------
prc
Planning Research Corporation
303 East Wacker Drive
Suite 500
Chicago. II 60601
312-938-0300
EVALUATION OF QUALITY CONTROL ATTENDANT
TO THE ANALYSIS OF SAMPLES FROM THE
CONOCO, MONTANA FACILITY
FINAL MEMORANDUM
Prepared for
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Waste Programs Enforcement
Washington, D.C. 20460
Work Assignment No.
EPA Region
Site No.
Date Prepared
Contract No.
PRC No.
Prepared By
Telephone No.
EPA Primary Contacts
Telephone No.
548
Headquarters
N/A
February 24, 1987
68-01-7037
15-5480-22
PRC Environmental
Management, Inc.
(Ken Partymiller)
(713) 292-7568
Anthony Montrone/
Barbara Elkus
(202) 382-7912
.. ..
'.?•* V *"-•''*• '.-•-'*•». ^;£:s pf° c '*- -/ ''"*•. i.*..:
Ei s^isio^iiili^yi ti' fcl&&i&3
L N i- U - - -
CONFlDtUI
. 5
-------
MEMORANDUM
DATE: February 20, 1987
SUBJECT: Evaluation of Quality Control Attendant to the Analysis of Samples
from the Conoco, Montana Facility
FROM: Ken Partymiller, Chemist
PRC Environmental Management
THRU: Paul H. Friedman, Chemist*
Studies and Methods Branch (WH-562B)
TO: HWGWTF: Tony Montrone*
Gareth Pearson (EPA 8231)*
Richard Steimle*
Don Shosky, Region VIII
Joan Middleton, Region VI
Chuck Hoover
This memo summarizes the evaluation of the quality control data generated
by the Hazardous Waste Ground-Water Task Force (HWGWTF) contract analytical
laboratories (1). This evaluation and subsequent conclusions pertain to the
data from the Conoco, Montana sampling effort by the Hazardous Waste Ground-
Water Task Force.
The objective of this evaluation is to give users of the analytical data a
more precise understanding of the limitations of the data as well as their
appropriate use. A second objective is to identify weaknesses in the data
generation process for correction. This correction may act on future analyses
at this or other sites.
The evaluation was carried out on information provided in the accompanying
quality control reports (2-3) which contain raw data, statistically transformed
data, and graphically transformed data.
The evaluation process consisted of three steps. Step one consisted of
generation of a package which presents the results of quality control
HWGWTF Data Evaluation Committee Member
-------
procedures, including the generation of data quality indicators, synopses of
statistical indicators, and the results of technical qualifier inspections. A
report on the results of the performance evaluation standards analyzed by the
laboratory was also generated. Step two was an independent examination of the
quality control package and the performance evaluation sample results by
members of the/Data Evaluation Committee. This was followed by a meeting
(teleconference) of the Data Evaluation Committee to discuss the foregoing data
and data presentations. These discussions were to come to a consensus, if
possible, concerning the appropriate use of the data within the context of the
HWGWTF objectives. The discussions were also to detect and discuss specific or
general inadequacies of the data and to determine if these are correctable or
inherent in the analytical process.
Preface
The data user should review the pertinent materials contained in the
accompanying reports (2-3). Questions generated in the interpretation of these
data relative to sampling and analysis should be referred to Rich Steimle of
the Hazardous Waste Ground-Water Task Force.
I. Site Overview
The Conoco facility is an oil refinery near Billings, Montana. The
hazardous waste units at this facility were surface impoundments. The facility
stopped sending wastes to these units in 1982. The impoundments were then
cleaned and the wastes removed and shipped off site. The wastes in the
impoundments presumably included DAF floats, API separator sludges, etc. The
ground water in the area is close to the surface.
Twenty-three field samples including a field blank (MQO938/QO938), an
equipment blank (MQO917/QO917), a trip blank (MQO916/QO916), and two pairs of
duplicate samples (well R-ll-PN, MQO921/QO921 and MQO922/Q0922 and culvert A,
MQO935/QO935 and MQO936/QO936) were collected at this facility. Samples
MQO932/QO932, 933, 934, 935, 936, and 937 were medium concentration ground-
water samples. All other samples were low concentration ground-water samples.
II. Evaluation of Quality Control Data and Analytical Data
1.0 Metals
1.1 Performance Evaluation Standards
Metal analyte performance evaluation standards were not evaluated in
conjunction with the samples collected from this facility.
1.2 Metals OC Evaluation
Total metal matrix spike recoveries were calculated for twenty-three
metals spiked into two low concentration ground-water samples. Sample MQO921
was spiked for all metals except mercury and sample MQO922 was spiked for
mercury only. Nineteen of the twenty-three low concentration metal spike
recoveries were within the data quality objectives (DQOs) for this Program.
The selenium spike recovery was outside DQO with a value of 178 percent and the
iron, magnesium, and manganese spike recoveries were not calculated as the
-------
sample concentrations of these metals were greater than four times the
concentration of the spike. The spike recoveries are listed in Table 3-la of
Reference 2.
Total metal matrix spike recoveries were also calculated for the twenty-
three metals spiked into two medium concentration ground-water samples. Sample
MQO935 was spiked for all metals except mercury and sample MQO936 was spiked
for mercury only. All twenty-three of the medium concentration sample metal
spike recoveries were within DQO. These spike recoveries are listed in Table
3-lb of Reference 2.
The calculable average relative percent differences (RPDs) for all
metallic analytes, except lead in the low concentration matrix, were within
Program DQOs. RPDs were not calculated for some of the metal analytes because
the concentrations of one or more of the metals in the field samples used for
the RDP determination were less than the CRDL.
Required analyses were performed on all metals samples submitted to the
laboratory.
No contamination was reported in the laboratory blanks. The field blank
(MQO938) contained 217 ug/L of total iron. This value is above the iron CRDL
of 100 ug/L.
1.3 Furnace Metals
The graphite furnace metals (antimony, arsenic, cadmium, lead, selenium,
and thallium) quality control was generally acceptable. Several of the
deficiencies are listed below.
The duplicate injection RPD for lead sample MQO921 was outside DQO. All
lead results should be considered semi-quantitative.
The low concentration matrix selenium spike recovery (sample MQO921) was
outside DQO with a recovery of 178 percent. Low level selenium results should
be considered semi-quantitative.
The method of standard addition (MSA) correlation coefficient for cadmium
in sample MQO924 was outside control limits. There was possible interference
in this analysis due to the presence of a large sulfate concentration. Cadmium
results for this sample (MQO924) should not be used.
The date of the thallium analysis was not recorded by the laboratory.
This does not affect the data quality.
Low level (5.3 ug/L, CRDL equals 60 ug/L) antimony contamination was found
in the field blank.
The antimony (sample MQO921) and arsenic (sample MQ0932) spiked sample
recoveries exceeded their calibration range. Spiked sample data for these two
metals in these two samples should be considered qualitative.
Field duplicate RPD results for arsenic in duplicate sample pair
MQ0921/922 were excessive. The comparative precision of the field duplicate
-------
results is not used in the evaluation of sample results. It is not possible to
determine the source of this imprecision. It may be reflective of sample to
sample variation rather than analytical precision. Therefore, field duplicate
precision results are presented for information purposes only.
All arsenic, antimony, and thallium results should be considered
quantitative. Cadmium results, with the exception of results for sample
MQO924, should also be considered quantitative. Cadmium results for sample
MQO924 should not be used due to a poor MSA correlation coefficient. All lead
and selenium results should be considered semi-quantitative.
1.4 ICP Metals
The field blank contained iron contamination at a concentration greater
than the CRDL (200 ug/L). Field blank MQO938 contained 217 ug/L of iron.
Based upon HWGWTF convention, the iron results for samples MQO935 and 936
should be considered qualitative and the iron results for samples MQO930, 933,
and 934 should be considered unusable due to this contamination. Aluminum
contamination of 180, 178, and 174 ug/L (CRDL equals 200 ug/L) was found in th<
field, trip, and equipment blanks. This suggests a common source of
contamination such as the water used for these blanks. This contamination may
be an artifact of the sampling team's preparation or field procedures. It is
not possible to assess whether this contamination affects the aluminum sample
results. Low levels of barium, cadmium, calcium, iron, potassium, and sodium
were also found in one or more of the sampling blanks.
The low level (twice CRDL) linear range checks for chromium, nickel, and
silver had poor recoveries. The low level linear range check is an analysis of
a solution with elemental concentrations near the detection limit. The range
check analysis shows the accuracy which can be expected by the method for
results near the detection limits. The accuracy reported for these elements is
not unexpected. Chromium, nickel, and silver results for all samples were
affected and should be considered to be biased low by approximately 50, 25, and
25 percent, respectively.
Field duplicate RPD results for aluminum, chromium, and iron in duplicate
sample pair MQO921/922 were excessive. The comparative precision of the field
duplicate results is not used in the evaluation of sample results. It is not
possible to determine the source of this imprecision. The poor precision may
be reflective of actual sample to sample variation rather than laboratory
analytical precision. Therefore, field duplicate precision results are
presented for information purposes only.
All aluminum, barium, beryllium, calcium, chromium, cobalt, copper,
magnesium, manganese, nickel, potassium, silver, sodium, vanadium, and zinc
results should be considered quantitative. Iron results, with exceptions
listed below, should also be considered quantitative. The iron results for
samples MQO935 and 936 should be considered qualitative and those for samples
MQO930, 933, and 934 should be considered unusable due to blank contamination.
1.5 Mercurv
All mercury results should be considered quantitative with an acceptable
probability of false negatives.
-------
2.0 Inorganic and Indicator Analvtes
2.1 Performance Evaluation Standard
Inorganic and indicator analyte performance evaluation standards were not
evaluated in conjunction with the samples collected from this facility.
2.2 Inorganic and Indicator Analvte PC Evaluation
The average spike recoveries of all of the inorganic and indicator
analytes, except for TOC in the low concentration matrix spike sample and
chloride and POX in both the low and medium concentration matrix spike samples,
were within the accuracy DQO limits (accuracy DQOs have not been established
for bromide and nitrite nitrogen matrix spikes). The TOC spike recovery was 0
percent (no recovery), the chloride recoveries were 232 (254 on a second
analysis) and 230 (240 on a second analysis) percent, and the POX average
recoveries were 50 and 58 percent. The bromide and nitrite nitrogen spike
recoveries were acceptable with values of 98 and 103 percent in the low
concentration sample and 100 and 107 percent in the medium concentration
sample.
Average RPDs for all inorganic and indicator analytes, when calculable,
were within Program DQOs. The RPDs were not calculated if either one or both
of the duplicate values were less than the CRDL. Precision DQOs have not been
established for bromide and nitrite nitrogen.
Requested analyses were performed on all samples for the inorganic and
indicator analytes.
No laboratory blank contamination was reported for any inorganic or
indicator analyte. Contamination involving TOC and total phenols was found in
the equipment and the trip blanks at levels above CRDL. TOC contamination was
also found in the field blank. These contaminants and their concentrations are
listed in Section 2.3 below, as well as in Section 3.2.4 (page 3-3) of
Reference 2.
2.3 Inorganic and Indicator Analvte Data
No problems were detected with the cyanide, sulfate, bromide, ammonia
nitrogen, and TOX results. All data for these analytes should be considered
quantitative with acceptable probabilities of false negatives.
The holding times for the nitrate nitrogen and nitrite nitrogen analyses
ranged from 24 to 26 days from receipt of samples which is longer than the
recommended 48 hour holding time for unpreserved samples. Due to this, all
nitrate and nitrite nitrogen results should be considered to be semi-
quantitative.
Each of the two chloride matrix spikes was analyzed twice. All of these
chloride matrix spike recoveries were above the DQO limits. The chlorine low
concentration matrix recoveries were 232 and 254 percent and the medium
concentration matrix recoveries were 230 and 240 percent. The chloride results
for all samples should be considered qualitative.
-------
Total phenol contamination was found in the equipment blank (MQO917) and
the trip blank (MQO916) at concentrations .of 52 and 60 ug/L. These values are
above the total phenol CRDL of 10 ug/L. Based upon HWGWTF conventions, all
total phenols results greater than 10 times the highest concentration of total
phenols in the sampling blanks or less than the detection limit are considered
quantitative. Total phenols results for samples MQO916, 917, 918,.925, 926,
930, 935, 936, 937, and 938 should be considered quantitative. All total
phenols results greater than five but less than ten times the highest
concentration of sampling blank contamination are considered qualitative and
all other data are considered unusable. Total phenols results for all samples,
except those mentioned above, should not be used. One of two sets of field
duplicates (MQO921/922) showed poor precision with total phenols concentrations
of 64 and 38 ug/L reported. The comparative precision of the field duplicate
results is not used in the evaluation of sample results. It is not possible to
determine the source of this imprecision. The poor precision may be reflective
of actual sample to sample variation rather than laboratory analytical
precision. Field duplicate precision is reported for informational purposes
only.
Low concentration matrix sample MQO921 was analyzed twice to determine the
TOC matrix spike recovery. Both results, 139 and zero (no recovery) percent,
were outside of control limits. The trip blank (MQO9I6), equipment blank
(MQO917), and field blank (MQO938) contained TOC at a concentrations of 2600,
1800, and 2100 ug/L which are above the CRDL of 1000 ug/L. TOC contamination
exceeding the CRDL has been a recurring problem with HWGWTF sampling blanks.
The source of this problem has not been adequately addressed. It may be due to
high levels of carbon dioxide or charcoal in the water used for the sampling
blanks. Although it is not possible to assess whether this contamination
affects the TOC sample results, as a. HWGWTF convention, all TOC results greater
that ten times the highest field blank concentration or less than the detection
limit should be considered quantitative. All TOC results greater than five but
less than ten times the highest concentration of sampling blank contamination
are considered qualitative and all other data are considered unusable. TOC
results, with the exception of results for samples MQO918, 923, and 924, should
be considered qualitative. TOC results for samples MQO918, 923, and 924 should
not be used due to blank contamination.
Initial and continuing calibration standards for POC were not analyzed. A
POC spike solution was run during the analytical batch but the "true" value of
the spike was not provided by the laboratory. EPA needs to supply the
inorganic laboratory with a POC calibration verification solution. Until then,
the instrument calibration can not be assessed. The POC results should be
considered qualitative.
Two pairs of POX laboratory duplicates (for samples MQ0932 and 936) showed
poor duplicate precision with 25 percent PRD for both pairs. Matrix spike
recoveries for POX samples MQO92I, 934, and 936 were low with recoveries of 10,
68, and zero (no recovery) percent, respectively. POX results should be
considered quantitative except for the results for samples MQ0932, 933, 934,
935, 936, and 937 which should be considered semi-quantitative and the results
for samples MQO919, 920, 921, 922, and 930 which should be considered
qualitative.
-------
3.0 Organics and Pesticides
3.1 Performance Evaluation Standard
Organic performance evaluation standards were not evaluated in conjunction
with the samples collected from this facility.
/
3.2 Organic OC Evaluation
All matrix spike average recoveries, with the exceptions of acenaphthene
in the low concentration matrix sample and toluene, benzene, and heptachlor in
the medium concentration matrix samples were within established Program DQOs
for accuracy. Individual matrix spike recoveries which were outside the
accuracy DQO will be discussed in the appropriate Sections below. All
surrogate spike average recoveries were within DQOs for accuracy.
All matrix spike/matrix spike duplicate average RPDs were within Program
precision DQOs with two exceptions. The average RPDs for heptachlor and aldrin
were greater than DQO. Individual matrix spike RPDs which were outside the
precision DQO will be discussed in the appropriate Sections below. All average
surrogate spike RPDs were within DQOs for precision.
All organic analyses were performed as requested.
Laboratory blank contamination was reported for organics and is discussed
in Reference 3 (for organics) as well as the appropriate Sections below.
Detection limits for the organic fractions are summarized in Reference 3
(for organics) as well as the appropriate Sections below.
3.3 Yolatiles
Quality control data indicate that volatile organics were determined
acceptably. The chromatograms appear acceptable. Initial and continuing
calibrations, tunings and mass calibrations, blanks, matrix spikes and matrix
spike duplicates (with the exception of benzene and toluene), and surrogate
spikes were acceptable.
Estimated method detection limits were CRDL for all samples except QO919
(8.3 times CRDL), 921 (6.2 times CRDL), 922 (7.1 times CRDL), 930 (2.4 times
CRDL), 931 (5.3 times CRDL), 932 (20 times CRDL), 933 (2 times CRDL), 935 (143
times CRDL), 936 (71.4 times CRDL), and 937 (100 times CRDL). Dilution of
these samples were required. The possibility of false negatives is significant
in the more highly diluted samples.
The laboratory blank analyzed on 10/27/86 was analyzed prior to the
continuing calibration standard on instrument 14 and prior to the initial
calibration on instrument 18. This did not affect the results of the data
evaluation.
Acetone was detected in three instrument blanks at concentrations of 12,
6, and 9 ug/L which are near the CRDL of 10 ug/L. Acetone results for samples
Q0919, 920, 921, 925, 926, 927, 928, 929, and 936 were affected and should not
be used. Acetone results were also incorrectly reported on the Form I for
-------
sample QO925. It should have been, but was not, noted on the Form I that
sample QO925 was associated with a laboratory blank containing acetone
contamination.
. The percent recoveries of benzene from the matrix spike and matrix spike
duplicate for sample QO936 and of toluene from the matrix spike duplicate for
sample QO936 were above control limits.
The volatiles data are acceptable. The volatile compound results should
be considered quantitative with the exception of the acetone data for the
samples mentioned above. The negative results for samples QO932, 935, 936, and
937 should be considered unreliable due to an increased probability of false
negative results because of high sample dilution. The probability of false
negative results for all other samples is acceptable.
3.4 Semivolatiles
Initial and continuing calibrations, tuning and mass calibrations, blanks,
holding times, and chromatograms were acceptable for the semivolatiles. Some
problems were encountered with matrix spike/matrix spike duplicate recoveries
and surrogate spike recoveries.
Estimated method detection limits were twice CRDL for all samples except
QO922RE (reanalysis, detection limit 2.6 times CRDL), 930 (200 times CRDL), 932
(40 times CRDL), 933 (40 times CRDL), 935 (10 times CRDL), 936 (10 times CRDL),
and 937 (80 times CRDL). Dilution of these samples were required. The
possibility of false negatives is significant in the more highly diluted of
these samples.
Di-n-butylphthalate contamination was detected in a laboratory blank
(GH006086C21) at a concentration of 2.2 ug/L which is below the CRDL. This
contamination was not reported by the laboratory on their Form IV (Method Blank
Summary) submitted to EPA. It was not noted on Form I that sample QO938 was
associated with a laboratory blank containing di-n-butylphthalate
contamination.
The semivolatile matrix spike compounds were not recovered from sample
QO933MS/MSD due to the 40 fold dilution of the sample. The recoveries of
pentachlorophenol from sample QO920MS/MSD (107 and 119 percent) were above the
DQO of 9 to 103 percent. The pentachlorophenol recoveries were above the DQO
range but as the pentachlorophenol DQO range is very broad, the high recoveries
have only a minor significance. The relative percent difference (RPD) between
the matrix spike and matrix spike duplicate recovery of pyrene in sample
QO920MS/MSD was above DQO.
The surrogate percent recovery for nitrobenzene-DS in sample QO921 was
above DQO. The surrogate percent recoveries for nitrobenzene-D5, 2-
fluorobiphenyl, terphenyl-D14, phenol-D5, 2-fluorophenol, and 2,4,6-
tribromophenol in one or more samples were below their respective DQOs. In
samples Q0930, 932, and 937 all of the surrogate spikes were completely diluted
out during sample preparation. Acid fraction results for sample QO921 should
be considered unreliable due to high acid surrogate recovery. Acid fraction
results for samples QO922/922RE, 928/928RE, 929/929RE, and 931/931RE should be
considered unreliable due to low acid surrogate recoveries.
-------
The semivolatile data are acceptable and the results should be considered
quantitative with the exception of the acid fraction of samples QO921,
922/922RE, 928/928RE, 929/929RE, 931/93IRE which should be considered
unreliable due to poor acid recovery. The probability of false negatives is
acceptable for all samples with the exception of samples QO930, 932, 933, and
937. for these four samples the probability of false negatives is unacceptable
due to raised detection limits caused by dilution.
3.5 Pesticides
The initial and continuing calibrations, blanks, holding times, and
chromatograms for pesticides were acceptable. Some matrix and surrogate spike
recoveries were outside control limits.
Estimated method detection limits are CRDL for all samples except QO930
(400 times CRDL), 932 (10 times CRDL), 933 (11 times CRDL), and 936 (2 times
CRDL).
The matrix spike and matrix spike duplicate recoveries and their RPD for
heptachlor in sample QO936 are all above control limits. The matrix spike
duplicate recovery and the RPD for aldrin in sample QO936 are above control
limits.
Dibutylchlorendate was not recovered from the surrogate spikes for samples
QO930, 932, and 933 as it was diluted out in the preparation of these samples.
Many of the sample chromatograms contained non-pesticide HSL
contamination. Additionally, a peak was present at an elution time of
approximately 17 minutes on pack 07 which has also been present in past cases.
The presence of aldrin, heptachlor, and heptachlor epoxide were confirmed
by GC/EC but not by GC/MS in sample QO930 although they were present at high
concentrations (300 to 810 ug/L). This indicated that unknown compounds are
eluting at the same retention times. Pesticide target compounds were also
detected by GC/EC but not confirmed by GC/MS in samples QO929, 930, 935, 936,
937. The pesticide analyses must be considered suspect because the GC/MS does
not confirm the GC/EC results. It is possible that pesticide-like compounds
may be present at this facility.
The pesticides positive results should be considered qualitative. There
is an enhanced probability of false negatives (unrecovered pesticides in the
sample) based upon the inability of the GC/MS method to confirm the presence of
pesticides or pesticide-like compounds.
-------
III. Data Usability Summary
4.0 Graphite Furnace Metals
Quantitative: /
Semi-quantitative:
Unusable:
4.1 ICP Metals
Quantitative:
Qualitative:
Unusable:
4.2 Mercurv
all arsenic, antimony, and thallium results plus the
cadmium results with the exception listed below
all lead and selenium results
cadmium results for sample MQO924
all aluminum, barium, beryllium, calcium, chromium, cobalt,
copper, magnesium, manganese, nickel, potassium, silver,
sodium, vanadium, and zinc results and iron results with
the exceptions listed below
iron results for samples MQO935 and 936
iron results for samples MQO930, 933, and 934
Quantitative: all mercury results
4.3 Inorganic and Indicator Analvtes
Quantitative:
Semi-quantitative:
Qualitative:
Unusable:
4.4 Organics '
Quantitative:
Unreliable:
all cyanide, sulfate, bromide, ammonia nitrogen, and TOX
results; total phenols results for samples MQO916, 917,
918, 925, 926, 930, 935, 936, 937, and 938; POX results
with exceptions
all nitrate and.nitrite nitrogen results; POX results for
samples MQO932, 933, 934, 935, 936, and 937
all chloride and POC results; TOC results with exceptions;
POX results for samples MQO919, 920, 921, 922, and 930
total phenols results with the exceptions listed above; TOC
results for samples MQO918, 923, and 924
all positive volatiles results; positive semivolatile
results with the exceptions listed below
semivolatile acid fraction results for samples QO921,
922/922RE, 928/928RE, 929/929/RE, and 931/93IRE; all
pesticides results
-------
IV. References
I. Organic Analyses: CompuChem Laboratories, Inc.
P.O. Box 12652
3308 Chapel Hill/Nelson Highway
i Research Triangle Park, NC 27709
- (919) 549-8263
Inorganic and Indicator Analyses:
Centec Laboratories
P.O. Box 956
2160 Industrial Drive
Salem, VA 24153
(703) 387-3995
2. Draft Quality Control Data Evaluation Report (Assessment of the Usability
of the Data Generated) for site 35B, Conoco, Montana, 1/13/1987, Prepared by
Lockheed Engineering and Management Services Company, Inc., for the US EPA
Hazardous Waste Ground-Water Task Force.
3. Draft Inorganic Data Usability Audit Report and Draft Organic Data Usability
Report, for the Conoco, Montana facility, Prepared by Laboratory Performance
Monitoring Group, Lockheed Engineering and Management Services Co., Las Vegas,
Nevada, for US EPA, EMSL/Las Vegas, 1/13/1987.
-------
V. Addressees
Anthony Montrone
Hazardous Waste Ground-Water Task Force, OSWER (WH-562A)
US Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street S;W.
Washington, DC 20460
Gareth Pearson
Quality Assurance Division
US EPA Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory - Las Vegas
P.O. Box 1198
Las Vegas, Nevada 89114
Richard Steimle
Hazardous Waste Ground-Water Task Force, OSWER (WH-562A)
US Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street S.W.
Washington, DC 20460
Joan Middleton
US Environmental Protection Agency
1201 Elm Street
Dallas, TX 75270
Don Shosky
US Environmental Protection Agency
1860 Lincoln Street
Denver, CO 80295
Paul Friedman
Characterization and Assessment Division, OSW (WH-562B)
US Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street S.W.
Washington, DC 20460
Chuck Hoover
Laboratory Performance Monitoring Group
Lockheed Engineering and Management Services Company
P.O. Box 15027
Las Vegas, Nevada 89114
-------
APPENDIX G
-------
Robert Holtamith Conoco Inc.
Manager P.O. BOX 2S48
Billings Refinery Billings. MT 59103-2548
North American Refining (406) 255-2551
February 20, 1987
Mr. Paul Lemire ' - ••
Department of Health and
Environmental Sciences
Solid Waste Bureau
Cogswell Building, Room B-201
Helena, MT 59620
Dear Mr. Lemire:
Please find enclosed analytical results for ground water samples
obtained at the Billings Refinery during the visit by the USEPA Ground
Water Task Force. A copy of the QA/QC report from Rocky Mountain
Analytical Laboratory is also included.
Very truly yours
G. L. Lorinor
jah
Enc
-------
2-A
c:
-N-
n
PROPERTY EOUNDRY 2812 FT.
'SLUDGE STORAGE TANK
API OILY SLUDGE FIT
API SEPARATOR 1
ALKY SEPARATOR
NO. 1 BIO-W<=
POND ,
NO. 2 BIO POND
BOILERHOUSE
SLOWDOWN FOND
PROCESS AREA
DIVERSION FOND
TANK FARM
STORM WATER
POND
AREA
LANDRLL
EMERGENCY
DIVERSION POND
AREA 2
ALKY LA
OPEN SLUDGE ,
PIT AREA I
« R1-W
R8-SW
6
R3-NC
AREA 4 — 9-
LANDFiLL
-
. -
y—TEL TREATING -
jl AREA / X
R9-TE' / ' L
R2
6>
R11-FN R12-FE
R4-EC
AREA 3
.AND FARM
-SC R10-SE
<9' ®
r
NDFiLL
u.
in
CM
03
z
CQ
OJ
0
a.
UNIT
HOLDING POND NO. 1
HOLDING-FOND-NO. 2
LEGEND
I I PRESENT
[I"] PAST
® MONITORING WELL
PROPERTY 8OUNDRY 1470 FT.
WASTE WATER TREATING SYSTEM AND
SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT UNIT LOCATION MAP
SCALE: 1d=400'
Cconoco)
CONOCO INC.
REFINERY NO. 5
EILLfNGS. MT.
EPA I. D. NO.
-------
c
cky Mountain Analytical Laboratory
KMA Sample No.
62288-01
62288-02
62288-03
62288-04
62288-05 •
62288-OS
62288-07
62288-08
62288-09
SAMPLE DESCRIPTION INFORMATION
for
/ Northern Engineering and Testing, Inc.
Samole Description Sample Type
FAC 1
FAC2
-• TAG 3 '
FAC 4
FAC 5
FAC 7
FAC 8
FAC 9
FAC 10
Groundwater
Groundwater
— Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater
• - Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater
Date Samoled
10/22/86
10/21/86
" 10/21/86
10/21/86
10/22/86
10/22/86
10/22/86
10/22/86
10/23/88
Date Received
10/24/86
10/24/86
10/24/86
10/24/86
10/24/86
10/24/86
10/24/86
10/24/86
10/28/86
December 31, 1986
-------
ANALYTICAL RESULTS
for
Northern Engineering and Testing, Tnc
INORGANIC PARAMETERS
Parameter
Total Organic Carbon
Total Organic Halogen
Purgeable Organic Carbon
Purgeable Organic Halogen
Parameter
Total Organic Carbon
Total Organic Halogen
Purgeable Organic Carbon
Purgeable Organic Halogen
Parameter
Total Organic Carbon
Total Organic Halogen
Purgeable Organic Carbon
Purgeable Organic Halogen
Units
mg/L 15
tigCf/L 2970
mg/L ND
ugCf/L ND
Units
mg/L 12
ugCf/L 28
mg/L ND
ugCl"/L ND
Units
mg/L ND
ugCf/L 5
' mg/L ND
ugCl7L ND
(V/^ tu&
Z-4,-£iJ £.-/*-/"£-' ^-H-S/J £.-}&-£
62288-01
(0.1)
(5)
(0.1)
(50)
Jg-J-iJ
62288-05
(O.I)
(5)
(0.1)
(50)
62288209
(0.1)
(5)
(0.1)
(50)
69
1840
2.
1900
26
124
0.
90
stStL-,
62288-02
(0.1)
(5)
9 (0.1)
(50)
>^-//^
62288-06
(0.1)
(5)
1 (0.1)
(50)
44
1510
1
1280
170
293
3
256
62288-03
(0.1)
(5)
.2 (0.1)
(50)
&-&-^
-------
for
Northern Engineering and Testing, Inc.
TUSK/NEUTRAL ORGANICS
62288-02
Parajneter Units 62288-01
Anthracene
Denzo(a)anthracene
Denzo(b)fluoranthene
D(jnzo(j)fluoranthene*
Donzo(k)fluoranlhene
Henzo(a)pyrene
Dis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Dutylbenzyl phthalate
Chrysene
Dibenz(a,h)acrldlne*
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene
Dl-n-butyl phthalate
o-Dlchlorobenzene
m-Dichlorobenzene
p-Dichlorobenzene
Dlethyl phthalate
V,12-Dlmethylbenz(a)anthrncene
Dimethyl phthalate
Dl-n-octyl phthalate
l-'luoranthene
Indcne
Methyl chrysene*
1-Mcthylnaphthalene
Naphthalene
I'honanthrcne
Pyrene*
1'yrldine
Quinoline
*Not recovered consistently using Method 8270, or no analytical standard available.
DDL = Below detection limits. ND = Not detected. Detection limits In parentheses.
G2288-03
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
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
DDL
BDL
DDL
ND
DDL
DDL
BDL
DDL
DDL
ND
DDL
DDL.
BDL
DDL
DDL
DDL
DDL
DDL .
BDL
BDL .
BDL
ND
DDL
DDL
DDL
DDL
DDL
DDL
(12)
(12)
(12)
—
(12)
(12)
(12)
(12)
(12)
—
(12)
(12)
(12)
(12)
(12)
(12)
(12)
(12)
(12)
(12)
(12)
—
(12)
(12)
(12)
(12)
(25)
(12)
BDL
DDL
DDL
ND
BDL
DDL
15
BDL
BDL
ND
BDL
BDL
BDL
DDL
DDL
DDL
DDL
DDL
DDL
DDL
BDL
ND
G3
59
BDL
BDL
DDL "
BDL
(15)
(15)
(15)
—
(15)
(15)
(15)
(15)
(15)
—
(15)
(15)
(15)
" (15)
(15)
(15)
(15)
(15)
(15)
(15)
(15)
—
(15)
(15)
(15)
(15)
(30)
(15)
DDL
BDL
BDL
ND
DDL
DDL
DDL
BDL
BDL
' ND
BDL
BDL
BDL
DDL
DDL
DDL
DDL
DDL
DDL
DDL
BDL
ND
45
20
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
(15)
(15)
(15)
—
(15)
(15)
(15)
(15)
(15)
—
(15)
(15)
(15)
(15)
(15)
(15)
(15)
(15)
(15)
(15)
(15)
—
(15)
(15)
(15)
(15)
(30)
(15)
SO
62288-04
BDL
BDL
DDL
ND '
BDL
DDL
DDL
BDL
BDL
ND
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
DDL
BDL
DDL
DDL
DDL
ND
BDL
DDL
BDL
BDL
DDL
BDL
(10)
(10)
(10)
—
(10)
(10)
(10)
(10)
(10)
—
(10)
(10)
(10)
(10)
(10)
(10)
(10)
(10)
(10)
(10)
(10)
—
(10)
(10)
(10)
(10)
(20)
(10)
4
-------
ANALYTICAL U
for
Northern KnginccrlnK nncl Testing, Inc.
ACID ORGANICS
Parameter
Benzenethiol*
o-Cresol
p & m-Cresol
2,4-Dimethylphenol
2,4-Dlnltrophenol
4-Nltrophenol
Phenol
Units
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
62288-01
ND
BDL
RDL
HDL
DDL
BDL
DDL
02)
(12)
(12)
(62)
(G2)
(12)
62288-02
ND
15
IfiO
DDL
HDL
DDL
45
(15)
(15)
(15)
(75)
(75)
(15)
fi2288-03
ND
DDL
BDL
BDL
DDL
DDL
DDL
(15)
(15)
(15)
(75)
(75)
(15)
62288-04
ND
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
(10)
(10)
(10)
(50)
(50)
(10)
VOLATILE ORGANICS
Parameter
Benzene
Carbon dlsulfide
Chlorobenzene
Chloroform
1,2-Dibromoelhane
1,2-Dichloroe thane
1,4-Dloxane
Methyl ethyl ketone
Styrene
Ethyl Benzene
Toluene
Xylene.m
Xylenes,o It p
Units
(52288-01
ug/L
ug/L
UG/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ng/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
(5)
(5)
(5)
(5)
(5)
(5)
(100)
(50)
(5)
(5)
(5)
(5)
(5)
12
BDL
BDL
15
BDL
19
DDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
62288-02
(5)
(5)
(5)
(5)
(5)
(5)
(100)
(50)
(5)
(5)
(5)
(5)
(5)
*Not recovered consistently using Method 8270, or no analytical standard available.
HDL = Below detection limits. ND = Not detected. Detection limits in parentheses.
62288-03
130
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
16
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
27
BDL
22
(12)
(12)
(12)
(12)
(12)
(12)
(250)
(130)
(12)
(12)
(12)
(12)
(12)
62288-04
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
(5)
(5)
(5)
(5)
(5)
(5)
(100)
(50)
(5)
(5)
(5)
(5)
(5)
-------
for
Northern Engineering and Testing Tnc.
Units
62288-05
nASK/MEUTRAL OUfiANICS
Parameter
Anihraoene
Den2o(a)anthracene
Denzo(b)fluoranthene
Dcnzo(j)fluoranthene*
Oouzo(k)fluoranthcne
ncnzo(a)pyrene
Dis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Dulylbenzyl phthalate
Chrysene
Dibenz(a,h)acridine*
Dlbcnz(a,h)anthrncene
Di-n-butyl phthalate
o-Dlchlorobenzene
m-Dichlorobenzene
p-Dichlorobenzene
Dieihyl phthalate
7,1 '2 -Dimethyl be nz(a)anthracene
Dimethyl phthalate
Di-n-octyl phthalate
Fhioranthene
Indene
Methyl chrysene*
1-Melhylnaphthalene
Naphthalene
Phenunthrene
Pyrene*
Pyridine
Quinoline
*Not recovered consistently using: Method 8270, or no analytical standard available.
uff/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
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
DDL
DDL
DDL
ND.
DDL
DDL
DDL
DDL
DDL
ND
DDL
DDL
DDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
DDL
DDL
DDL
DDL
DDL'
ND
BDL
BDL
DDL
BDL
DDL
DDL
(10)
(10)
(10)
—
(10)
(10)
(10)
00)
(10)
•___
(10)
(10)
(10)
(10)
(10)
(10)
(10)
(10)
(10)
(10)
(10)
(10)
(10)
(10)
(10)
(20)
(10)
L,
62288-06
DDL
DDL
DDL
ND
DDL
DDL
DDL
DDL
DDL
ND
DDL
DDL
DDL
DDL
DDL
DDL
DDL
DDL
DDL
DDL
BDL
ND
DDL
DDL
DDL'
DDL.
DDL \
DDL v
(10)
(10)
(10)
—
(10)
(10)
(10)
(10)
(10)
—
(10)
(10)
MO)
(10)
(10)
(10)
(10)
(10)
(10)
(10)
(10)
—
(10)
(10)
(10)
(10)
(20)
(10)
DDL
DDL
BDL
ND
DDL
DDL
DDL
DDL
DDL
ND
DDL
DDL
DDL
BDL
DDL
DDL
DDL
DDL
DDL
DDL
BDL
ND
DDL
DDL
BDL
BDL
DDL
DDL
V
62288-07
(1500)
(1500)
(1500)
—
(1500)
(1500)
(1500)
(1500)
(1500)
—
(1500)
(1500)
(1500)
(1500)
(1500)
(1500)
(1500)
(1500)
(1500)
(1500)
(1500)
—
(1500)
(1500)
(1500)
(1500)
(3000)
(1500)
,
BDL
BDL
BDL
ND
BDL
BDL
13
BDL
BDL
ND
BDL
DDL
DDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
DDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
ND
72
14
12
BDL
DDL
DDL
J
62288-08
(10)
(10)
(10)
.*
(10)
(10)
• do)
(10)
(10)
—
(10)
(10)
(10)
(10)
(10)
(10)
(10)
(10)
(10)
(10)
(10)
(10)
(10)
(10)
(10)
(20)
(10)
DDL = Below detection limits. ND = Not detected. Detection limits In parentheses.
-------
ANALYTICAL RESULTS
for
Northern Hnglnccrlng nnd Testing! Inc.
ACID OnflANICS
Parameter.
nenzenethiol*
o-Cresol
p & m-Cresol
2,4-Dlmethylphenol
2,4-Dinitrophenol
4-NHrophenol
Phenol
Unjts
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
»g/L
ug/L
ug/L
/- /
62288-05
ND
FJDL
HDL
HDL
DDL
DDL
HDL
(10)
(10)
(10)
(50)
(50)
(10)
62288-06
62288-07
62288-08
ND
DDL
DDL
DDL
DDL
DDL
DDL
...
(10)
(10)
(10)
(50)
(50)
(10)
ND
14000
21000
8200
DDL
BDL
27000
(1500)
(1500)
(1500)
(7500)
(7500)
(1500)
ND
16
20
BDL'
DDL
DDL
16
(10)
(10)
(10)
(50)
(50)
(10)
VOLATILE ORGANTCS
Parameter
Denzene
Carbon disulfide
Chlorobenzene
Chloroform
1,2-Dibromoelhane
1,2-Dichloroe thane
1,4-Dioxane
Methyl ethyl ketone
Styrene
Ethyl Denzene
Toluene
Xylene.m
Xylenes,o & p
Units
ng/L
ug/L
ug/L
ng/L
u(j/L
ug/L
ug/L
ng/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
DDL
DDL
DDL
DDL
DDL
13
DDL
54
DDL
DDL.
DDL
DDL
DDL
.62288^05
(5)
(5)
(5)
(5)
(5)
(5)
(100)
(50)
(5)
(5)
(5)
(5)
(5)
62288-00
DDL
DDL '
DDL
DDL
DDL
DDL
DDL
DDL
DDL
DDL
DDL
DDL .-
DDL
(5)
(5)
(5)
(5)
(5)
(5)
(100)
(50)
(5)
(5)
(5)
(5)
(5)
62288-07
62288-08
130
DDL
DDL
DDL
DDL
DDL
DDL
DDL
DDL
fil
270
250
300
(35)
(35)
(35)
(35)
(35)
(35)
(700)
(350)
(35)
(35)
(35)
(35)
(35)
DDL
DDL
BDL '
DDL
BDL
DDL
DDL
DDL
DDL
DDL .
DDL
DDL
DDL
(5)
(5)
(5)
(5)
(5)
(5)
(100)
(50)
(5)
(5)
(5)
(5)
(5)
*Not recovered consistently using Method 8270, or no analytical standard available.
DDL = Delow detection limits. ND = Not detected. Detection limits In parentheses.
-------
for
Northern ftnglnccrinK nnd Testing, Inc.
Units
62288-09
HASR/NEUTRAL ORCSANICS
Parameter
Anthracene
nenzo(a)anthrncene
Denzo(b)nuoranthene
Hen!do(j)riuoranlhene*
Denzo(k)fluoranthene
Ilenzo(a)pyrene
Uis(2-cthylhexy])phthalate
Dutylbenzy) phthnlate
Chrysene
Dibenz(a,h)acridine*
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene
Di-n-butyl phthalate
o-Dichlorobenzene
m-Dichlorobenzene
p-Dichlorobenzene
DIethyl phthalate '
7,12-D!methylbenz(a)anthracene
Dimethyl phthalate
Dl-n-octyl phthalute
Fluoranthene
Indene
Methyl chrysene*
1-Mcthylnaphthalene
Naphthalene
Phenanthrene
Pyrene*
I'yridine
Qninollne
•*Not recovered consistently using Method 8270, or no analytlcnl standard available.
DDL = Delow detection limits. ND = Not detected. Detection limits In parentheses.
8
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
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
DDL
DDL
DDL
, ND
DDL
DDL
DDL
DDL
DDL
'ND.
DDL
DDL
DDL
DDL
DDL.
DDL
DDL
DDL
DDL
DDL
DDL
DDL
DDL •
DDL
DDL
DDL
DDL
DDL
(10)
(10)
(10)
—
(10)
(10)
(10)
(10)
(10)
. —
(10)
(10)
(10)
(10)
(10)
(10)
(10)
(10)
(10)
(10)
(10)
—
(10)
(10)
(10)
(10)
(20)
(10)
-------
ANALYTICAL IlIiSULTS
for
Nmjhgnijgnprjnccrlnfr and Testing, Inc.
ACID ORGANICS
Parameter
Benzencthiol*
o-Cresol
p & m-Cresol
2,4-Dimethylphcnol
2,4-Dinitrophenol
4-Nitrophenol
Phenol
VOLATILE ORGANTCS
Parameter
Benzene
Carbon disulfide
Chlorobenzene
Chloroform
1,2-Dlbromoe thane
1,2-Dlc hi oroe thane
1,4-Dioxane
Methyl ethyl ketone
Styrene
Ethyl Benzene
Toluene
Xylene.m
Xylenes,o i!c p
*Not recovered consistently using: Method 8270, or no analytical standard available.
BDL = Below detection limits. ND = Not detected. Detection limits In parentheses.
Units
u(j/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
\lg/L
Units
ug/L
ug/L
u(j/L
ug/L
uU/Ij
ii(j/L
ug/I-.
ug/L
UGf/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
tig/L
ND
DDL
HDL
BDL
! BDL
' BOL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
79
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
62288-09
_....
(10)
(10)
(10)
(50)
(SO)
(10)
62288-09
(5)
(5)
(5)
(5)
(5)
(5)
(100)
(50)
(5)
(5)
(5)
(5)
(5)
-------
aO'rthem
.ngineering
and Testing. Inc.
c
<5OO South 25th Street
P. Q Sox 3O615
BHlings. MT 591O7
(4O6) 248-9161
REPORT TO:
CONOCO, INC.
ATTN: MR. BOB OLSEN
P 0 BOX 2543
BILLINGS MT 59103
DATE: November 24, 1986
JOB NUMBER: 82-914
SHEET: j OF 3
INVOICE NO.: 46254
REPORT OF: Groundwater Analysis - RCRA
Sample Identification: . .
On the dates indicated below, these water samples-were delivered to our
laboratory for analysis. Tests were conducted in accordance with the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency Manual EPA 600/4-79-020, "Methods for
Chemical Analysis of Water and Wastes." The results of the analysis are
shown on the following pages. A < sign indicates less than the reported
value was present in the sample. .
Reviewed
-.
-n. ft
rmr
AS
roCUE*rs rK,t»U3liCiNOCUi»^£l.vES At
NfS CCNCtuSiOiS OP £«••»*.-:•; f»O»» 0»
, — UOI t Tf n UNLESS Of M6aiBP»NCE MEN IS
3U6Mlir£0»-> r
OUH
*CSEEO TO IN
«.0»uf
-------
-------
c
Northern Engineering & Testing, Inc.
c
Water Analysis
Conoco, Inc.
November 24, 1986
Job No. 82-914
Sheet 3 of 3
* TEST RESULTS:
Lab No.:
Identification:
Date Sampled:
Date Received:
All in ma/1
Ammonia as N
Calcium as Ca.
Chloride as Cl
Cyanide as CN
Fluoride as F
Magnesium as Mg
Nitrate-hNi trite as N
Phenols
Potassium as K
Sodium as Na
Solids, as %
Sulfate as SC>4
87129- '
FAC8
10/22/86
10/22/86
0.55
12
118
0.870
' 1.15
18
0.41
S8.4
<1
1000
0.27
446 .
87130
FAC9
10/22/86
10/22/85
0.86
363
704
fl.082
3.14
• • 207
0.47
<0.005
90
, 511
0.40
- 1140
87131
FAC10
10/23/86
10/24/86
<0.2
<1-
2
<0.010
<0.10
<1
<0.05
<0.005
<1
<1
<0.01
6 - -,
Total Organic Carbon*
Total Organic Halogens*
Trace Elements, Total, mg/1
Aluminum as Al . 0.2
Antimony as Sb <0.05
Arsenic as As • 0.140
Barium as Ba • <0.1
Beryllium as Be -— <0.005
Cadmium as Cd <0.005
Chromium as Cr 0.04
Cobalt as Co <0.05
Copper as Cu <0.02
Iron as Fe 0.66
Lead as Pb <0.02
Manganese as Mn ' 0.17
Mercury as Hg <0.0005
Nickel as Ni 0.02
Selenium as Se <0.005
Silver as Ag <0.02
Vanadium as V <0.2
Zinc as Zn '
-------
c
Rocky Mountain Analytical Laboratory
4955 Yarrow Street. Arvada. CO 80002 (303)421-6617
PC'
•December 19, 1986 •;•"•"":.
Debbie Grumm
Northern Engineering1 and Testing, Inc.
P.O. Box 30615
Billings, MT 59107
Dear Debbie:
Enclosed is the QA/QC report for RMA project 62288.
Please do not hesitate to call if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Brian J. Rahn
Project Coordinator
BJR/brm
Enclosures
RMAL #62288
A DIVISION OF
ENSECO
INCORPORATED
-------
C 0
jcky Mountain Analytical Laboratory
Project 62288
12/16/86 .
Volatile Organic Analysis.- VGA's
a.) Blank: Two blanks of carbon filtered water were analyzed with the
samples. Compounds found in the blanks are listed below along with their
concentrations and detection limits.
Blank 1 Blank 2 Detection
Compound 11/19/86 11/23/86 Limit ug/L
Ethylbenzene " ND 1.0 5
Styrene ND 0.9 5
m-xylene ND 1.0 5
b.) Surrogate Spikes: Percent recoveries for the VOA's are listed below.
< % Recoveries >
Toluene-d8 Bromofluorobenze " 1,2rDichldroethane-d4
Sample $ (82-120) (63-149) . (73-130)
62288-01 101 98 93
62288-02 88 ' 111 ' 115
62288-03 100 102 108
62288-04 105 , 96 95
62288-05 104 99 .98
62288-06 103 ' 99 108
62288-07 97 102 109
62283-08 98 104 118
62288-09 101 100 ' 109
Blank 1 102 98 103
Blank 2 93 110 ' • 117
Q.C.' Limits in parentheses are taken from a historical database of
refinery samples analyzed at RMAL.
-------
c
c
jcky Mountain Analytical Laboratory
Project 62288
12/16/86-
Base/Neutral/Acid Extractables - BNA'S
a.) Blank: Two blanks of carbon filtered water were analyzed with the sample
Compounds found in the blanks are listed below with their concentrations.-.
Compounds
Bis(2-Ethylhexyl)pthalate
Blank 1
'10/28/86
4.7
Blank 2
10/29/86
5.4
Detection
Limit ug/L
10
b.) Surrogate Spikes: Percent recoveries for the BNA's are listed below.
Sample $
Nitrobenzene-d4 2-Fluorobiphenyl Terphenyl-dl4 Fyrene-dlO
(24-135) (13-121) (10-161) (10-186)
62288-01
62288-02
62288-03
62288-04
62288-05
62288-06
62288-07
62288-08
62288-03 Dupe
62288-09
Blank 10/28/86
Blank 10/29/86
Sample
83
83
76
78
84
73
*
84
• 94-
82
79
82
80
78
75
82
84
79
*
82
81
84
81
84
72
22
. 35
80
-95
26
*
23
26
92
99
98
88
47
52
109
113
... 42
*
40
35
100
106
106
62288-01
62288-02
62288-03
62288-04
62288-05
62288-06
62288-07
62288-03
62288-08 Dupe
62288-09
Blank 10/28/86
Blank 10/29/86
Phenol-d5
(10-99)
74
<51
40
46
63
20
*
46
- 66
69
66
45
2-Flourophenol 2,4,6-Tribromophenpl
(10-100) (10-107) .
88
71
6**
52
83
26
*
53
86 •
90
92
60
74
52
17
34
66
14
*
44
63
66
68
48
* Surrogate spike diluted out during prep procedure.
** Low recovery due to interferences from the matrix of the sample,
-------
c
c
,cky Mountain Analytical Laboratory
c.) Spike: Sample 09 was used as the matrix spike for this project.
The percent recoveries are given along with the spike level for each
compound. . • . -
Compound
Pyrene
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
Phenol
4-Nitrophenol•
Sample
Cone.
ND :
ND
ND
ND
Sample
+ Spike
106
73
153
202
Amount
Spiked
112
112
224
224
% Recovery -
95
65
67
90*
* Spike recovery is outside of QC limits set by EPA for water matrices.
QC limits in parentheses are taken from a historical database of refinery
samples analyzed at RMAL.
------- |