EPA 600/R-14/091 I May 2015 I www.epa.gov/hfstudy
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Retrospective Case Study in the
Raton Basin, Colorado
STUDY OF THE POTENTIAL IMPACTS OF
HYDRAULIC FRACTURING ON DRINKING
WATER RESOURCES
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Research and Development
-------
(This page intentionally left blank.)
-------
Retrospective Case Study in the Raton Basin, Colorado May 2015
Retrospective Case Study in the Raton Basin, Colorado
Study of the Potential Impacts of Hydraulic Fracturing
on Drinking Water Resources
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Research and Development
Washington, DC
May 2015
EPA/600/R-14/091
in
-------
Retrospective Case Study in the Raton Basin, Colorado May 2015
Disclaimer
This document has been reviewed in accordance with U.S. Environmental Protection Agency policy and
approved for publication. Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute
endorsement or recommendation for use.
IV
-------
Retrospective Case Study in the Raton Basin, Colorado May 2015
Table of Contents
Disclaimer iv
Table of Contents v
List of Tables viii
List of Figures x
Acronyms and Abbreviations xiv
Preface xviii
Authors xix
Acknowledgements xx
Executive Summary 1
1. Introduction 6
2. Purpose and Scope 12
3. Study Area Background 13
3.1. Geology 13
3.2. Hydrology 17
3.2.1. Surface Water 17
3.2.2. Ground Water 18
3.3. Coal and Coalbed Methane Production 19
3.4. Land Use 23
3.5. Potential Contaminant Sources 23
4. Study Methods 30
4.1. Sampling Locations 30
4.2. Water Collection 32
4.3. Purging and Sampling at Domestic Wells 33
4.4. Purging and Sampling at Production and Monitoring Wells 33
4.5. Sampling at Surface Water Locations 33
4.6. Sample Shipping/Handling 34
4.7. Water Analysis 34
4.7.1. Field Parameters 34
4.7.2. Analytical Methods for Ground Water and Surface Water 35
4.8. QA/QC 36
4.9. Data Handling and Analysis 37
5. Historical Water Quality Data 40
-------
Retrospective Case Study in the Raton Basin, Colorado May 2015
6. Water Quality Data from This Study 44
6.1. CBM Produced Water 48
6.2. Surface Water 54
6.3. Las Animas County: Poison Canyon Formation and Alluvial Aquifers 55
6.4. Huerfano County: Poison Canyon Formation 62
6.5. Summary of Major Ion Data 70
6.6. Organic Compounds 72
6.6.1. North Fork Ranch 74
6.6.2. Arrowhead Ranchettes 84
6.6.3. Little Creek Field 84
6.7. Water Isotopes 90
6.7.1. North Fork Ranch 91
6.7.2. Arrowhead Ranchettes 94
6.7.3. Little Creek Field 95
6.8. Dissolved Gases 95
6.8.1. North Fork Ranch 96
6.8.2. Arrowhead Ranchettes 97
6.8.3. Little Creek Field 97
6.9. Molecular and Isotopic Composition of Coalbed Methane 103
6.9.1. Gas Characterization: Raton Basin 106
6.9.2. Characterization of Raton- and Vermejo-Produced Gas in the Raton Basin 106
6.9.3. Characterization of Gases in the Raton Basin: This Study 108
6.9.4. Molecular Composition: Study Sites 109
6.9.5. Origin of Methane in Wells 113
6.10. Summary of Dissolved Gases 119
6.11. Strontium Isotopes 120
6.12. Sulfur Isotopes 125
7. Tert-Butyl Alcohol 128
7.1. Degradation of Methyl Tert-Butyl Ether (MTBE)/Ethyl Tert-Butyl Ether (ETBE) 130
7.2. Degradation Product of Tert-Butyl Acetate (TBAc) 132
7.3. Decomposition of Tert-Butyl Hydroperoxide (TBHP) 132
7.4. Microbial Oxidation of Isobutane 133
7.5. Formation via an Isobutylene Precursor 134
8. Coal-Water Interactions 135
VI
-------
Retrospective Case Study in the Raton Basin, Colorado May 2015
8.1. Petroleum Hydrocarbons: Origin 137
8.2. Discussion 138
8.3. Summary 139
9. Methane Oxidation: Little Creek Field 140
9.1. Methane Attenuation 141
9.1.1. Dissolved Methane and Sulfate Coupled with the Production of Dissolved Sulfide
and Bicarbonate 142
9.1.2. Loss of CH4, Coupled with Production of C2+ Gaseous Alkanes 144
9.1.3. Distinct Patterns of 613C in Dissolved Inorganic Carbon and Methane 149
9.1.4. Systematic Shift in Sulfur and Oxygen Isotope Ratios of SO4-Microbial Sulfate
Reduction 152
9.1.5. Little Creek Field: Impacts 154
10. Summary of Case Study Results 157
References 164
Appendix A QA/QC Summary A-l
Appendix B Sample Results B-l
Appendix C Background Data C-l
VI1
-------
Retrospective Case Study in the Raton Basin, Colorado
May 2015
List of Tables
Table 1. Land use in Las Animas County in 1992 and 2006 26
Table 2. Land use in Huerfano County in 1992 and 2006 27
Table 3. Information for wells sampled during this study in Las Animas County, CO 31
Table 4. Information for wells sampled during this study in Huerfano County, CO 32
Table 5. Summary statistics for ground water data collected during this study (20 locations)
and a survey by the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (COGCC) in Las
Animas and Huerfano Counties, CO (100 locations; COGCC, 2003a) 47
Table 6. Summary of selected results for production wells sampled during this study (North
Fork Ranch, Las Animas County) 50
Table 7. Summary of selected results for surface water locations sampled during this study
(North Fork Ranch, Las Animas County) 54
Table 8. Summary statistics for ground water data collected during this study (11 locations)
and historical data from the NWIS database for Las Animas County, CO (18 locations;
USGS, 2013a) 59
Table 9. Summary statistics for ground water data collected during this study (9 locations) and
historical data from the NWIS database for Huerfano County, CO (3 locations; USGS,
2013a) 67
Table 10. Disclosed chemical additives in hydraulic fracturing fluids used within the Raton Basin,
CO 73
Table 11. Detection of organic compounds in ground and surface water: North Fork Ranch study
site 75
Table 12. Detection of organic compounds in ground water: Arrowhead Ranchettes study site 85
Table 13. Detection of organic compounds in ground water: Little Creek Field study site 86
Table 14. Detection of methane in ground and surface water: North Fork Ranch and Arrowhead
Ranchettes study sites 101
Table 15. Detection of ethane in ground and surface water: North Fork Ranch and Arrowhead
Ranchettes study sites 102
Table 16. Detection of methane in ground water: Little Creek Field study site 103
Table 17. Detection of ethane in ground water: Little Creek Field study site 104
Table 18. Molecular composition (%) of coalbed methane gas and isotopic signatures (%o) of
coalbed-methane-producing formations in the Raton Basin, compiled from selected
data in 2001 by ESN Rocky Mountain 107
Vlll
-------
Retrospective Case Study in the Raton Basin, Colorado May 2015
Table 19. Strontium isotope and concentration data from coal, sandstone, and alluvial aquifers
in the Raton Basin, CO 120
Table 20. Annual (mean) methane, sulfate, sulfide and bicarbonate concentrations in ground
water collected from domestic wells within the Little Creek Field study area 143
Table 21. Potential ground water and surface water impacts identified during the Raton Basin,
CO, retrospective case study 158
IX
-------
Retrospective Case Study in the Raton Basin, Colorado May 2015
List of Figures
Figure 1. Map showing the location of areas sampled during this case study 8
Figure 2. Map showing the location of the Raton Basin, located in southern Colorado and
northern New Mexico, and the case study sampling areas 10
Figure 3. A geologic map of the Raton Basin showing the synclinal axis of the basin and the
location of generalized geologic cross-section A-A' 14
Figure 4. A generalized geologic cross-section (A-A') and stratigraphic chart 15
Figure 5. Map showing the location of CBM fields and sampling locations in Las Animas
County, CO 20
Figure 6. Map showing the location of CBM fields and sampling locations in Huerfano
County, CO 21
Figure 7. CBM production through time in Colorado and the Raton Basin, 1999—2013 22
Figure 8. Land use map, Las Animas County, CO, 1992 and 2006 24
Figure 9. Land use map, Huerfano County, CO, 1992 and 2006 25
Figure 10. Map showing the locations of samples collected, search areas evaluated in the
environmental assessments, and CBM wells: Las Animas County, CO 28
Figure 11. Map showing the locations of samples collected within the Little Creek Field during
this study, the search area evaluated in the environmental assessment, and CBM
wells: Huerfano County, CO. See Table 4 for well types 29
Figure 12. Map showing historical water quality sites and sampling locations from this case
study: Las Animas County, CO 41
Figure 13. Map showing historical water quality sites and sampling locations from this case
study: Huerfano County, CO 43
Figure 14. Major ion chemistry of ground water samples collected within the Raton Basin, CO 45
Figure 15. Box diagrams comparing the concentration distributions of selected major cations,
anions, and geochemical parameters from water samples collected in Las Animas and
Huerfano counties during this study (mean values) to data reported by the COGCC
following a survey conducted in 2002 (COGCC, 2003a) 46
Figure 16A. Map of the North Fork Ranch study area (Las Animas County, CO) showing bedrock
geology, historic coal mine locations, coalbed methane well locations, and sample
locations from this study 49
Figure 16B. Geology map legend 50
-------
Retrospective Case Study in the Raton Basin, Colorado May 2015
Figure 17. Schoeller diagram showing major cation and anion compositions measured in
formation water collected from three CBM production wells (RBPW01, RBPW02,
RBPW03; mean values) during this case study, compared to the compositional range
(minimum, maximum, and average) reported for CBM waters from the Raton Basin 52
Figure 18. Major ion chemistry of ground water samples collected from CBM production wells
(RBPW01, RBPW02, and RBPW03) and surface water locations (RBSW01, RBSW02,
and RBSW03) within the North Fork Ranch study area (Las Animas County, CO) during
this case study 53
Figure 19. Map of the Arrowhead Ranchettes study area (Las Animas County, CO) showing
bedrock geology, historic coal mine locations, coalbed methane well locations, and
sample locations (RBDW11, RBDW12) from this study 57
Figure 20. Elevation of domestic wells and CBM wells located within the North Fork Ranch area 58
Figure 21. Frequency diagram showing specific conductance in ground water collected during
this study, relative to historical water quality datasets (Las Animas County, CO) 60
Figure 22. A comparison of pH and major ion data in ground water samples collected from
domestic and monitoring wells within Las Animas County during this study, relative to
USGS NWIS historical water quality data (USGS, 2013a) 61
Figure 23. Changes in specific conductance values and calcium, sodium, and chloride
concentrations observed in ground water collected from domestic wells and
monitoring wells within the North Fork Ranch and Arrowhead Ranchettes sampling
areas (Las Animas County, CO), over four sampling events (this case study) 64
Figure 24. Map of the Little Creek Field study area (Huerfano County, CO) showing bedrock
geology, coal mine locations, coalbed methane well locations, and sample locations
from this study 65
Figure 25. Elevation of domestic wells and CBM wells located within the Little Creek Field study
area (Huerfano County, CO) 66
Figure 26. Frequency diagram showing specific conductance in ground water samples collected
from domestic and monitoring wells in Huerfano County, CO (Little Creek Field study
area) during this study, relative to USGS historical water quality datasets 68
Figure 27. A comparison of pH and major ion data in ground water samples collected from
domestic and monitoring wells within Huerfano County during this study, relative to
USGS NWIS historical water quality data (USGS, 2013a) 69
Figure 28. Changes in specific conductance values and calcium, sodium, and chloride
concentrations observed in ground water collected from domestic wells within the
Little Creek Field sampling area (Huerfano County, CO), over four sampling events
(this case study) 71
XI
-------
Retrospective Case Study in the Raton Basin, Colorado May 2015
Figure 29. Diesel-range organics (DRO) chromatograms for selected sampling locations 83
Figure 30. Isotopic trends in 518O and 52H in ground water and surface water samples A) and
depth trends, relative to the 618O composition of water B), for samples collected from
the North Fork Ranch and Arrowhead Ranchettes study areas (Las Animas County,
CO) 92
Figure 31. Isotopic trends in 518O and 52H for ground water samples collected from the Little
Creek Field study area (Huerfano County, CO) 93
Figure 32. Frequency diagrams showing methane concentrations in production water, surface
water, domestic wells, and monitoring wells: all study areas (Raton Basin, CO) 98
Figure 33. Box diagrams for dissolved methane (mg/L) in water samples collected within the A)
North Fork Ranch (Las Animas County) and B) Little Creek Field (Huerfano County)
study areas; results obtained from North Fork Ranch, this study, are compared (top)
to dissolved methane data reported by the COGCC following a survey conducted in
the region in 2002 99
Figure 34. Box diagrams for dissolved ethane (mg/L) in water samples collected within the A)
North Fork Ranch (Las Animas County) and B) Little Creek Field (Huerfano County)
study areas 100
Figure 35. The stable C and H isotopic composition of methane in samples collected from CBM
gas wells (n = 50), located throughout the Raton Basin, in 2001 (ESN Rocky Mountain,
2003) 109
Figure 36. Gas exsolution in ground water collected from domestic well RBDW09, located within
the Little Creek Field study area (Huerfano County), during the November 2012
sampling event 112
Figure 37. The isotopic composition of dissolved methane in water samples collected during four
sampling events, this study. Data points (this study) represent isotopic results per
sampling round 114
Figure 38. A combination plot of 513CCH4 and 513CD|C with isotope fractionation lines ct13CD|C-cH4 116
Figure 39. A combination plot of 52HCH4 and 52HH20 for samples collected within the North Fork
Ranch study area (Las Animas County) 118
Figure 40. A) Strontium isotope ratios relative to well depth, in feet, for the North Fork Ranch
and Arrowhead Ranchettes study areas (Las Animas County, CO) 123
Figure 41. Strontium isotope ratios relative to well depth, in feet (A), and strontium
concentrations (B) for the Little Creek Field study area (Huerfano County, CO) 124
xn
-------
Retrospective Case Study in the Raton Basin, Colorado May 2015
Figure 42. Relationship of stable oxygen and sulfur isotope ratios for dissolved sulfate measured
in water samples collected during this study in Las Animas and Huerfano counties
during rounds 2, 3, and 4 127
Figure 43. Map showing the spatial distribution of TBA detections and concentrations in the
North Fork Ranch sampling area over the four sampling events 129
Figure 44. Tert-butyl alcohol (TBA) concentrations in ground water collected from location
RBDW11 (Arrowhead Ranchettes, Las Animas County), over four sampling rounds 131
Figure 45. Twenty-eight organic compounds (see Tables 11-13), categorized by compound origin,
were detected in ground water and surface water samples collected from the three
study areas 136
Figure 46. Temporal trends in dissolved methane concentration (mg/L) in ground water samples
collected from RBDW08 145
Figure 47. Temporal trends in dissolved methane concentration (mg/L) in ground water samples
collected from RBDW09 146
Figure 48. Temporal trends in dissolved methane concentration (mg/L) in ground water samples
collected from RBDW10 147
Figure 49. Temporal trends in gas composition (Ci, column A; IC2+, column B) for selected
locations within the Little Creek Field study area (Huerfano County, CO) 148
Figure 50. A) Characterization of dissolved methane sources in the Little Creek Field study area
(Huerfano County, CO), using stable C and H ratios of methane; historical isotope data
were reported by ESN Rocky Mountain (2003) 150
Figure 51. A) Sulfate-sulfide fractionation (534Ss04-534SH2s) versus sulfate concentration (mg/L) 153
Figure 52. Temporal trends in gas flow measurements and dissolved methane concentrations
(mg/L) at domestic well locations A) RBDW06 and B) Well "C", located within the Little
Creek Field study area (Huerfano County, CO) 156
Xlll
-------
Retrospective Case Study in the Raton Basin, Colorado
May 2015
Acronyms and Abbreviations
ADQ audits of data quality
AOM anaerobic oxidation of methane
Bcf billion cubic feet
BTEX benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and m- + p-, and o-xylenes
CBM coalbed methane
CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
CH4 methane
CLP Contract Laboratory Program
CO2 carbon dioxide
COGCC Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission
CRDS cavity ring-down spectrometry
DIG dissolved inorganic carbon
DO dissolved oxygen
DOC dissolved organic carbon
DRO diesel-range organics
518OH2o oxygen-18/oxygen-16 isotopic ratio in water
52HH2o deuterium/hydrogen isotopic ratio in water
carbon-13/carbon-12 isotopic ratio in methane
deuterium/hydrogen isotopic ratio in methane
carbon-13/carbon-12 isotopic ratio in DIG
}S04 oxygen-18/oxygen-16 isotopic ratio in sulfate
'so4 sulfur-34/sulfur-32 isotopic ratio in sulfate
534SH2s sulfur-34/sulfur-32 isotopic ratio in hydrogen sulfide
EPA (U.S.) Environmental Protection Agency
EDR Environmental Data Resources, Inc.
ETBE ethyl tert-butyl ether
GC/MS gas chromatography/mass spectrometry
GMWL global meteoric water line
13
/-
CCH
5 H
CH4
s13/-
o CD|C
S34C
0 S
xiv
-------
Retrospective Case Study in the Raton Basin, Colorado
May 2015
GPS global positioning system
GRO gasoline-range organics
GWERD Ground Water and Ecosystems Restoration Division
HPLC high-performance liquid chromatography
ICP-OES inductively coupled plasma-optical emission spectroscopy
ICP-MS inductively coupled plasma-mass spectroscopy
I RMS isotope ratio mass spectrometry
LC-MS-MS liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry
LMWA low-molecular-weight acid
LMWL local meteoric water line
LLNL Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
Mcf thousand cubic feet
Mcfd thousand cubic feet per day
MCL maximum contaminant level
MDL method detection limit
Mmcf million cubic feet
MTBE methyl tert-butyl ether
my million years
u.g/L micrograms per liter
u.S/cm microsiemens per centimeter
mg/L milligrams per liter
mmol/L millimoles per liter
mol/L moles per liter
MS/MSD matrix spike/matrix spike duplicate
NBS National Bureau of Standards
NERL National Exposure Research Laboratory
NIST National Institute of Standards and Technology
NLCD National Land Cover Database
NRMRL National Risk Management Research Laboratory
xv
-------
Retrospective Case Study in the Raton Basin, Colorado
May 2015
NTU nephelometric turbidity unit
NURE National Uranium Resource Evaluation
NWIS National Water Information System
ORD Office of Research and Development
ORP oxidation-reduction potential
PAH polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon
permil %o, parts per thousand
ppm parts per million
PVC polyvinyl chloride
QA quality assurance
QAPP Quality Assurance Project Plan
QC quality control
QL quantitation limit
RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
RSKERL Robert S. Kerr Environmental Research Laboratory
SAR Sodium Adsorption Ratio
SLAP Standard Light Antarctic Precipitation
SMCL secondary maximum contaminant level
SPC specific conductance
STORE! STOrage and RETrieval
SVOC semivolatile organic compound
TBA tert-butyl alcohol
TBAc tert-butyl acetate
TBHP tert-butyl hydroperoxide
Tcf trillion cubic feet
IDS total dissolved solids
TIC tentatively identified compound
THMs trihalomethanes
TIMS thermal ionization mass spectrometry
xvi
-------
Retrospective Case Study in the Raton Basin, Colorado May 2015
ISA Technical System Audits
USDW Underground Source of Drinking Water
USGS U.S. Geological Survey
VCDT Vienna Canyon Diablo Troilite
VOC volatile organic compound
VPDB Vienna Pee Dee Belemnite
VSMOW Vienna Standard Mean Ocean Water
xvi i
-------
Retrospective Case Study in the Raton Basin, Colorado May 2015
Preface
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is conducting a study of the potential impacts of
hydraulic fracturing for oil and gas on drinking water resources. This study was initiated in Fiscal Year
2010 when Congress urged the EPA to examine the relationship between hydraulic fracturing and
drinking water resources in the United States. In response, EPA developed a research plan (Plan to
Study the Potential Impacts of Hydraulic Fracturing on Drinking Water Resources) that was reviewed by
the Agency's Science Advisory Board (SAB) and issued in 2011. A progress report on the study (Study of
the Potential Impacts of Hydraulic Fracturing on Drinking Water Resources: Progress Report), detailing
the EPA's research approaches and next steps, was released in late 2012 and was followed by a
consultation with individual experts convened under the auspices of the SAB.
The EPA's study includes the development of several research projects, extensive review of the
literature and technical input from state, industry, and non-governmental organizations as well as the
public and other stakeholders. A series of technical roundtables and in-depth technical workshops were
held to help address specific research questions and to inform the work of the study. The study is
designed to address research questions posed for each stage of the hydraulic fracturing water cycle:
• Water Acquisition: What are the possible impacts of large volume water withdrawals
from ground and surface waters on drinking water resources?
• Chemical Mixing: What are the possible impacts of surface spills of hydraulic fracturing fluid
on or near well pads on drinking water resources?
• Well Injection: What are the possible impacts of the injection and fracturing process on
drinking water resources?
• Flowback and Produced Water: What are the possible impacts of surface spills of flowback
and produced water on or near well pads on drinking water resources?
• Wastewater Treatment and Waste Disposal: What are the possible impacts of inadequate
treatment of hydraulic fracturing wastewaters on drinking water resources?
This report, Retrospective Case Study in the Raton Basin, Colorado, is the product of one of the research
projects conducted as part of the EPA's study. It has undergone independent, external peer review in
accordance with Agency policy and all of the peer review comments received were considered in the
report's development.
The EPA's study will contribute to the understanding of the potential impacts of hydraulic fracturing
activities for oil and gas on drinking water resources and the factors that may influence those impacts.
The study will help facilitate and inform dialogue among interested stakeholders, including Congress,
other Federal agencies, states, tribal government, the international community, industry, non-
governmental organizations, academia, and the general public.
xvin
-------
Retrospective Case Study in the Raton Basin, Colorado May 2015
Authors
Amy L. Wolfe, US EPA/ORD/NRMRL
Richard T. Wilkin, US EPA/ORD/NRMRL, corresponding author
Tony R. Lee, US EPA/ORD/NRMRL
Christopher J. Ruybal, Student Services Contractor for the US EPA under contract EP-13-C-000135
Gregory G. Oberley, US EPA/Region 8
xix
-------
Retrospective Case Study in the Raton Basin, Colorado May 2015
Acknowledgements
EPA would like to acknowledge the homeowners who participated in this study. EPA would also like to
acknowledge the following organizations for their efforts in supporting this project: Ecology and
Environment, Inc., for providing assistance in the preparation of the report (contract EP-S7-13-07); the
Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission for providing information and logistical support; Pioneer
Natural Resources Company and Petroglyph Energy, Inc. for permission to sample their CBM production
and/or monitoring wells and for assistance with the well sampling; and EPA Region 8 for field assistance.
EPA acknowledges student contractors Ms. Alexandra Kirkpatrick (contract EP-10-C-000239), Ms. Ashley
McElmurry (contract EP-12-C-000025), and Ms. Ranjani Ravi (contract EP-13-C-000134) for reviewing
data and conducting field work. For their efforts in providing analytical support, EPA acknowledges the
following organizations: Shaw Environmental (subsequently CB&I) for metals, VOC, dissolved gas,
organic acid, and water isotope analyses (contract EP-C-08-034); EPA Region 3 and EPA Las Vegas for
glycol analyses; EPA Region 7 for coordinating the analytical contract for VOCs and metals for the third
and fourth rounds of sampling conducted in the study (contract EP-R7-1001); EPA Region 8 for SVOC,
DRO, and GRO analyses; EPA Office of Research and Development's general parameters laboratory for
DIG, DOC, anion, and nutrient analyses; Isotech Laboratories for stable isotope measurements; and
USGS for conducting strontium isotope analysis (interagency agreement DW-14-95801601). Finally, EPA
acknowledges the five technical reviewers, who provided constructive comments to improve the report;
peer review was coordinated by Eastern Research Group, Inc. (contract EP-C-12-021).
xx
-------
Retrospective Case Study in the Raton Basin, Colorado May 2015
Executive Summary
In December 2009, Congress urged the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to study the
relationship between hydraulic fracturing and drinking water resources. This report provides the results
of one of five retrospective case studies conducted as a component of EPA's national study on the
potential impacts of hydraulic fracturing on drinking water resources (US EPA, 2012). The retrospective
case studies focused on investigating reported instances of drinking water contamination in areas where
hydraulic fracturing had already occurred. This report describes the retrospective case study that was
conducted in the Colorado portion of the Raton Basin, located within Las Animas and Huerfano counties.
These locations are the focus of unconventional gas production of coalbed methane (CBM) from several
coal-bearing strata in the basin.
CBM development and production within the Raton Basin of southern Colorado and northern New
Mexico have increased over the past decade, and the Raton Basin is one of the most productive CBM
basins in the United States. Annual production of methane from coal beds within Las Animas and
Huerfano counties averaged about 103 billion cubic feet during 2007-2013, or about 20% of Colorado's
total natural gas production. Coal beds located within the Raton Formation (Late Cretaceous to Tertiary)
and the Vermejo Formation (Cretaceous) are the primary sources of methane within the Raton Basin.
Gas production from the coal beds depends upon hydraulic fracturing technologies to enhance and
create fracture porosity, permeability, and gas flow. In contrast to shale gas and most conventional
energy resource development, recovery of CBM typically occurs at relatively shallow depths, sometimes
within or in close proximity to aquifers classified as Underground Sources of Drinking Water (USDW).
For example, the Raton and Vermejo formations and the Poison Canyon Formation, which overlies the
Raton Formation, are sources of ground water for domestic wells and municipal water supply wells
within the Raton Basin.
Water quality samples were collected from 14 domestic wells, five monitoring wells, three production
wells, and three surface water bodies during four sampling rounds in October 2011, May 2012,
November 2012, and April/May 2013 (see Appendices A and B of this report). The production wells and
monitoring wells were maintained and operated by Pioneer Natural Resources (Las Animas County) and
Petroglyph Energy, Inc. (Huerfano County). The domestic well locations for this case study were based
on homeowner concerns regarding potential adverse impacts on their well water and the potential
association with drilling, hydraulic fracturing, and/or CBM development in the vicinity of their homes.
Specific sampling locations were selected based on criteria such as well depth, geologic and hydrologic
characteristics, and proximity to CBM wells. In order to help differentiate potential impacts from
hydraulic fracturing or processes related to hydraulic fracturing from other potential contaminant
sources that may have caused or contributed to alleged impacts on water quality, detailed
environmental record searches were conducted (see Appendix C of this report).
The sampling locations selected by EPA for this case study focused on three areas: the Little Creek Field
area in south-central Huerfano County; the North Fork Ranch area in western Las Animas County; and
the Arrowhead Ranchettes area, also located in western Las Animas County. Water samples were
analyzed for metals, anions, dissolved organic carbon (DOC), dissolved inorganic carbon (DIG), dissolved
gases (e.g., methane and ethane), volatile organic compounds (VOCs), semivolatile organic compounds
(SVOCs), low-molecular-weight acids (LMWAs), glycol ethers, gasoline-range organics (GRO), diesel-
range organics (DRO), dissolved strontium isotope ratios (87Sr/86Sr), and stable isotopes of oxygen and
-------
Retrospective Case Study in the Raton Basin, Colorado May 2015
hydrogen in water (518OH20, 52HH20), carbon and hydrogen in methane (513CCH4, 52HCH4), carbon in
dissolved inorganic carbon (DIG; 513CD,C), sulfur and oxygen in sulfate (534SS04, 518OS04), and sulfur in
hydrogen sulfide (534SH2s)- These data were collected in order to evaluate possible scenarios of drinking
water impairment that may be related to CBM development, such as: (i) potential interactions between
produced water and shallow ground water via fluid migration, spills, and/or infiltration; (ii) potential for
migration of chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing formulations into shallow ground water; (iii)
potential gas migration from hydraulically fractured zones in the Raton and Vermejo formations into
shallow ground water aquifers, including the Poison Canyon Formation and alluvial fill deposits; and (iv)
secondary biogeochemical affects related to the migration and reaction of methane in shallow aquifers
used for drinking water.
Major ion data collected for this study were compared to historical water quality data obtained from the
literature, as well as from state and national databases, including water quality and geochemical surveys
conducted by the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (COGCC), the U.S. Geological Survey
(USGS) National Water Information System (NWIS), and the USGS National Uranium Resource Evaluation
(NURE) database. The latter two data sources provide water quality data for samples collected prior to
1990 and, therefore, help establish baseline water quality conditions before significant CBM
development occurred within the Raton Basin. Statistical comparisons were made between the data
collected for this study and historical data in order to identify possible temporal trends in water quality
parameters.
Temporal change in major ion chemistry, or lack thereof, at specific locations provides a reasonable
approach for assessing potential ground water impacts related to fluid migration. Water co-produced
with natural gas in the Raton Basin has a distinctive geochemical signature: sodium-bicarbonate type
water with moderate concentrations of total dissolved solids (TDS); low concentrations of sulfate,
calcium, and magnesium; variable chloride concentrations; enriched 13CD,C; low oxidation-reduction
potential (ORP); and elevated concentrations of dissolved methane and ferrous iron. Concentrations of
arsenic in produced water did not exceed the Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) of 10 u.g/L. This
geochemical signature contrasts with shallower aquifers used for drinking water, including the Poison
Canyon Formation and alluvial fill deposits. The geochemical signature in these shallower aquifers
includes more variable major ion compositions (calcium-bicarbonate, sodium-bicarbonate, and sodium-
sulfate water types); lower specific conductance (SPC); generally lower chloride and higher sulfate
concentrations; depleted 13CD,C; and variable redox conditions. This contrast in geochemistry provides
distinguishing characteristics for detecting and quantifying potential fluid mixing. Water quality data
collected in the Raton Basin from drinking water aquifers before CBM development show similar ranges
in SPC values, and no discernible shifts in major ion chemistry were apparent when compared to data
collected during this study. The sampling locations examined in this study also showed consistent major
ion patterns over the one-and-a-half-year period of the project. These time-independent trends in
major ions suggest that significant water migration from gas-producing zones to shallower aquifers used
for drinking water has not occurred.
Over the duration of this study, water samples were analyzed for organic chemicals; these
measurements evaluated a total of 133 organic compounds. The purpose of these analyses was to
investigate the potential occurrence in ground water and surface water of chemicals generally
documented as components of hydraulic fracturing fluids, and specifically the chemicals used in
fracturing fluids that have been applied in Colorado (e.g., glycol ethers, ethanol, isopropanol, 2-
-------
Retrospective Case Study in the Raton Basin, Colorado May 2015
butoxyethanol, petroleum distillates, acetic acid). In this study, glycol ethers were not detected in
ground water samples collected from domestic wells or monitoring wells; low levels of diethylene glycol
and triethylene glycol were detected in one of the production wells during the last sampling event
(April/May 2013). Tert-butyl alcohol (TBA), diesel-range, and gasoline-range organics were detected at
levels greater than quantitation limits (QL) in some domestic wells, monitoring wells, and production
wells; detections varied by study area. Detected concentrations of VOCs were 0.3 to 5.1 orders of
magnitude below EPA's drinking water standards (MCLs, where available for benzene, toluene,
ethylbenzene, xylenes, methylene chloride, and chloroform). These compounds were typically found in
produced water sampled from wells and permitted surface discharge. Almost half of the detected
organic compounds (46%) were hydrocarbons commonly, but not solely, associated with petroleum fuel
releases. The low-level detection of these compounds, coupled with no documentation of any fuel
releases or their use in hydraulic fracturing fluids within the vicinity of the study areas, suggests that the
origin of these compounds is derived from interactions between organic matter and ground water. The
presence of BTEX (benzene, toluene, ethylbenzenes, and xylenes) compounds and benzene derivatives is
consistent with results reported for other areas developing CBM resources and may reflect solubilization
of coal material, as a by-product of natural water-rock interactions or enhanced solubilization due to
injecting fluid with solvent-like properties into coal seams.
The concentration and geographic distribution of TBA detections collected during this study are unique
in an area where no documented anthropogenic sources exist. TBA was detected in ground water
samples collected from domestic, monitoring, and production wells in this study; detected
concentrations ranged from 6.9 to 1,310 micrograms per liter (u.g/L). EPA does not have a MCL for TBA;
however, several states have passed drinking water action levels because of its potential human toxicity.
While a likely source of TBA in ground water is as a degradation product of the fuel oxygenate
compounds methyl tert-butyl ether (MTBE) and/or ethyl tert-butyl ether (ETBE), no gasoline spills were
documented within the impacted areas and MTBE was banned from use, as a fuel oxygenate, in the
state of Colorado in 2002. However, several non-gasoline-related sources of TBA exist: (i) TBA can be
produced as a biochemical and/or chemical breakdown product of tert-butyl acetate (TBAc); (ii) TBA can
form through the chemical decomposition of tert-butyl hydroperoxide (TBHP); (iii) TBA can be
microbially generated from isobutane; or (iv) TBA can be produced by the reaction of isobutylene and
water in the presence of a catalyst. Available data indicate that TBHP, a chemical sometimes used in
hydraulic fracturing formulations as a gel breaker, was not used in CBM-related hydraulic fracturing
applications within the Raton Basin. Prior to April 1, 2012, operators within the state of Colorado were
not required to publically disclose information regarding hydraulic fracturing treatments (COGCC, 2011).
Consequently, information is unavailable before that time about whether TBA or chemicals that degrade
to TBA were used for hydraulic fracturing near the sampling locations of this study. Due to limited
experimental and field data, the formation pathway(s) of TBA and the primary controls on its spatial
occurrence are unresolved and both anthropogenic and natural sources are possible.
Methane occurs naturally in ground water in the Raton Basin and is commonly present in Cretaceous-
and Tertiary-age coal seams and sedimentary deposits. Methane dissolved in water is odorless and
tasteless; at high concentrations, dissolved methane can outgas and produce flammable or explosive
environments. Dissolved methane was ubiquitous in ground water samples collected in this study.
Methane was detected in every domestic well sampled; mean concentrations ranged widely, from about
0.003 to 12.4 milligrams per liter (mg/L), with a median value of 0.46 mg/L Six domestic wells sampled
-------
Retrospective Case Study in the Raton Basin, Colorado May 2015
in this study had a methane concentration above the COGCC cautionary level of 1.1 mg/L that can lead
to buildup of explosive quantities of gases in small enclosed areas. Methane was also detected in all of
the production wells and monitoring wells sampled during this study. In addition, methane was
detected in surface water, typically at low levels (<0.05 mg/L) at locations down gradient of surface-
discharged CBM water. At locations where methane concentrations were sufficient, carbon (513CCH4)
and hydrogen (52HCH4) isotopes of methane were measured to compare the origin of methane in the
domestic wells with the methane present in the gas-producing Raton and Vermejo coal-bearing
formations. A variety of isotope patterns and potential sources were identified in this study. Methane
isotope data collected from domestic wells and monitoring wells in the North Fork Ranch study area
indicate that the methane is microbially sourced and distinctive from the thermogenic gas present in the
CBM-producing coal beds. In one domestic well from the Arrowhead Ranchettes study area, a large
isotopic shift was observed over the course of four sampling events. At this location, the isotopic
composition of methane progressively transitioned from a thermogenic signature during the first
sampling event to a mixed thermogenic/biogenic signature during the later three rounds. The rapid
change in the isotopic composition at this location could be due to gas migration; based on the carbon
isotope compositions of methane (513CCH4) and dissolved inorganic carbon (513CD|C), the isotopic shift in
613CCH4 relative to 513CD|C suggests a transition to an environment characterized by acetate fermentation.
Finally, domestic wells in the Little Creek Field area contained methane with a thermogenic signature,
similar to gas from deeper CBM-producing coal beds, but with a distinct trend indicative of methane
oxidation.
A methane oxidation trend was revealed at the Little Creek Field sampling area, located in Huerfano
County. Following a series of hydraulic fracturing applications in 2005, gas and water production in the
Little Creek Field began to rapidly increase, and positive production trends continued into 2007. In the
spring of 2007, it was discovered that methane was venting into domestic water wells completed in the
shallow Poison Canyon aquifer system. During this time, as methane vented into the shallow aquifer
used for drinking water, free-phase gas was also present and dissolved gas concentrations increased in
water withdrawn from drinking water wells. A remediation system, designed for the Poison Canyon
aquifer, appeared to reduce the free-phase gas; however, dissolved methane concentrations showed
more variable trends with time. This case study evaluated the intermediate-term response and water
quality characteristics of the shallow aquifer several years after the unanticipated methane release.
Stable isotope patterns of carbon and hydrogen in methane (513CCH4, 52HCH4), DIG (513CD|C), and sulfur in
sulfate (534SS04) and hydrogen sulfide (534SH2s), indicate that methane has been attenuated in the aquifer
via dissimilatory bacterial sulfate reduction under anaerobic conditions. Consequently, concentrations
of dissolved sulfate have decreased while dissolved hydrogen sulfide has increased; a maximum
dissolved sulfide concentration of 36.6 mg/L was measured at one location during this study. The build-
up of significant dissolved sulfide concentrations at some of the sampled domestic water locations
suggests a deficiency of reactive iron within the aquifer and/or elevated rates of sulfide production that
exceed the intrinsic capacity of the system to remove sulfide via mineral precipitation. Analysis of
methane concentrations over time provides no clear answer about the timeframe necessary for
dissolved methane levels to decrease to pre-release levels. The persistence of anaerobic methane
oxidation within this area is questionable in the long term due to the potential exhaustion of terminal
electron acceptor(s) and a lack of electron acceptor replenishment given the inferred slow rates of
-------
Retrospective Case Study in the Raton Basin, Colorado May 2015
ground water movement and recharge within the study area. Some domestic wells in this area have
been equipped with water treatment units to remove dissolved methane and dissolved sulfide.
Key observations/findings from this study are summarized below.
• Recovery of CBM in the Raton Basin occurs within or in close proximity to resources classified as
Underground Sources of Drinking Water. Within the Raton Basin, the estimated vertical
separation between CBM production intervals and water-supply wells ranges from <100 feet to
more than 2,000 feet.
• The sampling locations examined in this study showed consistent major ion patterns over the
one-and-a-half-year period of the project. Time-independent trends in major ions suggest that
significant water migration from gas-producing zones to shallower aquifers used for drinking
water has not occurred.
• Glycol ethers were not detected in samples from domestic wells, monitoring wells, or surface
water. Low levels of diethylene glycol and triethylene glycol were estimated in one of the
production wells during the last sampling event. No clear evidence of impacts to homeowner
wells from injected hydraulic fracturing fluids was indicated in this study.
• Concentrations of BTEX compounds were 0.7 to 5.1 orders of magnitude below EPA's drinking
water standards. The presence of BTEX compounds and benzene derivatives in ground water
from the Raton Basin is consistent with results reported for other areas developing CBM
resources and may reflect water-rock interactions and solubilization of coal material.
• TBA was detected in ground water samples collected from three domestic wells, two monitoring
wells, and one production well at concentrations ranging from 6.9 to 1,310 u.g/L. The formation
pathway of TBA is unresolved; both anthropogenic and natural sources are possible for the
occurrence of TBA documented in this study.
• Methane was ubiquitous in ground water samples collected in this study. In domestic wells,
mean concentrations varied widely from about 0.003 to 12.4 mg/L Methane isotope data
collected from domestic wells and monitoring wells in the North Fork Ranch study area indicate
that the methane is microbially sourced and distinctive from the thermogenic gas present in the
underlying CBM-producing coal beds.
• Approximately two years after the Little Creek Field had been hydraulically fractured, a
documented gas migration event occurred in this area. This resulted in thermogenic gas from
the Vermejo Formation moving upward into the shallower Poison Canyon Formation. Analysis
indicates that sulfate-dependent anaerobic oxidation of methane was occurring, and elevated
dissolved sulfide concentrations in ground water reflected secondary biogeochemical changes
related to the migration and reaction of methane within a shallow aquifer used for drinking
water.
-------
Retrospective Case Study in the Raton Basin, Colorado May 2015
1. Introduction
Recent advances in drilling technologies (horizontal drilling) and well stimulation (hydraulic fracturing)
have resulted in large-scale development of unconventional reserves of oil and gas across a wide range
of geographic regions and geologic formations in the United States. These reserves are considered
unconventional, because they are bound up in low-permeability reservoirs such as shale, tight sands,
limestone, and coal beds, and recovery of these reserves was previously uneconomical. While some of
this new development is occurring in areas with mature oil and gas fields, areas with little to no previous
oil and gas development are now being developed. As a result, there are rising concerns over potential
impacts on human health and the environment, including potential effects on drinking water resources.
Environmental concerns include the potential for contamination of shallow ground water by stray gases
(methane), fracturing chemicals associated with unconventional gas development, and formation
waters.
Congress urged the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), in December 2009, to study hydraulic
fracturing and its relationship to drinking water resources (U.S. House of Representatives, 2009). The
study was to be conducted using an approach that relied on the best available science, including
independent sources of information, and through a transparent, peer-reviewed process to ensure the
validity and accuracy of the data. EPA consulted with other federal agencies and appropriate state and
interstate regulatory agencies to carry out the study (US EPA, 2010a). In February 2011, EPA issued the
Draft Plan to Study the Potential Impacts of Hydraulic Fracturing on Drinking Water Resources (US EPA,
2011a). The final Plan to Study the Potential Impacts of Hydraulic Fracturing on Drinking Water
Resources was released in November 2011 (US EPA, 2011b).
In 2011, EPA began to research the potential impacts of hydraulic fracturing on drinking water
resources, if any, and to identify the driving factors that could affect the severity and frequency of any
such impacts. EPA scientists focused primarily on hydraulic fracturing of shale formations, with some
study of other oil- and gas-producing formations, including coal beds. EPA designed the scope of the
research around five stages of the hydraulic fracturing water cycle (US EPA, 2012).
Each stage of the cycle is associated with a primary research question:
• Water acquisition: What are the potential impacts of large-volume water withdrawals from
ground water and surface water on drinking water resources?
• Chemical mixing: What are the potential impacts of hydraulic fracturing fluid surface spills on or
near well pads on drinking water resources?
• Well injection: What are the potential impacts of the injection and fracturing process on
drinking water resources?
• Flowback and produced water: What are the potential impacts of flowback and produced water
(collectively referred to as "hydraulic fracturing wastewater") surface spills on or near well pads
on drinking water resources?
• Wastewater treatment and waste disposal: What are the potential impacts of inadequate
treatment of hydraulic fracturing wastewater on drinking water resources?
-------
Retrospective Case Study in the Raton Basin, Colorado May 2015
Prior to the release of the study plan, EPA invited the public to nominate specific regions of the United
States for inclusion as potential sites for case studies. The plan identified 41 potential retrospective case
study sites. The retrospective case studies were to focus on investigating reported instances of drinking
water resource contamination in areas where hydraulic fracturing had already occurred and were
intended to inform several of the primary research questions related to chemical mixing, well injection,
and flowback and produced water. Of the 41 sites nominated during the stakeholder process, EPA
selected five sites across the United States at which to conduct the retrospective case studies. The sites
were deemed illustrative of the types of problems that were reported to EPA during stakeholder
meetings held in 2010 and 2011. Additional information on site selection can be found in US EPA
(2011b). EPA's plan for the retrospective case studies was to determine the presence and extent of
drinking water resource contamination, if any, as well as whether hydraulic fracturing, or related
processes, contributed to the contamination. Thus, the retrospective sites were expected to provide
EPA with information regarding key factors that may be associated with drinking water contamination
from hydraulic fracturing activities (US EPA, 2011b).
In 2011, EPA began conducting investigations at the five selected locations: Washington County,
Pennsylvania (southwestern Pennsylvania); Bradford County, Pennsylvania (northeastern Pennsylvania);
Wise County, Texas; Las Animas and Huerfano counties, Colorado (Raton Basin); and Dunn County,
North Dakota (Killdeer). This report discusses the retrospective case study conducted in the Raton
Basin, in Colorado, which was selected as an example of a region with coalbed methane (CBM)
development.
The Raton Basin Retrospective Case Study was conducted within Huerfano and Las Animas counties,
located in southern Colorado (see Figure 1). The general study areas for focused sampling are shown in
Figure 1, within the areas defined as "Search Areas." These Search Areas are defined and described in
further detail in later sections of this report. Hydraulic fracturing operations within these areas target
coal beds, interbedded with sandstones and shales, within the Raton and Vermejo formations. The
Raton Basin of northern New Mexico and southern Colorado (see Figure 2) is one of several key basins in
the Rocky Mountain region currently producing commercial quantities of CBM; other producing basins
include the Greater Green River Basin (Colorado and Wyoming), the Powder River Basin (Montana and
Wyoming), and the San Juan Basin (New Mexico and Colorado; US EPA, 2010b).
Coal responds to increasing temperature and pressure over time by changing rank, or thermal maturity.
The classification of coal progresses from the lowest rank—lignite—to the highest rank—anthracite.
During this maturation process, increased volumes of methane are generated (Kim, 1973). The methane
present in coals is either adsorbed onto coal surfaces and within pore spaces, as free gas in pores and
fractures, or dissolved in ground water in coal beds (Koenig, 1989). To produce methane from coal,
water must be pumped out of fractures and cleats to lower the hydrostatic pressure; this causes
methane to desorb from the coal surfaces, move out of the coal, and flow into the well bore (USGS,
2000; Watts, 2006a). Consequently, both water and gas are brought to the land surface during CBM
production. The co-produced water can have variable quality, depending on coal rank and
characteristics of the subsurface geology and hydrology (e.g., see Dahm et al., 2011). Surface disposal of
co-produced water can potentially impact streams that feed into drinking water resources (Batley and
Kookana, 2012). Disposal by subsurface reinjection of the water increases production costs and has
been linked to seismic activity in some areas (Van der Elst et al., 2013; Keranen et al., 2013). In contrast
to shale gas and most conventional oil and gas development, recovery of CBM typically occurs at
-------
Retrospective Case Study in the Raton Basin, Colorado
May 2015
I J
,^-fv j Denver*-*
i
d 11 •
• j
1 COUNTY
{ COUNTY j Walsenburg
^
MONTEZUMA _^>
I COUNTY
Las Animas County Search Areas
Raton Basin, Colorado
Sampling Area Locations
EPA Hydraulic Fracturing Study
Source: ESRI 2011, EPA ORD
Figure 1. Map showing the location of areas sampled during this case study. The Raton Basin retrospective case study was conducted in
Huerfano and Las Animas counties, located within the Colorado portion of the Raton Basin.
-------
Retrospective Case Study in the Raton Basin, Colorado May 2015
relatively shallow depths, sometimes within or in close proximity to resources classified as Underground
Sources of Drinking Water (USDW, e.g., US EPA, 2004). Within the Raton Basin, the estimated vertical
separation between CBM production intervals and water-supply wells ranges from <100 feet to more
than 2,000 feet (Watts, 2006b). Issues regarding water withdrawal and hydraulic fracturing in or near
drinking water aquifers have led to public concerns about the application of hydraulic fracturing
techniques and potential impacts on the availability and quality of ground water resources.
The sampling locations for this case study were based on homeowner concerns regarding potential
adverse impacts on their well water and the potential association with drilling, hydraulic fracturing,
and/or CBM development in the vicinity of their homes. Specific sampling locations were selected
based on criteria such as well depth, geologic and hydrologic characteristics, and proximity to CBM
wells. The Raton Basin study specifically focused on three areas: the Little Creek Field area within south-
central Huerfano County, the North Fork Ranch area within western Las Animas County, and the
Arrowhead Ranchettes area, also located within western Las Animas County (see Figure 2).
The Little Creek Gas Field is located southwest of Walsenburg, Colorado, and was developed by
Petroglyph Energy, Inc. between 1996 and 2007. Hydraulic fracturing was completed in the Little Creek
Field in 1998, 2004, and 2005. Following a series of three hydraulic fracturing applications in 2005, gas
and water production began to rapidly increase, and positive production trends continued into 2007. In
the spring of 2007, it was discovered that potentially explosive levels of methane were venting into
domestic water wells completed in the shallow aquifer system of the Poison Canyon Formation (COGCC,
2007a). The methane was tested, and isotopic analyses indicated that the free-flowing gas was the
same as the methane that was being produced from coal beds located within the Vermejo Formation;
however, no migration pathway was determined (Norwest Questa, 2007a; 2007b). In July 2007,
Petroglyph shut-in 52 gas wells in the field at the request of the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation
Commission (COGCC; COGCC, 2008). In January 2008, the COGCC issued Order 1-C6, which outlined a
three-phase plan (Methane Investigation, Monitoring, and Mitigation Program, MIMMP; see COGCC,
2008) to mitigate the methane migration and potentially allow operations to eventually resume in the
field. To help constrain the migration of methane, a hydraulic barrier was created: methane dissolved in
the water was removed, and the ground water was then re-injected into the same shallow aquifer. This
configuration of extraction and injection wells was expected to create a hydraulic gradient, allowing the
methane and ground water to flow toward the pumping capture well and prevent gas migration
(Norwest Questa, 2007b).
At the time when methane vented into the shallow aquifer used for drinking water, free-phase gas was
present and dissolved gas concentrations increased in the water withdrawn from drinking water wells.
Over time, the remediation system for the Poison Canyon aquifer appeared to reduce free-phase gas
flow to domestic wells; in September 2011, the remediation system was shut down. Sampling for this
retrospective case study was conducted from October 2011 to April/May 2013 and provided an
opportunity to evaluate the water quality characteristics, and intermediate-term response, of the
shallow aquifer system several years after the unanticipated methane release. It was expected that this
aspect of the case study would provide a context for other regions that have experienced gas migration
and provide new information about the processes and rates of methane attenuation in a drinking water
aquifer after remediation and abatement of the source of methane.
-------
Retrospective Case Study in the Raton Basin, Colorado
May 2015
Huerfano
County
Little Creek
Field area
Arrowhead
Ranchettes area
LasAnimas
County
North Fork
Ranch area
NEW MEXICO
Colfax
County
sin Boundary: USGS, Topography & County ana State Boundaries: ESRI
Raton Basin
Sampling Areas
Raton Basin Overview
Colorado and New Mexico
EPA Hydraulic Fracturing Study
Miles
Figure 2. Map showing the location of the Raton Basin, located in southern Colorado and northern New
Mexico, and the case study sampling areas.
10
-------
Retrospective Case Study in the Raton Basin, Colorado May 2015
The North Fork Ranch area within the Raton Basin is located approximately 25 miles west of Trinidad,
Colorado. In the summer of 2006, a contractor hired by Pioneer Natural Resources Company began
drilling the borehole for the surface casing of the Molokai #13-36 TR CBM well. Shortly thereafter, a
mechanical problem occurred with the main air compressor and the drill bit became stuck in the open,
uncased borehole. The contractor pressurized the drill pipe in an unsuccessful attempt to remove the
drill bit (COGCC, 2010). The following day, residents observed pulsed geysering of water from a
domestic well in the vicinity of the drilling activity on the Molokai 13-36 pad (COGCC, 2010). Local
residents became concerned that CBM development and drilling activities could potentially have
adverse effects on domestic drinking water wells in the area. The COGCC subsequently approved a work
plan for Pioneer to install monitoring wells and obtain water quality and water level data prior to, and
during, CBM development within an area where drinking water was obtained from the shallow and
intermediate aquifers (COGCC, 2010; Norwest Applied Hydrology, 2006). This aspect of the
retrospective case study was intended to provide additional follow-up studies and evaluation of ground
water and surface water quality in the North Fork Ranch area. The Arrowhead Ranchettes subdivision,
located approximately 8.5 miles east of the North Fork Ranch area, was selected as an additional
sampling area based on homeowner concerns regarding the quality of water from their domestic wells.
This report provides the Raton Basin Retrospective Case Study data and discussion of results. The
following sections of this report provide the purpose and scope of this case study, site background,
study methods, historical water quality data, analysis of the study sample data, discussion of site-specific
topics, and a summary of the case study findings.
11
-------
Retrospective Case Study in the Raton Basin, Colorado May 2015
2. Purpose and Scope
As a component of EPA's National Study of the Potential Impacts of Hydraulic Fracturing on Drinking
Water Resources (US EPA, 2012), five retrospective case studies were conducted to investigate reported
instances of drinking water resource contamination in areas of natural gas development and use of
hydraulic fracturing technology. These studies were intended to inform primary research questions
related to the hydraulic fracturing water cycle (US EPA, 2012).
This report describes the general water quality and geochemistry of ground water in the Raton Basin of
Colorado. The selected study sites are located within the Colorado portion of the basin and include
parts of Las Animas and Huerfano counties. This region is undergoing increasing development of its
CBM resources, and hydraulic fracturing practices within this area focus on recovering gas from CBM
formations (Watts, 2006a). The water quality results presented herein are used to evaluate the
potential impacts on drinking water resources, if any, from various land-use activities within the region
and are not restricted to CBM development, extraction, and production. Ground water wells (which
include domestic wells, monitoring wells, and production wells) and surface water locations were
sampled over 19 months at three geographic areas within the basin: North Fork Ranch (Las Animas
County), Arrowhead Ranchettes (Las Animas County), and the Little Creek Field (Huerfano County).
This report presents analytical data for water samples collected from 26 locations during four sampling
rounds: October 2011, May 2012, November 2012, and April/May 2013. The water samples were
analyzed for over 235 constituents, including organic compounds, nutrients, major and trace elements,
dissolved gases, and selected isotopes. Ground water and surface water quality data, as well as
summary statistics, are presented for these analytes. In addition to the chemical data collected
specifically for this study, this report incorporates publically available historical water quality datasets
collected within the Raton Basin, as well as the results from environmental site assessments of the
sampled areas performed as a part of this study.
Each of the retrospective case study sites differs in geologic and hydrologic characteristics; however,
generally similar research approaches were followed at the case study locations to assess potential
drinking water impacts. As described by US EPA (2012), a tiered approach was followed to guide the
progress of the retrospective case studies. The tiered scheme uses the results of successive steps, or
tiers, to refine research activities. This report documents progress through the Tier 2 stage and includes
the results of water sampling activities and evaluation of water quality impacts. The approach for Tier 2
efforts included a literature review of background geology and hydrology; the choice of sampling
locations and the development of a site-specific Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP); sampling and
analysis of water wells, produced water, and surface water; analysis of historical background data and
evaluation of new results against background data; statistical and geochemical evaluation of water
quality data; evaluation of potential drinking water contamination; and identification of potential
sources of identified contamination, if applicable. Further evaluation of identified contaminant sources
and contaminant transport and fate, including the collection of site-specific hydrogeologic information,
is not part of the scope of this report.
12
-------
Retrospective Case Study in the Raton Basin, Colorado May 2015
3. Study Area Background
The Raton Basin is a north-south trending sedimentary and structural depression located along the
eastern edge of the Rocky Mountains, between the Sangre de Cristo Mountains to the west and the
Apishapa, Las Animas, and Sierra Grande arches to the east (Watts, 2006a). This chevron-shaped basin
encompasses roughly 2,200 square miles of southeastern Colorado and northeastern New Mexico (US
EPA, 2004) and extends from southern Colfax County, New Mexico, northward into Huerfano County,
Colorado (US EPA, 2004; see Figure 2). It is the southernmost of several major coal-bearing basins
located along the eastern margin of the Rocky Mountains (Johnson and Finn, 2001). The basin is
asymmetrical, with the deep basin axis located along the western margin of the trough, just east of the
Sangre de Cristo Mountains (Johnson and Finn, 2001), and the structurally lowest part of the basin is
north of the Spanish Peaks, as indicated by structural contours marking the top of the Trinidad
Sandstone (see Geldon, 1989).
The sampling points described in this report are located in the Colorado portion of the Raton Basin,
including areas in western Las Animas County and south-central Huerfano County (see Figure 2). These
areas are bounded by the Great Plain physiographic province on the east, and the Southern Rocky
Mountain province on the west. The landscape of the study area is characterized by semi-arid high
plains mixed with, in some areas, very steep and rugged terrain. Stream erosion has created numerous
canyons and arroyos (Howard, 1982). The average annual total precipitation in Las Animas County is
about 14 inches, with the majority of the precipitation occurring from June to September (Colorado
Climate Center, 2014a). The average annual total precipitation in Huerfano County is about 15 inches,
with the majority of precipitation falling in March and April, and then in July and August (Colorado
Climate Center, 2014b). Higher amounts of precipitation occur mainly as snow at upper elevations and
near the crests of the Sangre de Cristo Mountains. Snowmelt from the mountains supplies much of the
base flow to major streams in the area (McLaughlin, 1966).
3.1. Geology
A thick sequence of Upper Cretaceous and Tertiary coal-bearing clastic sedimentary rocks is preserved
within the basin. The sedimentary sequence exposed within the Raton Basin was deposited during the
regression of the Cretaceous Interior Seaway, and the stratigraphy reflects well-developed flow-through
fluvial systems that contained peat-forming swamps (Cooper et al., 2007; Flores, 1993). Sedimentary
rocks in the region (see Figures 3 and 4), from oldest to youngest, include the Pierre Shale, Trinidad
Sandstone, and Vermejo Formation of Late Cretaceous age; the Raton Formation of Late Cretaceous and
Paleocene age; the Poison Canyon Formation of Paleocene age; and the Cuchara and Huerfano
formations of Eocene age (Johnson et al., 1956). Late Upper Cretaceous and lower and middle Tertiary
rocks occupy the deepest part of the basin, and the study sites are located within this region.
Numerous discontinuous and thin coal beds are located within the Vermejo and Raton formations,
which lie directly above the Trinidad Sandstone. The upper Trinidad intertongues with, and is overlain
by, the coal-bearing Vermejo Formation (Topper et al., 2011). This sandstone layer serves as a "marker"
for the area because no coals are found below this sandstone (Lewicki, 2001). The Vermejo Formation
consists of interbedded buff to gray shale, carbonaceous shale, coal, and slightly arkosic fine- to
medium-grained sandstones. These deposits represent channel and channel-margin deposits, including
13
-------
Retrospective Case Study in the Raton Basin, Colorado
May 2015
5 miles
Raton
Basin
Quaternary
Alluvium
Tertiary
Cuchara Formation
Tertiary
Intrusives
Tertiary
Huerfano Formation
Tertiary
Poison Canyon Formation
Tertiary
Raton Formation
Cretaceous
Vermejo Formation
and Trinidad Sandstone
Cretaceous
Pierre Shale
Cretaceous
Niobrara Formation
Cretaceous
Carlile Shale
Jurassic Sediments
Pennsylvanian Sediments
Figures. A geologic map of the Raton Basin showing the synclinal axis of the basin and the location of
generalized geologic cross-section A-A', which is included in this report as Figure 4.
14
-------
Retrospective Case Study in the Raton Basin, Colorado
May 2015
A'
9000
8000
7000 0)
6000
5000
Quaternary Alluvium
/ Tertiary Poison Canyon Formation
Ter«ary Raton Formation
Cretaceous Trinidad Sandstone
Cretaceous Vermejo Formation
Description
Sandstone: coarse-sand to conglomerate;
beds 10-50 feet thick, yellow siltstones
and shales.
Upper coal zone: very fine-grained
sandstone,siltstone, and mudstone
with carbonaceous shale and coal beds.
Barren series: fine-grained sandstone and
mudstone with carbonaceous shale
and thin coal beds.
Lower coal zone: same as upper coal zone;
thin coal beds and discontinuous.
Sandstone: fine- to medium-grained,
with mudstone; thick coal beds.
Sandstone: fine- to medium-grained.
Shale: contains limestone concretions.
Lithology
Thickness
approximate (ft)
0-2500
0-2100
0-410
0-260
1300-2300
Figure 4. A generalized geologic cross-section (A-A') and stratigraphic chart (after Abbott et al., 1983; Topper et al., 2011), Raton Basin, CO.
15
-------
Retrospective Case Study in the Raton Basin, Colorado May 2015
marsh, swamp, lake, and crevasse splay environments (Howard, 1982), and coal formation occurred
within channel-margin deposits. When present, the thickness of the Vermejo Formation ranges from
about 150 feet within the southern part of the basin to 410 feet within the northern part (Lewicki,
2001). The Vermejo contains 3 to 14 coal beds, over 14 inches thick, over the entire basin, and total coal
thickness typically ranges from 5 to 35 feet (US EPA, 2004). The nearshore, fluvial-deltaic deposits of the
Vermejo Formation contain the best developed and most laterally extensive coal beds in the basin
(Topper et al., 2011). This unit is believed to be the slightly younger equivalent of an identical lithofacies
unit represented by the coal-bearing Fruitland Formation of the San Juan Basin (Jurich and Adams,
1984).
The late Cretaceous to Paleocene Raton Formation overlies the Vermejo Formation and is the second
coal-bearing formation within the basin. Total thickness of the Raton Formation ranges from 0 to 2,100
feet and is composed of three generally recognizable field divisions: a basal sandstone, conglomeratic
throughout most of the western part of the basin; a lower zone, predominantly sandstone, siltstone,
and mudstone; and an upper coal zone, consisting of sandstone, siltstone, mudstone and beds of coal
(Jurich and Adams, 1984; Johnson and Finn, 2001). The thickest coal-bearing zone of this formation
ranges from 0 feet in the western part of the basin to over 1,000 feet in the central part (Jurich and
Adams, 1984); individual seams range in thickness from several inches to greater than 10 feet thick (US
EPA, 2004). All commercial coal beds, which have been mined extensively and are currently being
developed for CBM production, occur in this zone (Lewicki, 2001). These coal units are the likely source
of gas found in sandstones within this formation (Johnson and Finn, 2001).
Resting on top of the Raton Formation is the Paleocene-age Poison Canyon Formation, which ranges in
thickness from 0 to 2,500 feet (Jurich and Adams, 1984). This unit consists of interbedded coarse-
grained conglomeratic, arkosic sandstone, mudstone and siltstone; locally thin, irregular, impure coal
beds occur near the base of this formation (Jurich and Adams, 1984). The Poison Canyon lies
unconformably over the Raton Formation in the western portion of the basin (Howard, 1982), and
becomes finer-grained toward the east (Johnson and Finn, 2001).
Clastic deposits of the Eocene-age Cuchara and Huerfano formations overlie the Poison Canyon
Formation within, and northwest of, the Spanish Peaks area (Figure 3; Topper et al., 2011). The Cuchara
Formation, which overlies the Poison Canyon with marked unconformity, is composed of beds of red,
pink, and white sandstone and thin beds of red and tan shale; where present, they measure up to 5,000
feet in thickness. The Huerfano Formation, consisting of interbedded arkose and greywacke
conglomerate, conglomeratic sandstone, siltstone, and minor claystone, appears to lie conformably on
the Cuchara Formation on the north and east flanks of West Spanish Peak, but unconformably on the
south and west flanks of the peak (Johnson, 1961; Jurich and Adams, 1984).
Quaternary alluvial deposits of limited extent and thickness have been deposited along the present
stream and river drainages and consist of gravel, sand, and silt, with minor amounts of cobbles and
boulders derived from eroded sedimentary and igneous rocks (Powell, 1952; Topper et al., 2011). These
deposits are generally less than 10 feet thick but may be up to 40 feet thick in some locations (Topper et
al., 2011).
Epeirogenic movements and erogenic episodes, associated with Laramide deformation, are recorded in
the strata and faults and folds that modify the regional structure (Geldon, 1989). The complex structural
history is reflected by angular unconformities and lithologic changes within sedimentary rocks located in
16
-------
Retrospective Case Study in the Raton Basin, Colorado May 2015
the basin and characterized by a steeply tilted, overturned, and faulted western limb, a gently sloping
eastern limb, and a broad, central portion in which the beds are essentially horizontal (Johnson et al.,
1956; Jurich and Adams, 1984). Folds with small amplitude occur throughout the basin (Geldon, 1989).
Several small normal faults occur northeast of Weston, Colorado. These nearly vertical faults trend
north, east, northeast, and northwest, and have displacements of less than 50 feet (Johnson, 1961).
Miocene and Pliocene igneous dikes, sills, plugs, stocks, and laccoliths, ranging in age from 6.7 to 29.5
million years (my), frequently intrude the coal-bearing Vermejo and Raton formations (Flores and Bader,
1999). The intrusions are composed of basalts, lamprophyres, andesites, and rhyolites (Miggins, 2002).
The most prominent igneous features are those related to the Spanish Peaks and their associated radial
dike swarm, located in the north-central portion of the basin (Cooper et al., 2007); intrusion probably
took place at intervals during the late Eocene or early Oligocene time (Johnson, 1961). These dikes,
almost all of which are vertical or nearly so, range from 1 foot to nearly 100 feet in width and extend for
a maximum distance of approximately 14 miles (Johnson, 1961; see Figure 3). A separate system of
subparallel dikes affects coal seams throughout the entire basin; these intrusions have a roughly east-
west orientation, which varies from west-southwest in the northern part of the basin to west-northwest
in the southern portion, always trending normal to the Sangre de Cristo Mountains (Cooper et al., 2007;
Flores and Bader, 1999; see Figure 3). The dikes vary in thickness from a few inches to more than 100
feet, and are up to 14 miles in length; they are presumed to be intruded into fracture systems that
resulted from structural deformation of rock units by intrusive igneous activity (Johnson, 1960; Howard,
1982; Flores and Bader, 1999). The formation of these intrusions altered millions of tons of coal to
natural coke and may have played a minor role in generating some of the large CBM resources currently
being exploited in this region (Cooper et al., 2007).
3.2. Hydrology
3.2.1. Surface Water
The hydrologic framework of the Raton Basin consists of three main drainages and is part of the larger
Arkansas River Basin. Much of the Raton Basin coal-bearing region is deeply incised by two of the three
major drainages within the basin, and includes the Purgatoire and Apishapa rivers and their tributaries.
The headwaters of these drainages originate in the Culebra Range (Abbott, 1985). The Cucharas River,
north of the Spanish Peaks, drains the northern portion of the basin. All three rivers flow east and are
tributaries of the Arkansas River. A number of stream segments within each of these drainages are
currently found on Colorado's 2012 303(d) list for impairment due to selenium and mercury; it is unclear
if the source of the impairments are natural (Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment,
2012).
Annual precipitation in the Raton Basin generally correlates to elevation, ranging from over 30 inches
per year in the Spanish Peaks to less than 16 inches per year in eastern portions of the basin (Hathaway
and Grigsby, 2008). Distribution of precipitation over time is uneven; much of the precipitation in the
plains is from intense summer storms. Precipitation in the mountains results in the formation of a deep
snowpack that accumulates during winter months then melts and runs off in the spring and early
summer. The Cucharas, Apishapa, and Purgatoire rivers are all sustained by mountain snowpack
(Abbott, 1985).
17
-------
Retrospective Case Study in the Raton Basin, Colorado May 2015
3.2.2. Ground Water
The principal bedrock aquifers in the Raton Basin are the Dakota Sandstone-Purgatoire aquifer (Early
Cretaceous), Raton-Vermejo-Trinidad aquifer (Early Tertiary-Late Cretaceous), Cuchara-Poison Canyon
aquifer (Eocene), and volcanic rock aquifers (Tertiary; Abbott et al., 1983). The Raton-Vermejo-Trinidad
aquifer is confined at depth while the Cuchara-Poison Canyon aquifer is a water table aquifer; alluvial
aquifers can be in hydrologic connection between the bedrock aquifer system or perched above the
bedrock water table (Howard, 1982). Within these units, sandstone and conglomerate layers transmit
most of the water, while shale and coal layers generally retard flow; however, fracture networks within
the shales and coals can also transmit water. Talus and alluvium yield small to large quantities of water
but are limited in aerial extent, and discharges from these units fluctuate seasonally (Abbott et al.,
1983). Sources of recharge for the aquifers include runoff from the Sangre de Cristo Mountains,
precipitation infiltration, and infiltration from streams and lakes.
Ground water flow is generally radial from the Spanish Peaks, and regional flow is from west to east,
except where it is intercepted by valleys that cut into the rock (Howard, 1982; Oldaker, 1988; Watts,
2006a). Flow is generally lateral and parallel with bedding but also can be downward where fractures
connect permeable rock. The depth to ground water depends mostly on topographic position; in all
areas but the southeast corner of the basin, water can be encountered at less than 200 feet below land
surface (Abott et al., 1983). In stream valleys, ground water is usually less than 100 feet below land
surface, and some of this water discharges as springs or flows into stream alluvium. Depth to ground
water is also affected by geology: abrupt changes in aquifer permeabilities can result in perched waters,
and clusters of springs are often located at or near the contact between the Cuchara-Poison Canyon and
Raton-Vermejo-Trinidad aquifers. Aquifer testing within the Raton-Vermejo aquifers reported hydraulic
conductivity values that ranged from 0 to 45 feet per day (Abbott et al., 1983), and from 0.06 to 15 feet
per day for the Cuchara-Poison Canyon aquifer system (Geldon and Abbott, 1985). Based on static
water level data, Howard (1982) concluded that the Raton-Vermejo-Trinidad aquifer and the overlying
unconfined Cuchara-Poison Canyon aquifer are separate and under different pressure heads, suggesting
that downward movement of shallow(er) ground water to deeper zones may occur. In some areas
within the basin, dikes and sills act as barriers to flow and force water to the surface as springs; in other
areas, secondary permeability, resulting from fracturing of bedrock during intrusive igneous activity,
causes dewatering of the water table (Howard, 1982). Fractures associated with the Spanish Peaks
cause dewatering and leakage between aquifer systems; while dewatering the water table aquifers,
these fractures are an important source of recharge to the confined units below (Howard, 1982).
Alluvial aquifers are recharged by meteoric water and stream channel loss; these aquifers are often
perched on top of less permeable bedrock (Howard, 1982). Generally, the alluvium deposited by the
Purgatoire and Apishapa rivers transmits water more readily than alluvium deposited in tributary
canyons; hydraulic conductivity values ranged between 0.01 and 1,880 feet per day within alluvial
deposits (Geldon, 1989).
The geologic formations can have distinctive ground water chemistry. The Cuchara-Poison Canyon
aquifer is typically calcium-bicarbonate water type, with low total dissolved solids (TDS) concentrations
(<500 mg/L). In contrast, the Raton-Vermejo-Trinidad aquifer is generally sodium-bicarbonate water
type, with higher average TDS concentrations (<1,500 mg/L). Abbott et al. (1983) noted that
concentrations of boron, fluoride, iron, manganese, mercury, nitrate, selenium, and zinc were higher in
localized areas due to geologic processes and human activities. High concentrations of fluoride occur
18
-------
Retrospective Case Study in the Raton Basin, Colorado May 2015
within the Poison Canyon and Raton formations, possibly due to dissolution of detrital fluorite. Iron and
manganese concentrations can be elevated, particularly in areas where coals are present, partly due to
the dissolution of pyrite, siderite, and/or rhodochrosite contained in the coal seams. Nitrate enrichment
occurs most often in alluvial aquifers where fertilizers and/or animal wastes add nitrogen (Abbott et al.,
1983).
3.3. Coal and Coalbed Methane Production
The Raton Basin contains substantial resources of high- and medium-volatile bituminous coals that
extend from outcrops along the periphery to depths of at least 3,000 feet in the deepest parts of the
basin (Jurich and Adams, 1984). These coal beds have been extensively mined in the peripheral outcrop
belt, along major stream valleys, and within a few structural uplifts within the interior of the basin (Dolly
and Meissner, 1977). Commercial mining of the Vermejo and Raton formation coals began in the 1870s
(Hemborg, 1998); historically, at least 371 mines have operated within the region (Boreck and Murray,
1979), and the last remaining coal mine closed in 1995. However, in early 2010, the New Elk mine
(subsurface coal mine), located in Las Animas County, was reopened for rehabilitation and subsequent
coal production; it is currently the only active mine within the Raton Basin.
The earliest recorded CBM well in the state of Colorado was drilled in 1951 within the Fruitland
Formation of the San Juan Basin. In 1978, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) ran tests and discovered
that the Raton Basin had high CBM production potential (Danilchik, 1979). Over 500 billion cubic feet
(Bcf) of gas has been produced in the Colorado portion of the Raton Basin since initiation of production
in the 1980s (Hathaway and Grigsby, 2008); however, major exploration began in the mid-1990s with
the development of infrastructure to transport the gas out of the basin (Colorado Geological Survey,
2000). Prior to 1995, there were no gas distribution lines out of the Raton Basin and fewer than 60 wells
had been drilled (Flores and Bader, 1999). Most, if not all, wells in the Raton Basin require hydraulic
fracture stimulation to attain economic levels of gas production (Flores and Bader, 1999). CBM
production involves the dewatering of coal beds, which reduces the pore pressures and allows the
methane gas to move freely from the coal. The methane gas is captured through production wells and
then sent to market via pipeline. The locations of gas fields developed for CBM in Las Animas and
Huerfano counties and the sampling locations of this study are shown in Figures 5 and 6. In 2007, CBM
activities temporally ceased within Huerfano County due to uneconomical production of the coal seams.
CBM resources contained in the Vermejo and Raton formations are estimated to be approximately 4.3
trillion cubic feet (Tcf) (U.S. Energy Information Administration, 2007). Expansion of CBM operations has
focused on the development of the Vermejo coals, because these coals are thicker and more continuous
than those located in the Raton Formation (US EPA, 2004). Annual production of CBM in Colorado has
increased from approximately 26 Bcf in 1990 to 486 Bcf in 2012 (U.S. Energy Information Administration,
2013). Since 2002, production has remained relatively stable (U.S. Energy Information Administration,
2013). It was estimated that Colorado's CBM contribution was approximately 3% of the nation's total in
1993, and increased to approximately 7% by the end of 1999 (Colorado Geological Survey, 2000). The
Raton Basin has shown annual production increases since 1999, with maximum production occurring in
2008 (115 Bcf; COGCC, 2014a). In 1999, annual production was approximately 30,000 million cubic feet
(Mmcf), and production has increased each year since, reaching just under 100,000 Mmcf in 2006, with
approximately 2,000 wells in the Raton Basin (see Figure 7; U.S. Energy Information Administration,
2013; COGCC, 2014a). Annual ground water withdrawals for CBM production increased from about 1.45
19
-------
Retrospective Case Study in the Raton Basin, Colorado
May 2015
<
M "ILLS .' =
Lynn ,
Vflbefcne
m ,
«« ,.•— /
. '. HUt.O.r-'lA!**
<\T
%db ^o/rfez |Sto**
Branson
?^M;su
ftlKfl /*J5 '
,
%
.
rn:TTin«Tii u ,--^(i«»fi,
EPA Sampling Locations
Search Areas (See Appendix C)
Municipal Boundaries
Waterbodies
Gas Field Locations
Source: Gas Fields. COGCC: Water Bodies, USGS NHD; Boundaries and Topography, ESRI
Gas Field Locations
Las Animas County, Colorado
EPA Hydraulic Fracturing Study
Figure 5. Map showing the location of CBM fields and sampling locations in Las Animas County, CO.
20
-------
Retrospective Case Study in the Raton Basin, Colorado
May 2015
wtr
MOUNTAIN
VALLEY
'
San
Mesa
CULCGHA RANGE
\
'
s
U I I- HILLS
0 2.5 5 10 15
] Miles
• EPA Sampling Locations
Gas Field Locations
Waterbodies
Municipal Boundaries
^ ^Search Area (See Appendix C)
Gas Field Locations
Huerfano County, Colorado
EPA Hydraulic Fracturing Study
Source: Gas Fields, COGCC: Water Bodies, USGS NHD: Boundaries and Topography, ESRI
Figure 6. Map showing the location of CBM fields and sampling locations in Huerfano County, CO.
21
-------
Retrospective Case Study in the Raton Basin, Colorado
May 2015
600
c
g
'•G
CO
CO
ffl
O
500-
400-
300-
100-
—o— Raton Basin
—•- Colorado
-- o
o
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
Year
2008
2010
2012
2014
Figure 7. CBM production through time in Colorado and the Raton Basin, 1999—2013 (production in billion cubic
feet, Bcf; data from COGCC, 2014a).
billion gallons (from 480 wells) to about 3.64 billion gallons (from 1,568 wells) during 1999-2004 (Watts,
2006b).
Coal beds targeted for development occur within some of the same formations as aquifers used for
water supply (Watts, 2006a; 2006b). Oil and gas operations, including the issuing of permits for drilling
and operation, well spacing requirements, well bore construction, and well site reclamation, are
regulated by the COGCC, under COGCC 100-1200 Series Rules. The COGCC also regulates the
abandonment of wells and the treatment and disposal of oil and gas exploration and production waste.
Air requirements, water requirements, and hazardous and solid waste requirements (not including oil
and gas exploration and production wastes), are regulated by the Colorado Department of Public Health
and Environment-Air Pollution Control Division, Water Quality Control Division, and the Hazardous
Materials and Waste Management Division, respectively (Colorado Department of Public Health and
Environment, 2013).
22
-------
Retrospective Case Study in the Raton Basin, Colorado May 2015
3.4. Land Use
Huerfano and Las Animas counties are sparsely populated, rural counties in Colorado. During the latter
part of the nineteenth century, cattle ranching became the first major economic activity within these
counties. At the end of the nineteenth century, and during the first part of the twentieth century, coal
mining and coke production became major industries in both counties (Murray, 1978). However, the
coal mining industry started to decline in the 1920s (Huerfano County Government, 2011). According to
Worrall (2003), before 1990 there was little oil and gas development in the northern Raton Basin; more
recently CBM development and extraction efforts were renewed in the mid-1990s (US EPA, 2012).
Huerfano County's Comprehensive County Plan describes the county as being "primarily a rural county"
(Huerfano County Government, 2011), while Las Animas County government's website describes the
county as mostly rural and relying "heavily on farming and ranching as its main economic engine" (Las
Animas County Government, 2013). Land use maps for Las Animas and Huerfano counties, presented in
Figures 8 and 9, were created using data from the National Land Cover Database (NLCD) and reflect land
use activities within Las Animas and Huerfano counties in 1992 and 2006; land use data are also shown
in Tables 1 and 2 (USGS, 2012). The NLCD is based upon 30-meter-resolution data from the Landsat
satellite, and the 2006 dataset is the most recent available. Although these land use data (1992, 2006)
are not quantitatively comparable due to changes in input data and mapping methodologies (see Multi-
Resolution Land Characteristics Consortium, 2013), the NLCD data indicate that, in both years,
grassland/herbaceous, forests, and shrub/scrub were the largest land use categories in Las Animas and
Huerfano counties. Additional analyses of land use and qualitative land use change, with particular
focus in the areas adjacent to the sampling locations of this study, are presented in Appendix C.
3.5. Potential Contaminant Sources
A causal assessment approach was adopted in all of the retrospective case studies to evaluate potential
contaminant sources. Causal assessment is defined as the organization and analysis of available
evidence to evaluate links between apparent environmental impacts and potential causes, and the
assessment of the level of confidence in these causal links.
A list of candidate causes (i.e., hypothesized causes of an environmental impairment that are sufficiently
credible to be analyzed; US EPA, 2000a) was developed for this retrospective case study and included
the Little Creek Field, North Fork Ranch, and Arrowhead Ranchettes study areas. Environmental
stressors were evaluated by examining potential causes and effects. Candidate causes included
potential sources that could impact the environment and contribute to any detected levels of surface
and/or ground water contamination. Candidate causes were categorized as follows:
industrial/commercial land use, historical land use (e.g., farming and mining), current drilling
processes/practices, historical drilling practices, and naturally occurring sources. In order to determine
whether the presence of other potential sources of contamination existed, unrelated to drilling and
hydraulic fracturing processes, a background assessment was conducted; this evaluation is described
below and in more detail in Appendix C. Where appropriate, the results of the environmental record
assessment are integrated into the analysis of the water quality data in following sections of this report.
23
-------
Retrospective Case Study in the Raton Basin, Colorado
May 2015
1992
10
20
Miles
Land Use/Land Cover
Perennial Ice/Snow
Open Water
Developed
Barren
Forest
Grassland/Herbaceous
Shrub/Scrub
Agricultural
Wetlands
Municipal Boundaries
Land Use/Land Cover
1992 and 2006
Las Animas County, Colorado
EPA Hydraulic Fracturing Study
• EPA Sampling Locations
Source Landuse. USGS National Land Cmer Database (1992.2006). Mjnlcloaftfres E5RI. Samptoq Locafigns. US EPA PRO
Figure 8. Land use map, Las Animas County, CO, 1992 and 2006 (data from USGS, 2012).
24
-------
Retrospective Case Study in the Raton Basin, Colorado
May 2015
1992
//*! *-
'""
2006
*>
Miles
Land Use/Land Cover
Perennial Ice/Snow
Open Water
Developed
Source. Landuse, USGS National Land Cover Database (1992.2006),
Municipalities. ESRI: Sampling Locations. US EPA PRO
Barren
Forest
Grassland/Herbaceous
Shrub/Scrub Search Area
Agricultural [f~i- Municipal Boundaries
Wetlands • EPA Sampling Locations
Land Use/Land Cover
1992 and 2006
Huerfano County, Colorado
EPA Hydraulic Fracturing Study
Figure 9. Land use map, Huerfano County, CO, 1992 and 2006 (data from USGS, 2012).
25
-------
Retrospective Case Study in the Raton Basin, Colorado
May 2015
The background assessments utilized the following databases:
• Environmental records search: Environmental record searches were performed by obtaining
environmental record reports from Environmental Data Resources, Inc. (EDR). EDR provides a
service for searching publically available databases, as well as data from their own proprietary
databases. Record searches were conducted in defined buffer zones around sampling locations
(see search areas in Figures 10 and 11 and in Appendix C).
• Well inventory: Existing oil and gas well inventories were prepared on the same search areas
used for the EDR reports using COGCC's oil and gas well database
(]rtt|D://a3gcŁ.state.co.us/cogis).
State record summary: The COGCC Information System website
was used to find up-to-date well records for the study areas. The database provides information
on inspection and pollution prevention visits, including a listing of all inspections that have
occurred at each well on record, whether violations were noted, and any enforcement that may
have resulted. The system provides multiple options to search for records.
Table 1. Land use in Las Animas County in 1992 and 2006.
Land Use
Grassland/herbaceous
Evergreen forest
Shrub/scrub
Deciduous forest
Row/cultivated crops
Pasture/hay
Transitional
Barren
Mixed forest
Developed
Open water
Fallow
Urban/recreational grass
Perennial ice/snow
Woody wetlands
Emergent herbaceous wetlands
Total
1992
Square
Miles
3,358.5
691.9
413.0
191.6
47.3
26.1
19.3
8.5
7.9
7.2
1.3
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
4,772.8
% of Total
70.4
14.5
8.7
4.0
1.0
0.5
0.4
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
100.0
2006
Square
Miles
2,879.9
785.7
875.6
97.8
34.5
13.0
0.0
8.1
19.5
23.8
2.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
19.9
12.8
4,773.0
% of Total
60.3
16.5
18.3
2.0
0.7
0.3
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.4
0.3
100.0
Source: US Geological Survey (2012).
26
-------
Retrospective Case Study in the Raton Basin, Colorado
May 2015
Table 2. Land use in Huerfano County in 1992 and 2006.
Land Use
Grassland/herbaceous
Shrub/scrub
Evergreen forest
Deciduous forest
Pasture/hay
Row/cultivated crops
Barren
Transitional
Mixed forest
Developed
Open water
Urban/recreational grass
Emergent herbaceous wetlands
Perennial ice/snow
Woody wetlands
Total
1992
Square
Miles
742.3
394.5
253.3
118.4
34.3
16.5
12.5
7.9
6.3
3.7
1.8
0.4
0.1
0.1
0.0
1,592.1
% of Total
46.6
24.8
15.9
7.4
2.2
1.0
0.8
0.5
0.4
0.2
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
100.0
2006
Square
Miles
776.9
301.1
350.1
83.7
10.0
0.7
15.1
0.0
27.0
11.1
2.2
0.0
5.9
0.0
8.3
1,592.1
% of Total
48.8
18.9
22.0
5.3
0.6
0.0
0.9
0.0
1.7
0.7
0.1
0.0
0.4
0.0
0.5
100.0
Source: US Geological Survey (2012).
27
-------
Retrospective Case Study in the Raton Basin, Colorado
May 2015
LAS AN MAS COUNTY
Search Area C. ./.*..
Ł| (3-mile radius)
' .Search Ar'eaB • '\ ' Search^Area At ...
* " 4(1-mile radius).
4 » ' ' ^
CBM Wells (COGCC)
EPA Sampling Locations
.; Search Areas
I Miles
Source: Imagery, ESRI; Wells and Samples: EPA ORD
Sampling Location Map
Las Animas County, Colorado
EPA Hydraulic Fracturing Study
Figure 10. Map showing the locations of samples collected, search areas evaluated in the
environmental assessments, and CBM wells: Las Animas County, CO. Search Area A contains sampling
locations within the Arrowhead Ranchettes study area; sample points within Search Areas B and C are
located within the North Fork Ranch study area. See Table 3 for well types.
28
-------
Retrospective Case Study in the Raton Basin, Colorado
May 2015
HUERFANO COUNTY
Lathrop
Oehm
Search Area A
(3-mile radius)
CBM Wells (COGCC)
O EPA Sampling Locations
Search Area
] Miles
Walsenburg
Source: Imagery, ESRI; Wells and Samples, EPA ORD, Colorado COGCC
Sampling Location Map
Huerfano County, Colorado
EPA Hydraulic Fracturing Study
Figure 11. Map showing the locations of samples collected within the Little Creek Field during this study, the
search area evaluated in the environmental assessment, and CBM wells: Huerfano County, CO. See Table 4
for well types.
29
-------
Retrospective Case Study in the Raton Basin, Colorado May 2015
4. Study Methods
In Las Animas County, the sampled domestic wells and monitoring wells ranged in depth from 60 to 585
feet below land surface. Production wells, located within the Raton and Vermejo coal formations,
ranged in depth from 2,405 to 3,040 feet below land surface, respectively. Ground water samples were
obtained from production wells to establish the chemical and physical characteristics of ground water
associated with CBM-producing coal zones within the study areas; this information was important to
evaluate and understand potential interactions between waters from different aquifers, as well as the
surface environment. In Huerfano County, domestic wells and monitoring wells ranged in depth from
323 to 706 feet below land surface.
Wherever possible, ancillary data for each well were collected during or near the time of sample
collection and included latitude and longitude (recorded with a handheld global positioning system
[GPS] device), topographic setting, depth, diameter, screened interval, casing material, and static water
level (depth to water). Samples were analyzed for geochemical parameters (pH, specific conductance
[SPC], oxidation-reduction potential [ORP], dissolved oxygen [DO], alkalinity, ferrous iron, and dissolved
sulfide), major ions, nutrients, trace metals, volatile organic compounds (VOCs), semivolatile organic
compounds (SVOCs), diesel-range organics (DRO), gasoline-range organics (GRO), glycol ethers
(diethylene glycol, triethylene glycol, and tetraethylene glycol), low-molecular-weight acids (lactate,
formate, acetate, propionate, isobutyrate, and butyrate), dissolved gases (methane, ethane, propane,
and butane), strontium isotope ratios (87Sr/86Sr), and selected stable isotopes (513CCH4, 52HCH4, 513CD|C,
518OH2o, 52HH2o, 634SS04, 518OS04, 634SH2S). A detailed description of the sampling methods, analytical
methods, quality assurance (QA), and quality control (QC) is provided in the QAPP for this study (Wilkin,
2013). The laboratories that performed the analyses for each sampling event are listed in Table Al of
Appendix A and analytical results for the sample measurements are tabulated in Appendix B.
4.1. Sampling Locations
Water quality samples were collected from 14 different domestic wells, three production wells, five
monitoring wells, and three surface water locations during four sampling rounds in October 2011, May
2012, November 2012, and April/May 2013 (see Tables 3 and 4). The selected study sites are located
within the coal-bearing portion of the Raton Basin in Colorado. The first study area is located north-
northwest of Trinidad, Colorado, along the western margin of the basin. Figure 10 identifies the
sampling locations and the search areas for which environmental record assessments were performed.
Search Area A contains two sampling locations in the Arrowhead Ranchettes subdivision; Search Area B
includes one surface water sampling location in Wet Canyon; and Search Area C includes 14 sampling
locations within the North Fork Ranch subdivision (see Figure 10). The second study area is located
south-southwest of Walsenberg, Colorado, in the eastern side of the basin. Figure 11 identifies the
sampling locations and the search area in which the environmental assessment was performed. While
the stratigraphic sedimentary sequences are similar in the different study areas, the thickness of
individual formations, past igneous activity, and the structural history of the sites differ.
Four sampling rounds (rounds 1 through 4) were conducted, commencing in October 2011 and ending in
April/May 2013 (see Tables 3 and 4). During round 1 (October 2011), samples were collected from 20
locations, including two production wells, five monitoring wells, 12 domestic wells, and one surface
water body. In round 2 (May 2012), round 3 (November 2012), and round 4 (April/May 2013), water
30
-------
Retrospective Case Study in the Raton Basin, Colorado
May 2015
samples were collected from two production wells, three monitoring wells, 12 domestic wells, and three
surface water locations (20 total locations). In round 3, one domestic well was sampled at the wellhead
(RBDW06) and at the kitchen tap (RBDW15) in order to evaluate the effectiveness of a
methane/hydrogen sulfide treatment system. The water treatment system appeared to be functioning
properly and the concentration of hydrogen sulfide and methane in water collected from the
homeowner's kitchen faucet was significantly less than water collected at RBDW06 (see Tables B-l and
B-5). No anomalous results were observed and the location was not sampled in future sampling events.
Reasons for including or excluding a location during a sampling round included access issues and QA/QC
constraints (e.g., homeowner well function).
Table 3. Information for wells sampled during this study in Las Animas County, CO.
Sample ID
Well
Type1
Geologic
Fm2
Sampling Round
1
2
3
4
Latitude
(°N)
Longitude
(°W)
Elevation
(ft)
Well
Depth
(ftBLS)
North Fork Ranch
RBDW01
RBDW02
RBDW03
RBDW04
RBDW05
RBDW13
RBMW01
RBMW02
RBMW03
RBPW01
RBPW02
RBPW03
RBSW01
RBSW02
RBSW03
DW
DW
DW
DW
DW
DW
MW
MW
MW
PW
PW
PW
SW
SW
SW
QA
PC-SA
PC-SA
PC-SA
PC-SA
QA
PC-SA
PC-SA
PC-SA
RT-CA
VMJ-CA
VMJ-CA
NA5
NA
NA
X
X
X
X
X
NS
X
X
X
X
X
NS
X
NS
NS
X
X
X
NS
X
X
X
X
X
X
NS
X
X
X
X
NS4
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
NS
X
X
X
X
NS
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
NS
X
X
X
X
37.17826
37.21538
37.19978
37.20798
37.19659
37.18218
37.22180
37.21264
37.21958
37.21975
37.22068
37.19850
37.17757
37.19778
37.19583
-104.95889
-104.96784
-104.96972
-104.97005
-104.96214
-104.96314
-104.96442
-104.95832
-104.95528
-104.95507
-104.97320
-104.80655
-104.95537
-104.87917
-104.94722
7530
7897
7664
7762
8091
7527
7933
7899
8383
8383
8007
7270
7461
7316
7717
140
170
100
507
450
60
70
140
585
2405
2635
3040
NA
NA
NA
Arrowhead Ranchettes
RBDW11
RBDW12
DW
DW
RT
-
X
X
X
NS
X
NS
X
NS
37.19861
37.19861
-104.80667
-104.80333
7270
7270
120
-
1 Well Type: PW = Production Well; MW = Monitoring Well; DW = Domestic Well; SW = Surface Water.
Geologic formation the wells were screened in: QA = Quaternary Alluvium; PC-SA = Poison Canyon sandstone aquifer; RT =
Raton Formation; RT-CA = Raton Formation coal aquifer; VMJ-CA = Vermejo Formation coal aquifer.
Sampling Events: round 1 = October 2011; round 2 = May 2012; round 3 = November 2012; and round 4 = April/May 2013.
NS = Not Sampled.
NA = Not Applicable.
31
-------
Retrospective Case Study in the Raton Basin, Colorado
May 2015
Table 4. Information for wells sampled during this study in Huerfano County, CO.
Sample ID
Well
Type1
Geologic
Fm2
Sampling Round3
1
2
3
4
Latitude
(°N)
Longitude
rw)
Elevation
(ft)
Well
Depth
(ftBLS)
Little Creek Field
RBDW06
RBDW07
RBDW08
RBDW09
RBDW10
RBDW14
RBDW15
RBMW04
RBMW05
DW
DW
DW
DW
DW
DW
Res5
MW
MW
PC-SA
PC-SA
PC-SA
PC-SA
PC-SA
PC-SA
NA6
PC-SA
PC-SA
X
X
X
X
X
NS4
NS
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
NS
NS
NS
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
NS
NS
X
X
X
X
X
X
NS
NS
NS
37.52175
37.57250
37.54083
37.54250
37.55333
37.56611
37.52132
37.53658
37.54911
-104.87707
-104.85194
-104.88250
-104.87944
-104.88472
-104.88806
-104.87863
-104.88336
-104.88207
7175
6503
6804
6781
6690
6634
7175
6838
6656
323
345
607
706
615
432
NA
695
591
1 Well Type: PW = Production Well; MW = Monitoring Well; DW = Domestic Well; SW = Surface Water.
Geologic formation the wells were screened in: QA = Quaternary Alluvium; PC-SA = Poison Canyon sandstone aquifer; RT =
Raton Formation; RT-CA = Raton Formation coal aquifer; VMJ-CA = Vermejo Formation coal aquifer.
3 Sampling Events: round 1 = October 2011; round 2 = May 2012; round 3 = November 2012; and round 4 = April/May 2013.
4 NS = Not Sampled.
5 Res = Residence. Sample was collected from a kitchen faucet, post-treatment of RBDW06.
6 NA = Not Applicable.
4.2. Water Collection
Sample bottles for each location were uniquely labeled prior to each sampling round, and all labels were
color-coded by analytical parameter. Table A2 of Appendix A identifies the pre-cleaned bottle types and
number of sample bottles needed for each laboratory analysis.
Water samples were collected as close to the ground water pump as possible to yield samples that were
unaffected by contamination caused during sample collection, and representative of environmental
conditions. Teflon-lined polyethylene tubing was connected to the pump output at each sample
location; clean tubing was used prior to sampling and filtration and discarded after use. Tubing was not
used at sample location RBDW15 (round 3, November 2012); this water sample was collected from the
homeowner's kitchen faucet.
Unfiltered samples were collected first for the following parameters: dissolved gases, VOCs, SVOCs,
DRO, GRO, glycol ethers, low-molecular-weight acids (LMWAs), total metals, 513CCH4, and 52HCH4-
Samples for dissolved metals, anions, nutrients, dissolved inorganic carbon (DIG), 513CD|C, dissolved
organic carbon (DOC), 518OH2o; 52HH2o, 534SS04, 518OS04, 534SH2s, and Sr isotopes were filtered onsite using
0.45-micron pore-size, disposable-capsule filters (Millipore). Approximately 100 milliliters (ml) of
ground water were passed through the filter, to waste, prior to filling sample bottles. The date and time
of collection and the initials of the sampler were recorded for each location. Sample preservation and
holding time requirements for each sample type are described in Table A2 of Appendix A.
32
-------
Retrospective Case Study in the Raton Basin, Colorado May 2015
4.3. Purging and Sampling at Domestic Wells
A well volume approach, combined with the monitoring of stabilization parameters (pH, SPC, ORP, and
DO), was used for purging domestic wells (Yeskis and Zavala, 2002). Domestic wells were sampled using
downhole pumps (homeowner), via homeowner taps, or by accessing the well directly using a
submersible pump (Proactive Monsoon®) fitted with Teflon-lined polyethylene tubing. When possible,
the ground water level was measured using a Solinist® water level indicator and tracked every 10 to 15
minutes during well purging. Most samples (all except RBDW15) were collected directly from the wells
before any water treatment. Initial flow rates were obtained at each location; wells were then purged
at a flow rate of approximately 0.5 to 10 gallons per minute. The rate of purging was determined by
measuring the volume of water collected after a unit of time into a large metered pail or graduated
cylinder. Water quality parameters were continuously monitored, and recorded using a YSI 556 multi-
parameter probe system to track the stabilization of pH (<0.02 standard units per minute), ORP (<2 mV
per minute), SPC (<1% per minute), DO, and temperature. Water flow through the cell housing the
multi-parameter probe was maintained at about 0.25 to 0.50 gallons per minute; all excess purge water
was valved to waste. Sample collection began after parameter stabilization had occurred, and all
samples were stored on ice until processed for shipping.
4.4. Purging and Sampling at Production and Monitoring Wells
Production and monitoring wells were sampled in cooperation with contractors from Pioneer (North
Fork Ranch) and Petroglyph (Little Creek Field) using dedicated downhole pumps. Company
representatives operated all equipment around the wells.
Production wells were continuously purged. Samples were collected at the wellhead after stable
electrode readings for pH, ORP, SPC, DO, and temperature were obtained. Monitoring wells were
purged approximately three well volumes prior to sampling, with the exception of RBMW03.
Monitoring well RBMW03 was a low-yield well, and continuous ground water pumping and monitoring
of parameters to stability was not possible. Therefore, for low-yield well sampling, the
recommendations of Yeskis and Zavala (2002) were followed. This method included purging until the
well was emptied, recharging the well for about 24 hours, and then collecting representative samples of
the fresh recharge to the well. General parameter measurements were made in static mode without
continuous flow.
4.5. Sampling at Surface Water Locations
Surface water samples were collected from flowing streams at three locations to establish potential links
between observed ground water quality and surface water quality. Measurement of stabilization
parameters and sample collection occurred simultaneously; parameters were recorded every 2 minutes
for a minimum of 30 minutes at each surface water site, or until electrode readings stabilized. Sample
bottles were submerged in the surface water (<0.5 m depth) to just below the surface and filled as grab
samples for unfiltered samples. Sampling of surface waters was performed to minimize capture of
sediment. Filtered samples were obtained by pumping water from the stream through Teflon-lined
polyethylene tubing and a 0.45-micron, high-capacity filter using a peristaltic pump (Pegasus Pump
Company Alexis®). Approximately 100 ml of surface water was passed through the filter, to waste, prior
to filling the sample bottles. The samples were stored on ice prior to leaving the sampling location.
33
-------
Retrospective Case Study in the Raton Basin, Colorado May 2015
4.6. Sample Shipping/Handling
At the conclusion of each day, samples were organized by analytical parameter, placed together into
sealed Ziploc plastic bags, and transferred to coolers filled with ice. Glass bottles were packed in bubble
wrap to prevent breakage. A temperature blank and a chain-of-custody form were placed in each
cooler. Coolers were sealed, affixed with a custody seal, and sent to the appropriate lab via express
delivery, generally within 24 hours of collection, depending on sample holding time requirements.
Sample bottles for 513CCH4 and 52HCH4 analyses were placed in an inverted position in coolers and
maintained in the inverted position throughout shipment to the analytical laboratory.
4.7. Water Analysis
4.7.1. Field Parameters
Temperature, SPC, pH, ORP, and DO were continuously monitored during well purging using a YSI 556
multi-parameter probe and flow-cell assembly. Electrode measurements of SPC were correlated to the
concentration of IDS (Appendix B). YSI electrodes were calibrated every morning prior to sampling
following the manufacturer's instructions. A National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)-
traceable 1,413 microsiemen per centimeter (u.S/cm) SPC standard was used for calibration and
performance checks. NIST-traceable buffer solutions (4.00, 7.00, and 10.01) were used for pH
calibration and performance checks. An Orion ORP standard was used for calibration and performance
checks of redox potential measurements. DO sensors were calibrated with air, and low-oxygen
measurement performance was tested with a zero-oxygen solution (sodium sulfite). The probe was
stored in pH 4.00 buffer solution when not in use.
After well parameters stabilized in each well (except for RBMW03, see above), a 500-mL sample was
collected for field determinations of alkalinity, turbidity, ferrous iron, and dissolved sulfide. Duplicate
measurements, at a minimum, were collected for each parameter. For all collected samples, alkalinity
measurements were determined by titrating ground water samples with 1.6N sulfuric acid (H2SO4) to the
bromcresol green-methyl red endpoint using a Hach titrator (EPA Method 310.1). Turbidity
measurements (EPA Method 180.1) were determined with a Hach 2100Q portable meter. Ferrous iron
measurements were collected using the 1,10-phenanthroline colorimetric method (Hach DR/890
colorimeter, Standard Method 3500-FeB for Wastewater). Dissolved sulfide measurements were
obtained using the methylene blue colorimetric method (Hach DR/2700 spectrophotometer, Standard
Method 4500-S2"D for Wastewater).
Hach spectrophotometers (for ferrous iron and sulfide) and turbidimeters (for turbidity) were inspected
before going into the field, and their functionality was verified using performance calibration check
solutions. Instrument calibration checks were conducted at least every other day during each sampling
round. Ferrous iron accuracy was checked by making duplicate measurements of a 1-mg Fe/L standard
solution (Hach Iron Standard solution, using Ferrover reagent); the results ranged from 0.90 to 1.10 mg
Fe/L. The accuracy of dissolved sulfide measurements was checked by measuring standard solutions
prepared in the laboratory by purging dilute sodium hydroxide solution (0.0001 M) with 1.0% H2S gas
(balance N2); the results of spectrophotometric measurements were within 20% of expected
concentrations. Turbidity was checked against formazin turbidity standards supplied by Hach (10, 20,
100 and 800 NTU). Titrant cartridges used for alkalinity measurements were checked using a 100-mg/L
34
-------
Retrospective Case Study in the Raton Basin, Colorado May 2015
sodium bicarbonate (NaHCO3) solution. Blank solutions (deionized water) for each parameter were
measured at the beginning of the day, at midday, and at the end of the day.
4.7.2. Analytical Methods for Ground Water and Surface Water
Water samples were collected and analyzed using the methods identified in Table A2 of Appendix A.
The laboratories that performed the analyses, per sampling round, are identified in Table Al. A total of
2,155 samples (not including duplicates of glass containers) were collected and delivered to (up to) 10
laboratories for analyses. Anions, nutrients, DIG, and DOC were analyzed following all sampling events.
Quantitative analysis of the major anions bromide (Br~), chloride (Cl~), fluoride (F~), and sulfate (SO42~)
was determined by capillary ion electrophoresis (EPA Method 6500) using a Waters Quanta 4000
Capillary Ion Analyzer. Nutrients (NO3+ NO2, NH3) were measured by flow injection analysis (EPA
Method 350.1 and 353.1) on a Lachat QuickChem 8000 Series flow injection analyzer. The carbon
concentrations of DIG and DOC in samples were determined via acidification and combustion followed
by infrared detection (EPA Method 9060A) on a Shimadzu TOC-VCPH Analyzer.
Dissolved gases (methane, ethane, propane, and butane), LMWAs (lactate, formate, acetate,
propionate, isobutyrate, and butyrate), and the stable isotopes of water (52H, 518O) were analyzed by
Shaw Environmental for rounds 1, 2, and 3 and by CB&I for round 4. Dissolved gases were measured
using gas chromatography (Agilent Micro 3000 gas chromatograph) following a modification of the
method described by Kampbell and Vandegrift (1998). The concentrations of LMWAs were determined
using high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC; Dionex lcs-3000). The hydrogen (52H) and oxygen
(518O) isotope ratios of water were determined by isotope ratio mass spectrometry (TC/EA, Finnigan
Delta Plus XP IRMS) for aqueous samples collected during round 1; cavity ring-down spectrometry was
used to measure water isotope ratios in samples collected during rounds 2, 3 and 4 (Picarro L2120J
CRDS). The oxygen and hydrogen isotope ratio values are reported in terms of permil (%o, parts per
thousand) notation with respect to the Vienna Standard Mean Ocean Water (VSMOW) standard.
The analysis of DRO, GRO, and SVOCs in water samples collected during rounds 1 through 4 was
performed by the EPA Region 8 Laboratory. DRO and GRO were determined by gas chromatography,
using a gas chromatograph equipped with a flame ionization detector (EPA Method 8015B; Agilent
6890N GC). The concentrations of SVOCs were determined by gas chromatography (GC)/mass
spectrometry (MS) (EPA Method 8270D; HP 6890 GC and HP 5975 MS).
VOCs were measured by Shaw Environmental for samples collected during rounds 1, 2 and 3 using
automated headspace GC/MS (EPA Methods 5021A and 8260C; Agilent 6890/5973 Quadrupole GC/MS).
Samples from rounds 3 and 4 were analyzed by SwRI using purge-and-trap GC/MS (EPA Method 8260B;
Agilent 6890N GC/MS). For the round 3 sampling event, a double lab comparison was conducted
between Shaw Environmental and SwRI to compare the analytical methods for VOCs, particularly
detection capabilities for tert-butyl alcohol (TBA). The results of the double lab comparisons for VOCs,
presented in Table A26 of Appendix A, were generally in good agreement, with the exception of toluene
which was detected at low levels. The differences in toluene measurements between the two labs are
not considered to be significant because of the low concentrations present in the samples compared
(0.4-3.2 u.g/L; see Appendix A). The double lab comparison verified the occurrence of TBA that was
detected at some of the locations included in this case study during every sampling round.
35
-------
Retrospective Case Study in the Raton Basin, Colorado May 2015
Glycols (2-butoxyethanol, diethylene glycol, triethylene glycol, and tetraethylene glycol) were measured
by the EPA Region 3 Laboratory for samples collected during rounds 1, 2, and 4, and by the EPA Office of
Research and Development (ORD)/National Exposure Research Laboratory (NERL), Las Vegas, for round
3. Samples were analyzed by HPLC coupled with positive electrospray ionization (ESI+) tandem mass
spectrometry (MS/MS; Waters HPLC/MS/MS with a Waters Atlantis dC18 3um, 2.1xl50mm column).
Over the course of this case study, the glycol method was in development. A verification study of the
method was completed using volunteer federal, state, municipal, and commercial analytical
laboratories. The study indicated that the HPLC/MS/MS method was robust, had good accuracy and
precision, and exhibited no matrix effects for several water types that were tested (Schumacher and
Zintek, 2014).
For samples collected in rounds 1 and 2, major cation and trace metals were determined for filtered
(dissolved metals) and unfiltered (total metals) samples by Shaw Environmental. Major cations were
analyzed using inductively coupled plasma-optical emission spectroscopy (ICP-OES; EPA Method 200.7;
Optima 3300 DV ICP-OES); trace metals were determined by inductively coupled plasma-mass
spectroscopy (ICP-MS; EPA Methods 6020A; Thermo X Series II ICP-MS). Unfiltered samples were
prepared prior to analysis by microwave digestion (EPA Method 3015A). Total and dissolved trace
metals were analyzed through EPA's Contract Laboratory Program (CLP) for round 2. Samples were
prepared and analyzed following CLP methodology (Method ISM01.3). Total and dissolved metal
analyses for samples collected during rounds 3 and 4 were conducted by SwRI, in accordance with EPA
Methods 6020A (ICP-MS) and 200.7 (ICP-OES). Unfiltered samples were digested prior to analysis (EPA
Method 200.7). Mercury concentrations were determined by cold-vapor atomic absorption (EPA
Method 7470A; PerkinElmer FIMS400A).
Samples collected during all sampling events were submitted to Isotech Laboratories for stable isotope
measurements of DIG (513CD,C) and methane (513CCH4, 62HCH4). Samples were also collected for isotope
analysis of sulfide (534SH2s) and sulfate (534SS04, 518OS04) during rounds 2, 3, and 4. The 513CD|C was
determined using gas stripping and isotope ratio mass spectrometry (IRMS). Elemental analyses,
coupled to an isotope ratio mass spectrometer, were used to obtain methane (513CCH4, 62HCH4), sulfide
(534SH2s), and sulfate (534SS04, 518OS04) measurements. The carbon isotope ratio value is reported in
terms of permil notation with respect to the Vienna Pee Dee Belemnite (VPDB) standard. The hydrogen
and oxygen isotope ratio values are reported in terms of permil notation with respect to the VSMOW
standard. The sulfur isotope ratio is reported in terms of permil notation with respect to the Vienna
Canyon Diablo Troilite (VCDT) standard.
Strontium isotope ratios (87Sr/86Sr) and rubidium (Rb) and strontium (Sr) concentrations were measured
by the USGS for samples collected during all sampling events (rounds 1 through 4). High precision (2o =
±0.00002) strontium isotope ratio results were obtained via thermal ionization mass spectrometry
(TIMS; Finnigan Mat 262) using methods described in Peterman et al. (2012).
4.8. QA/QC
Field QC samples for ground water and surface water sampling are summarized in Table A3 of Appendix
A and in the QAPP (Wilkin, 2013). QC samples included several types of blanks and duplicate samples.
In addition, adequate volumes were collected to allow for laboratory matrix spike samples to be
prepared, where applicable. All of the QC sample types were collected, preserved, and analyzed using
36
-------
Retrospective Case Study in the Raton Basin, Colorado
May 2015
methodologies identical to those used for water samples collected in the field. Appendix A presents
detailed QA practices and the results of QC samples, including discussions of chain of custody, holding
times, blank results, field duplicate results, laboratory QA/QC results, data usability, double lab
comparisons, performance evaluation samples, QAPP additions and deviations, field QA/QC, application
of data qualifiers, tentatively identified compounds (TICs), audits of data quality (ADQ), and field and
laboratory Technical System Audits (TSAs). All reported data met project requirements unless otherwise
indicated by application of data qualifiers. The application of data qualifiers and data usability is
discussed in Appendix A. Detection and reporting limits for all analytes, per sample type, are provided in
Tables B1-B6 in Appendix B.
4.9. Data Handling and Analysis
For each sampling location from this study, geochemical parameters and the major ion water quality
data collected over the multiple sampling events (n = 4) were averaged in order to compare data from
this study with historical data. This approach ensured that more frequently sampled locations were
given equivalent weight in the data analyses; however, a shortcoming of this method is that potential
temporal variability in concentration data at a single location was not captured. Intra-site variability of
the data collected in this study was examined by evaluating time-dependent concentration trends at
specific locations. For each sampling location, summary statistics were calculated for selected
parameters (e.g., mean, median, standard deviation, and minimum and maximum values). The results
of the dissolved (filtered) metals analyses were used for comparison purposes with historical water
quality data. Parameters with non-detect values were set at half the minimum detection limit; summary
statistics determined for parameters that showed mixed results, both above and below the quantitation
limit (QL), were generally determined only when over 50% of the concentration data were above the QL
(US EPA, 2000b). In rare cases, concentration values set at half the MDL were used for calculating
summary statistics, and these cases are noted in the tabulated data. Organic compounds, detected over
the four sampling rounds, were grouped by analyte type, and mean values and concentration ranges
were tabulated. Dissolved gas concentrations were treated in a similar manner.
The software package AqQA (version 1.1.1; Standard Methods, 2012) was used to evaluate internal
consistency of water compositions by calculating cation/anion balances and by comparing measured
and calculated electrical conductivity values (see Appendix A, Table A25). Major ion charge balance was
calculated by comparing the summed milliequivalents of major cations (calcium, magnesium, sodium,
and potassium) with major anions (chloride, sulfate, bicarbonate, fluoride) using Eqn. 1, where the
charge balance error is based on a percentage difference between the total positive charge and the total
negative charge:
Charge balance error
CZ cations- 2 anions)
] cations+ 2 anions}
xlOO
(1)
The calculated charge balance error over the four sampling rounds ranged between 0.0 and 13.2%; 90%
of the samples collected for this study had a charge balance error less than 5% (see Appendix A). The
saturation index for calcite and fluorite was determined using the Geochemist's Workbench package
(version 8; Bethke, 1996). Mineral equilibria calculations were made using temperature and
concentrations of base species: major cations (Na+, K+, Ca2+, Mg2+), anions (Cl~, SO42", HCO3", F"), and pH.
Activity corrections were made using the Debye-Huckel equation (Stumm and Morgan, 1996). The
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL; EQ3/6) thermodynamic database was selected for use in
37
-------
Retrospective Case Study in the Raton Basin, Colorado May 2015
the calculations (Delany and Lundeen, 1990). For these calculations, charge imbalance was handled by
compensating with chloride for samples with an anion deficit or by compensating with sodium for
samples with a cation deficit. Only samples with a charge balance error <5% were used for determining
saturation indices.
Historical ground water quality data for the Raton Basin in Colorado were gathered from Powell (1952),
Mclaughlin et al. (1961), Howard (1982), ESN Rocky Mountain (2003), COGCC (2003a), Dahm et al.
(2011), the USGS National Water Information System (NWIS) database (USGS, 2013a), and the USGS
National Uranium Resource Evaluation (NURE) database (USGS, 2013b). The secondary data obtained
from these sources were considered based upon various evaluation criteria, such as:
• Did the organization that collected the data have a quality system in place?
• Were the secondary data collected under an approved QAPP or other similar planning
document?
• Were the analytical methods used comparable to those used for the primary data?
• Did the analytical laboratories have demonstrated competency (such as through accreditation)
for the analysis they performed?
• Were the data accuracy and precision control limits similar to those for the primary data?
• Were the secondary data source method detection limits (MDLs) and QLs comparable to those
associated with the primary data or at least adequate to allow for comparisons?
• Were sampling methods comparable to those used for the primary water quality data collected
for this study?
In general, the necessary accompanying metadata were unavailable for the secondary water quality
data sources to fully assess these evaluation criteria; thus, the secondary data were used with the
understanding that they are of an indeterminable quality relative to the requirements specified for this
study (see QAPP; Wilkin, 2013). For the historical datasets, samples with a charge balance error <15%
were used for water-type analysis and for constructing geochemical plots such as Piper and Schoeller
diagrams. In most cases, charge balance errors exceeding the 15% criterion were due to missing
concentrations of major cations or anions in the historical datasets. Again, the historical data from
locations with multiple sampling events were averaged and summary statistics were determined in
order to avoid undue weighting of locations sampled on multiple occasions. Charge balance criteria
were not used to screen data for use in summary statistic calculations or for plotting box and whisker
diagrams. The EPA STORET (STOrage and RETrieval) data warehouse was not utilized, because these
data may be indicative of environmental impact monitoring that could potentially skew background
characterization.
Statistical evaluations were carried out using the ProUCL (US EPA, 2010c) and Statistica (version 12)
software packages. Hypothesis testing for the water quality data was performed using nonparametric
(Kruskal-Wallis) methods. For the analysis of the major ion trends, average values were used in the
statistical tests and were combined with single observations. As noted previously, this approach was
used to avoid the undue weighting of locations sampled multiple times, either in the new data collected
38
-------
Retrospective Case Study in the Raton Basin, Colorado May 2015
for this study or in the historical water quality data. Post hoc tests were performed using the Kruskal-
Wallis multiple comparison test to determine significant differences among water quality datasets for
particular analytes. A p-value of less than 0.05 was interpreted as a significant difference between
compared datasets. Because a large number of comparisons were made between the data from this
study and the historical water quality data that encompass numerous sampling investigations, multiple
locations, and extended periods of time, the problem of multiple comparisons is suggested, that is, the
increased likelihood of rejecting the null hypothesis and flagging significant differences among datasets.
Given the exploratory nature of this study, p-value adjustments (e.g., Bonferroni or Sidak correction
factors) were not incorporated and the traditional significance threshold of 0.05 was applied for the
data comparisons.
39
-------
Retrospective Case Study in the Raton Basin, Colorado May 2015
5. Historical Water Quality Data
Comparisons of data from historical sources and collected during this study were conducted for the
Colorado portion of the Raton Basin. The historical data are temporally constrained by the availability of
information in the various databases, as described below. It is important to point out that the historical
water quality data are not taken a priori as being representative of the background condition in the
study area. The hypothetical background condition is considered here to represent the water quality
regime in the absence of all human activities, including unconventional gas development. It is
anticipated that data within the historical databases, in fact, contain examples in which the water
quality information reflects anthropogenic impact. Thus, for the purposes of this report, the historical
data are used as points of reference for screening-level comparisons in order to illustrate regional
concentration ranges typical in ground water and for constraining major water composition types that
have previously been encountered throughout the study area. The applicability of the historical data for
comparison purposes is limited by the parameters for which data have been collected; for example,
concentrations of organic compounds, stable isotope ratios, strontium isotope ratios, and dissolved gas
concentrations are not typically available in the historical data (Bowen et al., 2015), yet these data types
are critical for this study. Subsequent analysis of the historical water quality information, in relation to
the new data collected for this study, provides appropriate context regarding: the geologic settings and
geochemical environments, the influence of anthropogenic impacts based on environmental record
searches (Appendix C), and the recognition of data quality issues (see US EPA, 2013a).
Historical ground water quality data for the Raton Basin in Colorado were gathered from Powell (1952),
Mclaughlin et al. (1961), Howard (1982), ESN Rocky Mountain (2003), COGCC (2003a), Dahm et al.
(2011), the NWIS database (USGS, 2013a), and the NURE database (USGS, 2013b). Data from the USGS
databases and the COGCC study were compared with the results from this study; other data sources
were used as supporting information for the analysis of water types from the various geologic
formations of the Raton Basin. Water quality data from NWIS and NURE are representative of samples
collected before any significant CBM development in the Raton Basin (1951-1988); therefore, these
datasets allow for aquifer comparisons before and after CBM development. The COGCC data were
obtained during a survey conducted in the region from January 9-17, 2002 (COGCC, 2003a). During this
survey, 100 private water sources were tested for cations, anions, trace metals, dissolved methane, and
selected stable isotopes (513CD|C, 513CCH4). The overall objective of the survey was to collect data that
could be used to determine potential impacts from CBM development in the Raton Basin.
The USGS NWIS database for Las Animas County contains entries for 105 ground water locations
sampled between 1951 and 1988 (USGS, 2013a). A majority of these sampling points (n = 74) are
located in the western part of the county, west of Interstate 25, and are suitable for comparison based
on proximity to the sampling locations of this study (see Figure 12). Water quality data mainly include
major cations, anions, general parameters (e.g., pH, SPC, and alkalinity), and limited trace metal data.
Water quality data are included for alluvial aquifers and for the Poison Canyon, Raton, and Vermejo
formations, as well as unspecified aquifers. Ground water samples collected from wells screened in the
Poison Canyon and Raton formations ranged in depth from 65 to 200 feet and 75 to 1,780 feet below
land surface, respectively. Ground water samples collected from alluvial aquifers were from wells that
ranged in depth from 4 to 78 feet below land surface. Seventeen of these locations were sampled more
than once, and the results for these locations were averaged. Only 19 of the 74 samples were used for
40
-------
Retrospective Case Study in the Raton Basin, Colorado
May 2015
Mnemi/e Volley
1
•
'
Stonewall
CJGop •<
•i*«. ••• Łl
0Moro!
- *••.*•• • <
- • ' •'. • — - V '• '
" •
Segundo
^ • • • . • .
7^' F • MESADE*,^^
'?™f IrMIe '*• .. .. .".' . '. • « I
fo/terfo/e (f . . . j> . .^ .B' . <-.
-. Bartfaf
^ ?vfesa
Municipal Boundaries
C EPA Sampling Locations
• NWIS Water Samples
• COGCC Water Samples
• NURE Water Samples
Source: Municipalities, ESRI; Sample Locations, EPA ORD; Water Samples: USGS and Colorado COGCC
Water Quality Sampling Locations
Las Animas County, Colorado
EPA Hydraulic Fracturing Study
Figure 12. Map showing historical water quality sites and sampling locations from this case study: Las Animas County, CO. Water quality data
from NWIS and NURE are representative of samples collected before any significant CBM development in the Raton Basin (1951—1988). The
COGCC data were obtained during a survey conducted in 2002.
41
-------
Retrospective Case Study in the Raton Basin, Colorado May 2015
evaluating water types because their charge balance error was <15%; the charge imbalance in the
remaining samples is mainly due to missing values for bicarbonate/alkalinity. Data for organic
compounds, dissolved gases, and stable isotopes are not available in this dataset.
The USGS NWIS database for Huerfano County contains entries for 14 ground water locations sampled
in 1979 (see Figure 13; USGS, 2013a). All of the NWIS sample locations are within 1.7 to 12.5 miles of
location RBDW10 of this study. Data are available for the Farista, Cuchara, Poison Canyon, Raton, and
Vermejo/Trinidad formations. Ground water samples were collected from wells ranging in depth from
25 to 320 feet below land surface (median = 100 feet). Water quality data mainly include major cations,
anions, and general parameters (e.g., pH, SPC, and alkalinity); data for organic compounds, dissolved
gases, and stable isotopes are not available in this dataset. All of the samples have a charge balance
error <15% and were used for evaluating water types. One sample (1/14) was excluded from the
comparison of results because of highly anomalous pH and SPC values, indicative of some impact on the
water chemistry (i.e., pH=11.5 and specific conductance >8,000 u.S/cm).
The USGS NURE database (USGS, 2013b) for Las Animas County includes entries for 419 locations, and a
majority of these (398/419) were located in the eastern part of the county, east of Interstate 25 (see
Figure 12). These entries were excluded from historical data analyses based on the distance to sampling
locations within this study (western part of Las Animas County). Twenty-one locations (21/419) were
west of Interstate 25 and located within 5 to 24 miles of location RBDW05 of this study. The only water
quality data available from these locations are pH, SPC, and uranium concentrations. For Huerfano
County, the NURE database (USGS, 2013b) contains entries for 67 ground water locations that are
distributed across the county (see Figure 13). All of the samples were collected in 1976 and 1977.
Twelve of the sampling locations (12/67) are within 7 miles of location RBDW10. The only water quality
data available from these locations are pH, SPC, and uranium concentrations.
The locations of sampling points from the COGCC study, the NWIS and NURE databases, and this study
are identified in Figures 12 (Las Animas County) and 13 (Huerfano County).
42
-------
Retrospective Case Study in the Raton Basin, Colorado
May 2015
WET
MOUNTAIN
VALLEY
S"
Pedro
Mesa
'- EPA Sampling Locations
• NURE Water Samples
• NWIS Water Samples
COGCC Water Samples
[J Municipal Boundaries
Water Quality Sampling Locations
Huerfano County, Colorado
EPA Hydraulic Fracturing Study
Source: Municipalities, ESRI; Sample Locations: EPA ORD; Water Samples: USGS and Colorado COGCC
Figure 13. Map showing historical water quality sites and sampling locations from this case study:
Huerfano County, CO. Water quality data from NWIS and NURE are representative of samples collected
before any significant CBM development in the Raton Basin (1976—1979). The COGCC data were
obtained during a survey conducted in 2002.
43
-------
Retrospective Case Study in the Raton Basin, Colorado May 2015
6. Water Quality Data from This Study
This study was conducted to determine whether drinking water resources have been impacted by
various land use activities, including those associated with CBM development and extraction. Some of
the broadly framed concerns regarding possible scenarios of drinking water impairment that may be
related to CBM development include: (i) potential interactions between produced water and shallow
ground water via fluid migration, spills, and/or infiltration; (ii) potential for migration of chemicals used
in hydraulic fracturing formulations into shallow ground water; (iii) potential gas migration from
hydraulically fractured zones in the Raton and Vermejo formations into shallow ground water aquifers,
including the Poison Canyon Formation and alluvial fill deposits; and (iv) secondary biogeochemical
affects related to the migration and reaction of methane in shallow aquifers used for drinking water.
The following sections describe the results and present interpretations of water quality testing that was
completed for this study, including comparisons with, and consideration of, previous water quality data
collected in the Colorado portion of the Raton Basin (USGS, 2013a; USGS, 2013b; COGCC, 2003a).
In January 2002, the COGCC conducted a field survey of 100 private wells, located within the Raton
Basin, and tested for a suite of inorganic and organic parameters (COGCC, 2003a; see Figures 12 and 13
for sample locations). The overall objective of this study was to gather data that could be used to assess
potential water well impacts from current and future CBM development in the Raton Basin. The COGCC
study found no discernible distribution patterns among the various parameters evaluated in the survey.
Some samples were noted to have elevated levels of sulfate and nitrate, and in some cases, the
concentrations of these parameters exceeded drinking-water standards. An assessment of the sources
and factors controlling the distribution of these ions was not included in the report. Major ion data
from this study indicated that the most common ground water type encountered was the sodium-
bicarbonate type (41%), followed by the calcium-bicarbonate (30%), calcium-sulfate (15%), sodium-
sulfate (11%), and sodium-chloride water types (3%). These same water types were mapped in the
Raton Basin in 1979 by Howard (1982), based on a field survey of 35 sampling locations located within
Las Animas and Huerfano counties. Major ion water types are useful for regional characterization of
water quality, comparing and evaluating water quality trends from specific geologic/hydrologic units,
and for constraining sources of major ions to ground water and surface water.
Major ion trends apparent in the COGCC data are plotted on a trilinear diagram (Piper diagram) and
compared to the data from this study (see Figure 14). The sodium-bicarbonate water type
predominates in Las Animas County, whereas in Huerfano County, the calcium-bicarbonate and sulfate-
types are the most common ground water types. The box diagrams (box plots) shown in Figure 15
compare data for pH, SPC, sodium, calcium, magnesium, barium, chloride, fluoride, sulfate, and
bicarbonate from the COGCC survey with the ground water data collected during this study in Las
Animas and Huerfano counties. A statistical summary of selected ground water parameters for data
collected during this study and the COGCC field survey (COGCC, 2003b) is presented in Table 5. In all
cases, the maximum ranges for the parameters shown in Figure 15, from this study, fall within the
ranges observed in the COGCC dataset obtained in 2002 (see also Table 5). Statistical analyses using the
nonparametric Kruskal-Wallis test indicated significant differences between the two datasets for pH,
calcium, magnesium, barium, fluoride, and bicarbonate (p-value <0.05). In most cases, the statistical
differences are due to higher mean/median values in the COGCC dataset compared to the data collected
44
-------
Retrospective Case Study in the Raton Basin, Colorado
May 2015
for this study. Statistically similar concentration distributions (p-values >0.57) were noted for sodium,
chloride, and sulfate.
Ca-SCX
\
Ca-HCO
Na-SCX-CI
\
20%
Cl
COGCC (2003a)
Las Animas Co (North Fork Ranch), this study
Huerfano Co (Little Creek Field), this study
Figure 14. Major ion chemistry of ground water samples collected within the Raton Basin, CO. The trilinear
diagram contains data collected during this case study and by the COGCC during a survey conducted in the region
in 2002 (COGCC, 2003a).
45
-------
Retrospective Case Study in the Raton Basin, Colorado
May 2015
9.0-
I
8.0-
50 •
•000 -
_J 800 -
- 60°"
|~
o
CO
0-
_J 40-
O>
w 20
c
i 10
200-
C '50-
o?
I™.
o
Ł 50
o
Sulfate, mg/L
200-
• .. • .
V i ' 1 . * »
\ ~f^f* » » • « •
*o»*/^»** *
'"Ł$* * n=20
n=100 **
COGCC This Study
«
n=100
*
\ n=20
3 •'^w i T u.^VV..
=1= 'wwr'' J- » .» .
COGCC This Study
.*
*
n=100 \
'A
<7^» n=20 4
J&s c ^ • • J*
COGCC This Study
SMCL 250 mg/L
*
n=100
n=20
I
COGCC This Study
n=100 SMCL 250 mg/L
T I
i I n=20
V T •
* *
W.3000-
2500 -
m
*-2000-
T3 1500-
^j 1000-
!C 500-
1
CO
250-
^200-
E,«.
1-
O 50
0-
_J : •
1
E 1000-
0-
Fluoride, mg/L
0-
icarbonate, mg/L
0-
•
*
n-99 «
X
n=20
*e
4r^
*
COGCC This Study
*
»
n=100 ^
,/t*.
*W\S^ —i— * *
**.j^yv *, 1 ] ^ **,*.*
COGCC This Study
MCL 2000 jig/L
*
*
n~100
—i— *
^ n=20
COGCC This Study
*
n=20
'
n=100 1 MCL 4 mg/L »«4
"[ . *i^ . •*• .
COGCC This Study
4
*
n=100
E 3
-------
Retrospective Case Study in the Raton Basin, Colorado
May 2015
Table 5. Summary statistics for ground water data collected during this study (20 locations) and a survey by the
Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (COGCC) in Las Animas and Huerfano Counties, CO (100
locations; COGCC, 2003a).
Parameter
pH
SPC
DO
Sodium,
Dissolved
Potassium,
Dissolved
Calcium,
Dissolved
Magnesium,
Dissolved
Barium,
Dissolved
Chloride,
Dissolved
Sulfate,
Dissolved
Fluoride,
Dissolved
Bicarbonate,
Dissolved
Data Source
This study1
COGCC
This study
COGCC
This study
COGCC
This study
COGCC
This study
COGCC
This study
COGCC
This study
COGCC
This study
COGCC
This study
COGCC
This study
COGCC
This study
COGCC
This study
COGCC
Units
US/cm
US/cm
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
W/L
W/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
Mean
8.1
7.0
521
725
1.4
4.3
98
154
0.7
1.5
20
49
2.7
11
90
165
20
27
80
133
2.8
1.3
185
441
Median
8.0
7.1
468
548
1.2
4.3
96
90
0.7
1.3
14
50
0.8
10
43
81
11
13
66
69
1.6
0.4
193
348
SD
0.69
0.97
194
533
1.1
2.6
53
175
0.5
1.0
19
42
3.7
9.9
95
228
34
41
86
203
2.8
2.4
51
314
Min
6.9
4.9
314
7
0.07
0.7
6.9
3.2
0.2
<1.02
2.0
<3.0
<0.03
<1.0
11
10
1.6
<1.0
0.9
<1.0
0.2
<0.1
94
93
Max
9.0
9.0
1100
3008
3.4
14.4
223
904
2.4
5.0
56
220
12
40
340
1610
159
207
351
1164
9.4
21
276
1943
n =
20
100
20
99
20
98
20
100
20
100
20
100
20
100
20
100
20
100
20
100
20
100
20
100
Statistical data from this study include all domestic wells and monitoring wells screened in alluvium and the Poison
Canyon Formation; excluded are surface water and produced water collected from the Raton Formation and the Vermejo
Formation.
Summary statistics were computed by setting non-detect values to one half of the reporting limit. For this study, left-
censored data were used for magnesium for one sample (1/20). For the COGCC (2003a) dataset, this was done for
potassium (33/100), calcium (7/100), magnesium (25/100), chloride (7/100), sulfate (6/100), and fluoride (1/100); thus,
left-censored values account for <50% of the data for these elements.
47
-------
Retrospective Case Study in the Raton Basin, Colorado May 2015
The following sections describe the results for water quality samples collected during this study in Las
Animas and Huerfano counties in more detail, including a discussion of literature data and water quality
data collected prior to CBM development in the Raton Basin.
6.1. CBM Produced Water
Formation waters associated with CBM in the Rocky Mountain region have distinct geochemical
signatures: CBM water is typically the sodium-bicarbonate type, with variable chloride concentrations, and
low sulfate, calcium, and magnesium (e.g., Van Voast, 2003; Dahm et al., 2011). When compared to
produced water from conventional oil and gas resources, CBM produced water tends to be low in IDS,
with values ranging from 370 to 43,000 mg/L; conventional oil and gas formation water has IDS values
ranging from 1,000 to 400,000 mg/L (Dahm et al., 2011). During this study, formation water was collected
from three production wells, representing the Raton Formation (RBPW01, Sanchinator #11-36TR) and
Vermejo Formation (RBPW02, Keystone #11-35; RBPW03, Sanchinator #11-36). These production wells,
operated by Pioneer Natural Resources, are located within the North Fork Ranch study area in Las Animas
County (see Figure 16A and 16B). A summary of key results for the production wells sampled in this study
is provided in Table 6. In addition, major cation and anion data for these production wells are plotted on a
Schoeller diagram in Figure 17 and compared to the compositional range (minimum, maximum, and
average) reported for CBM waters from the Raton Basin, as compiled by Dahm et al. (2011).
The water quality syntheses of Dahm et al. (2011) included 2,116 well entries from the Raton Basin; a
majority of the samples showed diagnostic sodium-bicarbonate type composition. Comparatively, the
production wells sampled during this study show major ion concentrations that were below average for
Raton Basin CBM water (see Figure 17). These wells show particularly low sulfate concentrations,
relative to mean sulfate concentrations in produced water from the Raton Basin (Dahm et al., 2011),
which is typical for waters associated with CBM production (Van Voast, 2003). The major ion pattern
displayed in Figure 17 is considered to be the result of biochemical sulfate reduction; consequent
enrichment of bicarbonate; and precipitation of calcium carbonate, magnesium carbonate, and/or
gypsum (Van Voast, 2003; Rice et al., 2008). Ground water from both the Raton and Vermejo
formations has a geochemical signature consistent with reducing environments, including low dissolved
oxygen concentration (<1 mg/L); low uranium concentration (<0.2 u.g/L); low ORP (<-225 mV); and
elevated concentrations of methane, iron, and manganese (see Table 6). Arsenic concentrations in the
produced water from this study were low, below 0.5 u.g/L (see Table 6). Lithium concentrations were
notably higher in the produced water (>30 u.g/L) compared to the levels detected in shallower aquifers
(<10 u.g/L). The gas composition was also characteristically dry, with a molar [CH4/C2H6] ratio ranging
from about 310 to 5,930.
Constituents and parameters in CBM water that sometimes exceed standards for drinking, livestock, and
irrigation water applications included TDS, sodium adsorption ratio (SAR), temperature, pH, iron, and
fluoride (Dahm et al., 2011). The production wells sampled in this study had TDS values generally >500
mg/L (estimated from SPC); mean fluoride concentrations that ranged from 2.6 to 3.6 mg/L; pH that
ranged from 8.0 to 8.5; and SAR values that ranged from 33 to 66 (mequiv/L)/z (see Table 6). High SAR
values are a potential concern for water discharged at the surface because Na+-enriched water in soil
can cause cation exchange by replacing Ca2+ with Na+, which impacts properties of clay minerals in soil
(McBeth et al., 2003; Engle et al., 2011). SAR values <13 are recommended for irrigation water purposes
(Fipps, 2003; Dahm et al., 2011).
48
-------
Retrospective Case Study in the Raton Basin, Colorado
May 2015
Mines (Status) CBM Wells (Status) I* Undermined Areas
• Active Abandoned tj Municipal Boundaries
D Inactive or Terminated * Injection Well • EPA Sampling Locations
A Producing Q;^^
Waiting / Permitted
Refer fo separate legend for geologic formations key
Source: Geology. USGS. Petroglyph: Mines: Colorado Div of Reclamation and Mining Safety;
Wells, COGCC: Basemap. ESRI; Undermined Areas, digitized by Ecology and Enviornment from Colorado Geological Survey map
Area Geology an
Mine Locations
North Fork Ranch Study Area
Las Animas County, Colorado
EPA Hydraulic Fracturing Study
Figure 16A. Map of the North Fork Ranch study area (Las Animas County, CO) showing bedrock geology,
historic coal mine locations, coalbed methane well locations, and sample locations from this study. See
Figure 16B for geology legend.
49
-------
Retrospective Case Study in the Raton Basin, Colorado
May 2015
Raton Basin Geologic Map (Study Areas)
QUARTERNARY
iU*'?s Qa (Modern alluvium)
TERTIARY
Tmi (Middle tertiary intrusive rocks)
Th (Huerfano Formation)
Tcu (Cuchara Formation)
Tpc (Poison Canyon Formation)
0Ł TKr (Raton Formation)
CRETACEOUS
Kvt (Vermejo formation and Trinidad sandstone)
0Ł Kp (Pierre Shale)
Kpg (Pierre shale, INiobrara,and Carlile, Greenhorn, and Graneros formations, undivided)
KJde (Dakota and Other Formations)
PERMIAN PENNYSLVANIAN
^% P&s (Sangre De Cristo Formation)
OTHER
H2O (water)
Figure 16B. Geology map legend.
Table 6. Summary of selected results for production wells sampled during this study (North Fork Ranch, Las
Animas County).
Parameter
Round1
pH
SPC
DO
ORP
IDS
Alkalinity
Sodium3
Potassium
Lithium53
Calcium
Magnesium
Strontium
Barium
Chloride
Sulfate
Fluoride
Bromide
Units
US/cm
mg/L
mV
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
W/L
mg/L
mg/L
m/L
W/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
RBPW01
Sanchinator#ll-36TR
1,2,3,4
8.40
1744
0.9
-229
1134
893
467
2.7
33
2.6
0.74
360
578
112
<1.0
3.6
<1.0
(0.15)2
(362)
(0.6)
(79)
(236)
(45)
(48)
(0.48)
(0.15)
(0.09)
(37)
(71)
(25)
(0.74)
RBPW02
Keystone #11-35
1
8.49
666
0.2
-353
434
478
240
0.43
NM5b
3.3
0.07
270
53
27.5
<1.0
2.6
<1.0
J4
J
J
J
RBPW03
Sanchinator #11-36
2,3,4
7.96
1294
0.4
-268
841
542
332
1.0
47
7.2
0.31
741
215
161
0.51
3.0
<1.0
(0.32)2
(147)
(0.3)
(87)
(97)
(49)
(23)
(0.31)
(0.59)
(0.02)
(31)
(101)
(26)
(0.42)6
(0.36)
50
-------
Retrospective Case Study in the Raton Basin, Colorado
May 2015
Table 6. Summary of selected results for production wells sampled during this study (North Fork Ranch, Las
Animas County).
Parameter
Nitrate+Nitrite
Ammonium
DOC
Silicon
Iron
Manganese
Arsenic
Uranium
CH4
C2H6
813CCH4
82HCH4
S-13-
o CD!C
SAR(mean)7
Units
mg - N/L
mg - N/L
mg/L
mg/L
W/L
W/L
W/L
W/L
mg/L
mg/L
%0
%0
%0
(mequiv/Lf*
RBPW01
Sanchinator#ll-36TR
<0.10
0.61
1.1
6.9
2000
30
0.33
<0.20
20.88
0.0066
-52.30
-234.2
16.8
66
(0.08)
(0.12)
(0.44)
(94)
(2.3)
(0.25)
(4.94)
(0.0007)
(0.31)
(3.3)
(0.8)
RBPW02
Keystone #11-35
<0.05
0.31
0.97
10.3
2690
38
-
-
14.80
0.0893
-47.67
-233.1
1.2
36
J
RBPW03
Sanchinator #11-36
<0.10
0.44
1.2
10.9
7700
121
0.36
<0.20
21.87
0.0141
-45.99
-222.1
9.7
33
(0.07)
(0.18)
(0.35)
(4962)
(20)
(0.26)
(6.22)
(0.0037)
(0.61)
(1.1)
(3.1)
Sampling round: 1 = October 2011; 2 = May 2012; 3 = November 2012; 4 = April/May 2013.
Mean values are tabulated; values in parentheses are 1 standard deviation.
Results for filtered (dissolved) samples are provided.
4 J = The analyte was positively identified; the associated numerical value is the approximate concentration. See Table A28,
Appendix A, for more detailed descriptions.
5a Lithium was determined in samples collected during the November 2012 and April/May 2013 events only.
5b NM = Not measured.
Left-censored data were used for one sample (1/3).
SAR = Sodium Adsorption Ratio, calculated using the equation: [Na/(0.5[Ca+Mg])0'5], with concentrations in mequiv/L.
Geochemical modeling indicates that ground water from the production wells sampled during this study
is close to equilibrium with respect to calcium carbonate, i.e., the calcite saturation index ranged
from -0.11 (RBPW03) to 0.08 (RBPW02). Calcite saturation indices that are 0.0 ± 0.1 are typically
representative of equilibrium conditions (Langmuir, 1997). The 513CD|C values from the produced water
indicate 13C enrichment (1.2%o to 16.8%o; see Table 6), which results from evolved water-rock
interactions and bicarbonate generated from the mineralization of organic carbon (Sharma and Frost,
2008; Golding et al., 2013), as discussed in a following section. The methane isotopic signature of the
produced gas is also discussed in a later section ("Molecular and Isotopic Composition of Coalbed
Methane") and compared to the methane signatures detected in samples collected from shallow
aquifers used for drinking water.
Compositional data from the three production wells sampled in this study are plotted on a trilinear
diagram and compared to compositions of ground water in the Raton Basin determined in the COGCC
survey (see Figure 18). Compositional data for the production wells plot close to the sodium and
bicarbonate vertices of the cation and anion ternary plots, respectively.
51
-------
Retrospective Case Study in the Raton Basin, Colorado
May 2015
10000-
O)
c
o
I
o
O
1000-
100-
10-
0.01
Ca
Mg
Na+K
i
Cl
SO4
HCO3
Average, Raton Basin (Dahm etal., 2011)
Average, Study Area (COGCC, 2014b)
-O~- RBPW01 (Raton Formation)
-O- RBPW02 (Vermejo Formation)
-O— RBPW03 (Vermejo Formation)
Figure 17. Schoeller diagram showing major cation and anion compositions measured in formation water collected
from three CBM production wells (RBPW01, RBPW02, RBPW03; mean values) during this case study, compared to the
compositional range (minimum, maximum, and average) reported for CBM waters from the Raton Basin (blue; Las
Animas and Huerfano counties), as compiled by Dahm et al. (2011), and within a 3-mile radius of sampling locations in
Las Animas County (green; COGCC, 2014b).
52
-------
Retrospective Case Study in the Raton Basin, Colorado
May 2015
Ca-HCO
Na-SO4-CI
%
\
60% *Ł>
/
20%
40%
\
20%
Cl
COGCC (Las Animas and Huerfano counties)
* Production Wells (North Fork Ranch)
& Surface Water (North Fork Ranch)
Figure 18. Major ion chemistry of ground water samples collected from CBM production wells (RBPW01,
RBPW02, and RBPW03) and surface water locations (RBSW01, RBSW02, and RBSW03) within the North Fork Ranch
study area (Las Animas County, CO) during this case study. The trilinear diagram also includes data obtained by the
COGCC during a survey conducted in the region in 2002 (COGCC, 2003a).
53
-------
Retrospective Case Study in the Raton Basin, Colorado
May 2015
6.2. Surface Water
Surface waters were sampled in part to establish potential linkages, if any, between observed ground
water quality and nearby surface water quality. The streams sampled in this study receive significant
discharges of produced water. Surface water location RBSW03 was, in fact, at a point of produced water
collection and permitted discharge; surface water locations RBSW01 and RBSW02 were positioned
further downstream from discharge points. Location RBSW01 is within the same drainage system as
RBSW03. The compositions of the surface water and production well samples are also shown on a
trilinear diagram (see Figure 18), with comparison to compositions of ground water in the Raton Basin
determined in the COGCC survey (COGCC, 2003a). The surface water samples show sodium-bicarbonate
type compositions similar to the produced water, as was expected since produced water is discharged to
the stream. Mean SPC values from the three surface water locations ranged from 1,252 to 1,585 u.S/cm
(see Table 7). Dissolved oxygen concentrations ranged from 0.2 mg/L at the point of discharge to 8.2
mg/L further downstream at location RBSW01. Surface water at the discharge point (RBSW03) showed
a reducing signature: low oxygen, low oxidation-reduction potential, low sulfate, and elevated
concentrations of iron and methane (see Table 7). Low levels of dissolved methane persisted further
down gradient at locations RBSW01 and RBSW02. Values of 613CD|C were positive at all locations,
indicating that the DIG was predominantly derived from produced water. In addition, lithium
concentrations were similar to levels detected in the produced water (24-66 u.g/L; see Table 7). Sodium
concentrations at the three surface water locations were comparable; however, the concentrations of
calcium and magnesium increased further down gradient, and the SAR showed corresponding decreases
to mean values of 19 and 14 at locations RBSW01 and RBSW02, respectively (see Table 7).
Table 7. Summary of selected results for surface water locations sampled during this study (North Fork Ranch, Las
Animas County).
Parameter
Round1
pH
SPC
DO
ORP
TDS
Alkalinity
Sodium3
Potassium
Lithium
Calcium
Magnesium
Strontium
Barium
Chloride
Units
US/cm
mg/L
mV
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
W/L
mg/L
mg/L
W/L
W/L
mg/L
RBSW01
1,2,3,4
8.78 (0.39)2
1252 (108)
8.2 (1.5)
177 (111)
814 (75.5)
659 (27)
315 (27)
1.7 (0.26)
40
12.7 (2.4)
5.1 (0.62)
333 (40)
94 (26)
45.4 (4.8)
RBSW02
2,3,4
8.05 (0.24)
1585 (123)
5.5 (0.5)
69 (12)
1030 (80.3)
763 (42)
356 (40)
2.5 (0.23)
24
30.7 (4.2)
11.7 (0.70)
640 (65)
120 (4)
87.4 (5.0)
RBSW03
2,3,4
8.31 (0.11)
1345 (184)
0.2 (0.2)
-306 (23)
874 (121)
704 (20)
361 (31)
1.9 (0.25)
66
2.6 (0.27)
0.32 (0.01)
282 (7.5)
299 (47)
47.0 (5.0)
54
-------
Retrospective Case Study in the Raton Basin, Colorado
May 2015
Table 7. Summary of selected results for surface water locations sampled during this study (North Fork Ranch, Las
Animas County).
Parameter
Sulfate
Fluoride
Bromide
Nitrate + Nitrite
Ammonium
DOC
Silicon
Iron6
Manganese
Arsenic
Uranium
CH4
C2H6
813CCH4
82HCH4
s IS-
C' CD!C
SAR(mean)7
Units
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg - N/L
mg - N/L
mg/L
mg/L
W/L
W/L
W/L
W/L
mg/L
mg/L
%0
%0
%0
(mequiv/Lf*
RBSW01
3.6 (1.5)
3.1 (0.1)
<1.0
0.07 (0.10)5
<0.02
2.0 (0.5)
6.7 (0.41)
--
1.6 (0.51)
0.32 (0.20)5
1.5 (0.15)
0.0012
<0.0027
--
--
4.46 (0.31)
19
RBSW02
21.2 (2.1)
2.5 (0.1)
<1.0
0.05 (0.08)5
<0.02
2.6 (0.6)
5.7 (0.24)
--
60 (26)
0.28 (0.18)5
3.4 (0.61)
0.0144 (0.0067)
<0.0027
--
--
8.13 (0.69)
14
RBSW03
0.2 5
4.2 (0.4)
<1.0
<0.01
0.35 (0.07)
1.4 (0.5)
8.5 (0.50)
555 (117)
14 (3)
0.91 (1.0)
<0.15
15.57 (0.87)
0.0069 (0.0005)
-52.64 (1.35)
-232.8 (3.5)
9.00 (1.19)
56
Sampling round: 1 = October, 2011; 2 = May, 2012; 3 = November, 2012; 4 = April/May, 2013.
Mean values are tabulated; values in parentheses are 1 standard deviation.
3 Results for filtered (dissolved) samples are provided.
Lithium was determined in samples collected during the November 2012 and April/May 2013 events only.
5 Use of left-censored data: sulfate in RBSW03 (2/3); nitrate + nitrite in RBSW01 (1/3) and RBSW02 (1/3); and arsenic in
RBSW01 (1/3) and RBSW03 (1/3).
6 Dissolved iron was detected in fewer than 50% of the samples collected at locations RBSW01 and RBSW02.
SAR = Sodium Adsorption Ratio, calculated using the equation: [Na/(0.5[Ca+Mg])0'5], with concentrations in mequiv/L.
6.3. Las Animas County: Poison Canyon Formation and Alluvial Aquifers
Water wells sampled in the North Fork Ranch and Arrowhead Ranchette areas ranged in depth from 60
to 585 feet below land surface, with a median depth of 140 feet (see Figures 16A, 16B, and 19).
Elevations of the bottom of production wells and domestic wells in the North Fork Ranch sampling area
(within Search Area C; Figure 10) are compared in Figure 20. Most of the production wells in this area
are completed to a total depth between 4,800 and 6,200 feet above mean sea level; whereas, domestic
wells are completed to a total depth >7,000 feet above mean sea level. The mean separation distance
between gas-producing intervals and domestic water-supply use was 2,360 feet, which generally agrees
with the evaluation of vertical separation between production intervals and water-supply wells in this
area of Las Animas County (Watts, 2006b). The domestic wells and monitoring wells were screened in
alluvial deposits or in the Poison Canyon/Raton Formation (see Table 3). Turbidity, dissolved oxygen,
55
-------
Retrospective Case Study in the Raton Basin, Colorado May 2015
pH, SPC, and ORP were measured in the field during the collection of water samples. The mean
temperature of well water from the four sampling rounds ranged from 8.9 to 15.5 degrees Celsius (°C),
with a median temperature of 12.2 °C (see Table 8). Turbidity ranged from 0.7 to 22 nephelometric
turbidity units (NTU), with a median of 1.3 NTU, a turbidity value representative of very clear water.
Dissolved oxygen concentrations were generally suboxic, ranging from 0.1 to 3.4 mg/L, with a median of
1.2 mg/L. The shallower alluvial aquifer tended to have higher levels of dissolved oxygen (3.2 ± 0.4
mg/L; n = 2) compared to the Poison Canyon and Raton formations (1.1 ± 1.0 mg/L; n = 9).
The mean SPC value of well water ranged from 314 to 846 u.S/cm, with a median value of 433 u.S/cm.
The alluvial aquifers had lower and less variable SPC values (339 ± 35 u.S/cm; n = 2) compared to the
Poison Canyon and Raton formations (480 ± 144 u.S/cm; n = 9). Note that the SPC of water from
alluvium and the Poison Canyon Formation was typically lower than the produced water from the Raton
and Vermejo formations (1,235 ± 542 u.S/cm; n = 3). Figure 21 presents a series of histograms of SPC
data collected in this study and pre-CBM values from the NURE and NWIS datasets for Las Animas
County. The NURE data cannot be differentiated based on geologic formation. Data collected from this
study are within the ranges apparent in historical data, indicating that no significant shifts in major ion
compositions can be discerned. Statistical analysis reveals that SPC values in the Poison Canyon
Formation, as determined in this study and in the pre-CBM NWIS dataset, are not significantly different
(p-value = 0.30; Kruskal-Wallis).
Additional comparisons between data collected in this study and pre-CBM data (NWIS; USGS, 2013a) for
pH and selected major ions (chloride, sulfate, fluoride, sodium, calcium) are shown in Figure 22. Major
ion concentration data and pH data are plotted with respect to the dataset origin (i.e., NWIS or this
study), and further categorized by aquifer formation. Note that for all the parameters shown, the range
of data collected from alluvial aquifers was similar while results for ground water samples obtained from
the Poison Canyon aquifer showed greater variability. There were no apparent differences in the range
of sulfate concentrations between data from this study and the pre-CBM NWIS data (p-value = 0.96;
Kruskal-Wallis). The NWIS dataset for the Poison Canyon Formation shows wider ranges of
concentrations of chloride, sodium, and calcium, as compared to data from this study, with no statistical
similarities (p-values <0.05; Kruskal-Wallis). Data from this study showed pH values in the Poison
Canyon Formation that ranged from 6.9 to 8.6, with a median of 7.8; in comparison, the NWIS data
show a lower range (6.6 to 7.8; median 7.3).
One monitoring well sampled in this study (RBMW03) had elevated levels of fluoride and chloride.
Monitoring well RBMW03 is a low-yielding well and represents a stagnant or very slow-moving ground
water environment. Enrichment of univalent anions and cations such as CI", F", and Na+ sometimes
occurs in such environments due to membrane effects that result in the enrichment of univalent anions
and the preferential uptake of divalent cations by clay minerals (Howard, 1982). The water composition
of RBMW03 was consistently sodium-chloride type (see Figure 14), which was unique in this study and
rare when compared to previous data collected in the Raton Basin. For example, only 3% of the samples
from the COGCC survey (COGCC, 2003a) study had the sodium-chloride water type. Other aspects of the
ground water composition from this well are discussed in following sections.
56
-------
Retrospective Case Study in the Raton Basin, Colorado
May 2015
rf* . -i 1^
* ^ Ł ** A* A
• * / * V * fi V *
t ia ^ . S .. tt-J \ ' * - >
* A A \ /* \ A ^ * i a t
0 0.5 1
• Miles
CBM Wells (Status) F Undermined Areas Mines (Status) -
- Abandoned • Active
* Injection Well D Inactive or Terminated
* Producing D Application Stage
Waiting / Permitted r^P Municipal Boundaries
9 EPA Sampling Locations
Refer to separate legend for geologic formations key
Source: Geology, USGS, Petroglyph; Mines: Colorado Div of Reclamation and Mining Safety;
Wells, COGCC; Basemap, ESRI
•Faults
•Dikes
Area Geology and
Mine Locations
Arrowhead Ranchettes Study Area
Las Animas County, Colorado
EPA Hydraulic Fracturing Study
Figure 19. Map of the Arrowhead Ranchettes study area (Las Animas County, CO) showing bedrock
geology, historic coal mine locations, coalbed methane well locations, and sample locations (RBDW11,
RBDW12) from this study. See Figure 16B for the geology legend.
57
-------
Retrospective Case Study in the Raton Basin, Colorado
May 2015
4-
-------
Retrospective Case Study in the Raton Basin, Colorado
May 2015
Table 8. Summary statistics for ground water data collected during this study (11 locations) and historical data
from the NWIS database for Las Animas County, CO (18 locations; USGS, 2013a).
Parameter
PH
SPC
DO
Temperature
Turbidity
Alkalinity
Sodium,
Dissolved
Potassium,
Dissolved
Calcium,
Dissolved
Magnesium,
Dissolved
Chloride,
Dissolved
Sulfate,
Dissolved
Fluoride,
Dissolved
Data Source
This study1
NWIS
This study
NWIS
This study
This study
This study
This study
NWIS
This study
NWIS
This study
NWIS
This study
NWIS
This study
NWIS
This study
NWIS
This study
NWIS
This study
NWIS
Units
US/cm
US/cm
mg/L
°C
NTU
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
Mean
7.7
7.2
454
802
1.7
12.2
4.6
174
256
74
93
0.8
2.4
26
71
4.1
14
21
92
40
56
1.7
0.8
Median
7.8
7.3
433
510
1.2
12.2
1.3
160
214
86
36
0.7
2.0
18
62
2.1
13
8.5
6.8
41
33
0.7
0.3
SD
0.61
0.32
141
787
1.2
2.1
6.8
28
140
49
137
0.3
1.7
21
50
4.4
13
46
265
32
53
2.4
1.0
Min
6.9
6.6
314
280
0.1
8.9
0.7
144
143
6.9
9.8
0.5
0.8
3.8
5.7
0.2
0.2
1.6
1.1
1.0
1.0
0.2
0.2
Max
8.6
7.8
846
3380
3.4
15.5
22
228
522
167
530
1.3
6.5
56
240
12.4
58
159
1100
99
198
8.4
2.9
n =
11
18
11
18
11
11
11
11
6
11
15
11
15
11
17
11
17
11
17
11
17
11
17
Data from this study include all domestic wells and monitoring wells screened in alluvium and the Poison Canyon
Formation; excluded are surface water locations and produced water collected from the Raton Formation and the
Vermejo Formation. Summary statistics include no use of left-censored data.
59
-------
Retrospective Case Study in the Raton Basin, Colorado
May 2015
20 -,
Poison Canyon
Raton
NWIS
Las Animas County
n=73
I ' I
1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000
CD
3
CT
CD
6-
4-
n
-
NURE
Las Animas County
n=21
n
0
1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000
6-
0
flTT
"Alluvium
and
Poison Canyon Formation
CBM water
Raton and Vermejo Formations
This study
Las Animas County
n=14
A
I I j f !
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000
Specific Conductance, ^S/cm
Figure 21. Frequency diagram showing specific conductance in ground water collected during this study, relative
to historical water quality datasets (Las Animas County, CO).
60
-------
Retrospective Case Study in the Raton Basin, Colorado
May 2015
9.5-
9.0-
.« 85"
3
•D 8.0 J
CD
.JS 7.5-
I
6.5-
R n-
This study -
SMCL range
NWIS
6.5 to 8.5
1
1
:
-------
Retrospective Case Study in the Raton Basin, Colorado May 2015
In some cases, concentrations of total aluminum (RBDW05, RBDW08, RBDW09, RBDW10, RBDW13,
RBDW14), total iron (RBDW09, RBDW11, RBDW13), and total manganese (RBDW02, RBDW09, RBDW11)
exceeded secondary drinking-water standards in domestic wells sampled for this study (secondary
maximum contaminant levels [SMCLs]; 50 to 200 u.g/L, 300 u.g/L, and 50 u.g/L, respectively). For
example, the maximum concentrations of total aluminum, iron, and manganese in domestic well waters
observed in this study were 361 u.g/L (J; RBDW09), 8,190 u.g/L (RBDW13), and 226 u.g/L (J; RBDW02),
respectively (Appendix B). Secondary drinking water standards are based on aesthetic qualities of
water, such as taste, odor, and staining properties. Iron and manganese concentrations are influenced
by oxidation-reduction (redox) processes, and these elements are generally expected to be more soluble
and mobile under low dissolved oxygen conditions that favor anaerobic microbial processes (Chapelle et
al., 1995). Elevated concentrations of dissolved and total iron and manganese are also observed in the
pre-CBM NWIS data for the Poison Canyon Formation and alluvial fill deposits. Howard (1982)
suggested the dissolution of the minerals pyrite (FeS2) and siderite (FeCO3) as potential sources of iron in
ground water within this region. Potential sources of manganese include dissolution of rhodochrosite
(MnCO3) and other aluminosilicates that contain manganese as a minor structurally-substituted
component (e.g., biotite and hornblende). Aluminum is generally not soluble at near-neutral pH; acidic
or alkaline water may sometimes contain greater concentrations of aluminum due to pH-dependent
solubility behavior. Particulate aluminum in ground water is typically considered to be composed of
fine-grained aluminum hydroxide or aluminosilicate minerals (Hem, 1985).
Wells screened in alluvial sediments (locations RBDW01 and RBDW13) show calcium-bicarbonate type
compositions (see Figure 14). Wells screened in the Poison Canyon are sodium-bicarbonate type.
Powell (1952) and Howard (1982) previously noted the predominance of the calcium-bicarbonate type
composition in alluvial deposits of the Raton Basin. This water type develops during infiltration as
recharge water interacts with the calcium carbonate and/or calcic plagioclase present in soils (Howard,
1982). Howard (1982) noted that water compositions in the Raton Basin changed from dominantly
calcium-bicarbonate type in areas of recharge to more evolved, higher IDS, and sodium-bicarbonate
type compositions in areas of discharge. The sodium-bicarbonate type water at domestic well locations
RBDW02 and RBDW05 contrasts with the sodium-bicarbonate type water present in the Raton and
Vermejo formations (see Table 6). The domestic wells (RBDW02 and RBDW05) have lower SPC (e.g.,
lower sodium, bicarbonate, and chloride) and higher sulfate concentrations. There was little variability
observed in SPC values, and calcium, sodium, and chloride concentrations in ground water sampled
from domestic wells and monitoring wells within the North Fork Ranch and Arrowhead Ranchettes
sampling areas (see Figure 23), suggesting that, over the timescale of this study, the domestic wells were
not impacted by fluid migrations from other aquifer systems.
6.4. Huerfano County: Poison Canyon Formation
In the Little Creek Field sampling area in Huerfano County, six domestic wells and two monitoring wells
were examined during this study (see Figure 24). The wells ranged in depth from 323 to 706 feet below
land surface and were screened in portions of the Poison Canyon Formation. Elevations of production
wells and domestic wells in the Little Creek Field sampling area (within Search Area A; Figure 11) are
compared in Figure 25. Most of the production wells in this area are completed to a total depth
between 4,000 and 5,500 feet above mean sea level; whereas, domestic wells are completed to a total
depth of about 6,000 feet above mean sea level. The mean separation distance between gas-producing
intervals and domestic water-supply use was 1,250 feet, which generally agrees with the evaluation of
62
-------
Retrospective Case Study in the Raton Basin, Colorado May 2015
vertical separation between production intervals and water-supply wells in this area of Huerfano County
(Watts, 2006b). Dissolved oxygen concentrations were low, ranging from 0.2 to 2.6 mg/L (median 0.6
mg/L). Turbidity ranged from 0.7 to 19 NTU, with a median of 5.0 NTU (see Table 9). Values of pH
ranged from 7.4 to 9.0, with a median of 8.6. Measurable levels of dissolved sulfide were common in
wells from this area, with mean sulfide concentrations ranging from <0.01 to 29 mg/L (J; see Appendix A
for descriptions of data qualifiers); the median dissolved sulfide concentration was 1.9 mg/L (J).
SPC values (a surrogate measure of TDS) for data collected in this study (356 to 1,098 u.S/cm; median
506 u.S/cm) are shown in Figure 26 and compared to historical pre-CBM data contained in the NURE and
NWIS datasets for Huerfano County. The number of data points is limited; however, pre-CBM data and
data collected in this study show SPC values that are <1,850 u.S/cm (see Figure 26). Statistical analysis of
the SPC values from the different datasets reveals no significant differences (p-value >0.05; Kruskal-
Wallis). Historical NWIS data for pH, chloride, bicarbonate, sodium, calcium, and sulfate are compared
with data from this study in Figure 27. Generally similar ranges are apparent within the two datasets for
chloride, bicarbonate, and sodium in the Poison Canyon Formation; statistical analysis provides p-values
>0.64 for these elements, indicating no significant differences between the datasets for the Poison
Canyon Formation. Somewhat lower concentration values are observed in data from this study for
calcium and sulfate (p-value <0.05), and higher pH values are apparent in this study compared to
historical data (p-value = 0.01). Unfortunately, the historical datasets do not include information on
dissolved gases, in particular data related to dissolved methane concentrations, and therefore
comparisons cannot be made. In this study, all samples that had pH>8.5 also had methane
concentrations in excess of 5.8 mg/L. Samples with pH values near 9 were from locations RBDW10
(mean pH = 9.04), RBMW04 (pH = 8.96), and RBMW05 (pH = 9.00), and these locations had the highest
methane concentrations, typically >10 mg/L. Off-gassing of methane gas can cause elevations in pH by
driving off carbon dioxide (CO2) gas, which leads to positive shifts in pH (e.g., Taulis and Milke, 2013).
Methane concentrations and isotope data for this area are discussed in a later section ("Molecular and
Isotopic Composition of Coalbed Methane").
Fluoride concentrations in the Little Creek Field area ranged from 1.4 to 9.4 mg/L (see Table 9), with a
median concentration of 4.0 mg/L, which is at the primary MCL for fluoride. Elevated fluoride
concentrations in ground water of the Raton Basin were noted previously by Howard (1982) and Abbott
et al. (1983) and were considered to be due to the dissolution of detrital fluorite (CaF2) derived from
weathering of hydrothermal deposits. Geochemical modeling results indicate that ground water from
this area is generally undersaturated with respect to fluorite (saturation index ranging from -0.22
to -2.7), but the saturation index increases toward 0 (equilibrium) with increasing fluoride
concentration; these trends are consistent with fluorite dissolution in the aquifer. Mean concentrations
of sulfate were also above the SMCL (250 mg/L) in one well (RBDW14) and approached the SMCL in
another (RBDW09; see Figure 27).
Wells sampled in this area are all dominated by sodium-bicarbonate or sodium-sulfate type water
compositions (see Figure 14). Geochemical data, collected between 1949 and 1951 (McLaughlin et al.,
1961), aid in predicting water quality conditions that are likely to be encountered when drilling new
wells in Huerfano County. Information was provided for 10 wells, screened in the Poison Canyon
Formation. Water types from these wells included calcium-bicarbonate-sulfate and sodium-
bicarbonate-sulfate compositions. Values for TDS ranged from 284 to 2,630 mg/L, with corresponding
63
-------
Retrospective Case Study in the Raton Basin, Colorado
May 2015
1000-
.o
CO
of
o
I
u
•o
o
o
u
CO
800-
600-
400-
200-
60
50-
40-
.30-
_3
15 20-
o
10-
10/3/2011
5/14/2012
11/5/2012
4/29/2013
10/3/2011
5/14/2012
11/5/2012
4/29/2013
160-
120-
O)
E
E 80-
CO
40-
10/3/2011
5/14/2012
11/5/2012
4/29/2013
160-
O)
E
0>" 20-
O
10-
10/3/2011
5/14/2012
11/5/2012
4/29/2013
Figure 23. Changes in specific conductance values and calcium, sodium, and chloride concentrations observed in ground water collected from
domestic wells and monitoring wells within the North Fork Ranch and Arrowhead Ranchettes sampling areas (Las Animas County, CO), over
four sampling events (this case study).
64
-------
Retrospective Case Study in the Raton Basin, Colorado
May 2015
Mines (Status) CBM Wells (Status)
Active Abandoned
Inactive or Terminated
Application Stage
Denied
Refer to separate legend for geologic formations key
Source: Geology, USGS, Petroglyph: Mines: Colorado Div of Reclamation and Mining Safety;
Wells, COGCC; Basemap, ESRI; Undermined Areas, digitized by Ecology and Enviomment from Colorado Geological Survey map
Undermined Areas
Municipal Boundaries
EPA Sampling Locations
• Faults
-Dikes
Area Geology anc
Mine Locations
Little Creek Study Area
Huerfano County, Colorado
EPA Hydraulic Fracturing Study
Figure 24. Map of the Little Creek Field study area (Huerfano County, CO) showing bedrock geology, coal
mine locations, coalbed methane well locations, and sample locations from this study. See Figure 16B for
the geology legend.
65
-------
Retrospective Case Study in the Raton Basin, Colorado
May 2015
6-
CD
0
20
Elevation of
domestic wells (base)
sampled in this study
(Huerfano County, Search Area A)
CD
3
cr
18-
16-
12-
6-
4-
2-
0
5 ' i ! i : i ' i i '
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000
Elevation of
CBM wells (base)
in Search Area A
I I I
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000
Elevation, feet
Figure 25. Elevation of domestic wells and CBM wells located within the Little Creek Field study area
(Huerfano County, CO). Elevations are the height of well bases above mean sea level. The histograms
show the vertical separation, in feet, between drinking water aquifers and gas producing zones.
66
-------
Retrospective Case Study in the Raton Basin, Colorado
May 2015
Table 9. Summary statistics for ground water data collected during this study (9 locations) and historical data
from the NWIS database for Huerfano County, CO (3 locations; USGS, 2013a).
Parameter
PH
SPC
DO
Temperature
Turbidity
Sulfide3, Dissolved
Alkalinity
Sodium, Dissolved
Potassium, Dissolved
Calcium, Dissolved
Magnesium3, Dissolved
Chloride, Dissolved
Sulfate, Dissolved
Fluoride, Dissolved
Data Source
This study1
NWIS2
This study
NWIS
This study
This study
This study
This study
This study
NWIS
This study
NWIS
This study
NWIS
This study
NWIS
This study
NWIS
This study
NWIS
This study
NWIS
This study
NWIS
Units
US/cm
US/cm
mg/L
°C
NTU
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
Mean
8.5
6.6
600
1240
0.9
15.6
7.5
6.3
146
130
127
155
0.6
2.0
12
88
0.8
8.8
20
20
129
413
4.2
2.0
Median
8.6
6.7
506
1180
0.6
14.8
5.0
1.9
154
150
115
200
0.5
1.8
7.1
58
0.12
12
15
21
98
430
4.0
1.0
SD
0.57
0.21
227
552
0.8
2.2
6.9
9.8
43
81
44
79
0.7
0.4
12
63
1.3
6.5
10
11
106
285
2.8
2.0
Min
7.4
6.4
356
720
0.2
12.4
0.7
<0.01
84
41
82
64
0.2
1.8
2.0
46
<0.03
1.3
9.1
8.6
5.9
120
1.4
0.6
Max
9.0
6.8
1098
1820
2.6
18.6
19
29
215
200
223
200
2.4
2.5
38
160
3.4
13
39
31
351
690
9.4
4.3
n =
9
3
9
3
9
9
9
9
9
3
9
3
9
3
9
3
9
3
9
3
9
3
9
3
Data from this study include all domestic wells and monitoring wells screened in the Poison Canyon Formation.
NWIS data include wells screened in the Poison Canyon Formation.
Use of left-censored data, this study: sulfide (1/9) and magnesium (1/9).
67
-------
Retrospective Case Study in the Raton Basin, Colorado
May 2015
o
c
0)
^
cr
CD
0
Poison Canyon
0
4-\
>»
o
c
0
§2^
0
0
0
0)
0
0
NWIS
Huerfano County
n=13
I
I
400
800
1200 1600 2000 2400
NURE
County
n=11
i i ' i
400 800 1200 1600 2000 2400
Poison Canyon
This study
Huerfano County
n=9
i
400
800 1200 1600 2000 2400
Specific Conductance,
Figure 26. Frequency diagram showing specific conductance in ground water samples collected from domestic and
monitoring wells in Huerfano County, CO (Little Creek Field study area) during this study, relative to USGS historical
water quality datasets.
68
-------
Retrospective Case Study in the Raton Basin, Colorado
May 2015
85-
| 8.0
E
75-
7 0-
SMCL range: 6.5 to 8.5
This sludy
140-
120-
100-
80-
IS 60-
fe
NWIS - This study
Cuchara Farisls Poison CanyorPoison Canyon Raton VJ - Tmd
Cuchafa Fansta Poison CanyorPoison Canyon Raton VJ-Trnd
700-
600-
500-
400-
non-
100-
0-
NWIS >• This study
'
SMCL: 250 mg/L
J
— V-
L^U
i i i
-
-
•T
-
1 . ^
L
3
a
arbonate,
• NWIS <- This study -
Cuchara Farista Poison CanyorPoison Canyon Raton VJ - Trnd
Cuchara Farista Poison CanyorPoison Canyon Raton VJ - Trnd
300-
250-
Ł 150-
1 100-
50-
0-
,
This study
j
.!•
*
I
i
— '•
•
180-
160-
140-
g 100-
E 80-
|o
(U 60 -
O
40-
20-
0-
NWIS » This study
^
T :
•
—J ;
Cuchara Fansla Poison CanyorPoison Canyon Raton VJ Irnd
Cuchara Farista Poison CanyorPoison Canyon Raton VJ Trnd
Figure 27. A comparison of pH and major ion data in ground water samples collected from domestic and
monitoring wells within Huerfano County during this study, relative to USGS NWIS historical water quality data
(USGS, 2013a). Data are plotted with respect to the dataset origin and aquifer formations. NWIS water quality data
for the Cuchara, Farista, Raton and Vermejo-Trinidad formations are representative of samples collected prior to
any significant CBM development in this area (1979). VJ-Trnd = Vermejo-Trinidad Formation.
69
-------
Retrospective Case Study in the Raton Basin, Colorado May 2015
SPC values ranging from 298 to 2,970 u.S/cm; this range encompasses data collected during this study.
Furthermore, a sub-region located west of Walsenburg, Colorado, was mapped by Howard (1982) and
showed characteristic sodium-sulfate type water compositions. Elevated sodium and sulfate levels were
hypothesized to be derived from the dissolution of thenardite (Na2SO4) and/or mirabillite
(Na2SO4-10H2O), secondary minerals formed through evaporative processes in arid regions (Howard,
1982). These minerals—present within sandstone, shale, and coal—could provide a source for sodium-
sulfate type ground water compositions. Time trends for SPC, calcium, sodium, and chloride in domestic
wells sampled during all four events are shown in Figure 28. With the exception of location RBDW09,
major ions show little variability over time. Major ion variability in domestic well RBDW09 is mainly due
to changes in specific conductance and the concentrations of calcium and sodium; the cause of this
variability is uncertain but may be related to well usage prior to sampling and/or behavior (drawdown
and incomplete recovery) of the well during purging.
6.5. Summary of Major Ion Data
As noted earlier, mixing of produced water and shallow ground water used for drinking water via fluid
migration, spills, or infiltration are potential scenarios of drinking water impairment related to CBM
development where hydraulic fracturing is used. Previous studies of ground water chemistry and
hydrology in the Raton Basin, including assessments conducted before CBM development, have
revealed variable water quality characteristics throughout the basin that appear to be broadly related to
geology and hydrologic setting (e.g., Powell, 1952; Mclaughlin, 1966; Howard, 1982; COGCC, 2003a; see
Table 5). Water quality data collected in the Raton Basin from drinking water aquifers prior to CBM
development show similar ranges in specific conductance when compared to more recent data,
including the data from this study. Specific constituents that sometimes exceed established primary and
secondary standards for drinking water use include TDS, pH, fluoride, nitrate, iron, manganese, and
sulfate. Similar features in water quality characteristics were detected at some of the locations
examined in this study. Water co-produced with natural gas in the Raton Basin (see Figure 17) has a
distinctive geochemical signature: sodium-bicarbonate type water with moderate TDS concentrations;
low concentrations of sulfate, calcium, and magnesium; variable chloride concentrations; low ORP
values; and elevated concentrations of lithium, dissolved methane, and ferrous iron (see Table 6). This
CBM signature provides useful guiding criteria for detecting and quantifying potential fluid mixing using
general measures of water quality, and contrasts with shallower aquifers used for drinking water,
including the Poison Canyon Formation and alluvial fill deposits. The geochemical signature in these
shallower aquifers (see Tables 5, 8 and 9) includes more variable major ion compositions (calcium-
bicarbonate, sodium-bicarbonate, and sodium-sulfate), lower TDS, generally lower chloride and lithium,
higher sulfate, and variable redox conditions. Observing changes in major ion chemistry, or lack thereof,
through time at specific locations provides one line of reasoning for assessing potential impacts. The
sampling locations selected for this study showed consistent major ion patterns over the one-and-half-
year study period. These time-independent trends in major ions suggest that no demonstrable water
quality impacts have occurred due to water migration at the selected sampling locations of this study
(see Figure 23 and Figure 28). Application of other potentially more sensitive isotopic techniques is
discussed in a following section. Finally, surface-discharged produced water could potentially infiltrate
and impact ground water quality, particularly in areas where flowing streams lose water to ground
water; it is possible that wells used for drinking water could be impacted in such hydrologically
vulnerable settings. No direct evidence of this process was observed in this study; however, no
70
-------
Retrospective Case Study in the Raton Basin, Colorado
May 2015
1200
1000-
_ 800-
0)
o
S
o
•a
c
O
o
o
a.
co
600-
400-
200-
80
10/6/2011 5/16/2012 11/8/2012 5/2/2013
200
150-
D)
. 100-
E
3
TJ
O
co
50-
60-
O)
., 40-
(0
O
20-
30-
20-
o
10/6/2011
5/16/2012
11/8/2012
5/2/2013
10/6/2011 5/16/2012 11/8/2012 5/2/2013 10/6/2011 5/16/2012 11/8/2012 5/2/2013
Figure 28. Changes in specific conductance values and calcium, sodium, and chloride concentrations observed in ground water collected from
domestic wells within the Little Creek Field sampling area (Huerfano County, CO), over four sampling events (this case study).
71
-------
Retrospective Case Study in the Raton Basin, Colorado May 2015
monitoring locations were explicitly established to test whether surface-discharge produced water is
impacting ground water.
6.6. Organic Compounds
Ground and surface water samples were analyzed for a suite of up to 133 organic compounds, including
VOCs, SVOCs, glycol ethers, petroleum hydrocarbons (DRO and GRO), and LMWAs (see Tables B-4, B-5,
and B-6 for a list of analytes). The purpose of these analyses was to examine the potential occurrence in
ground and surface water of chemicals generally documented to be components of hydraulic fracturing
fluids (e.g., Ely, 1989; Veatch et al., 1989; Vidic et al., 2013; U.S. House of Representatives, 2011) and,
more specifically, of the chemicals in fracturing fluids that have been used in Colorado (see Table 10;
FracFocus, 2013). Water-based fracturing fluids, including nitrogen (N2foam), are the predominant type
of fracturing fluids used to extract CBM (US EPA, 2004). In Colorado, approximately 96 to 98% of the
fracturing fluid is water and sand; potassium chloride (KCI) is a common additive and can constitute 2 to
4%. The remaining fluid is composed of 10 or more chemical additives that are generally complex
organic compounds (COGCC, 2013a). Over 2 million gallons of water were used in hydraulic fracturing
operations within Las Animas County in 2011 (average = ~88,500 gallons; FracFocus, 2013), which
corresponds to approximately 2,000 to 20,000 gallons of chemical compounds for fluids containing 0.1-
1% (by volume) chemical additives.
Although CBM-produced water is likely to have unique organic matter signatures due to contact with
the coal formation and potential microbial activity related to secondary biogenic methane production
(Dahm et al., 2012; Orem et al., 2007), many of the chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing fluids are not
naturally found in ground water. For example, glycols (diethylene glycol, triethylene glycol,
tetraethylene glycol) and 2-butoxyethanol do not occur in nature, and their presence in water samples
could serve as indicators of water resource contamination from hydraulic fracturing activities. These
chemicals, in addition to other frequently used hydraulic fracturing chemicals, are covered, in part, by
the analytical methods used in this study. The analytical method used for glycols for this study is an
improved liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS-MS) method developed to
increase the sensitivity and resolution of glycol analyses over existing methods (EPA Method 8015; US
EPA, 2012; Schumacher and Zintek, 2014).
A summary of all organic compounds detected in this study, for each study site, is provided in Tables 11
through 13; organic compounds are organized by analytical grouping. VOCs are further categorized on
the basis of their primary usage, or origin; this is the same classification scheme used in the National
Assessment of VOCs by the USGS National Water-Quality Assessment Program (Zogorski et al., 2006). In
summary, bis-(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate was detected in domestic wells, monitoring wells, and production
wells at levels that exceeded EPA's drinking water standards (MCL = 6 u.g/L). TBA, DRO, and GRO were
consistently detected at levels >QL in ground water and/or surface water; detections varied by study
site. VOCs were detected in surface water and ground water collected from domestic wells, monitoring
wells, and production wells. Glycol ethers were not detected in domestic or monitoring wells; however,
low levels (
-------
Retrospective Case Study in the Raton Basin, Colorado
May 2015
for this study and data collected prior to CBM development in the Colorado portion of the Raton Basin
are not possible. Furthermore, while detections of these compounds could provide strong evidence of
impacts related to fluid migration, the absence of organic analyte detections does not necessarily mean
that impacts have not occurred.
Table 10. Disclosed chemical additives in hydraulic fracturing fluids used within the Raton Basin, CO (FracFocus,
2013).
Additive type
Acid
Activator
Biocide
Breakers
Buffer
Chemical Tracer
Clay Stabilizer
Conductivity
Enhancer
Crosslinker
Foaming Agent
Friction Reducer
Gelling Agent
Inhibitor
Iron Control
Nitrogen Foam
Non-emulsifier
Other3
Compound
Hydrochloric acid 1; Acetic acid
Methanol; Ethoxylated nonylphenol
2-Monobromo-2-nitrilopropionamide; 2,2
Dibromo-3-nitrilopropionamide; 2-Bromo-2-
nitro-l,3-propanediol; Tetrakis (Hydroxymethyl)
phosphonium sulfate
Ammonium persulfate; Carbohydrates; Ethylene
Glycol; Hemicellulase enzyme; Quartz; Sodium
Chloride; Sucrose; Tryptone; Walnut hulls; Yeast
extract
Acetic acid; Acetic anhydride; Sodium hydroxide
Proprietary aromatic hydrocarbon; Tracerco
160c, 161b, 163a, 163b, 164b, 164c, 165b, 165c,
166c, 168a, 718, 7312
Choline chloride; Oxyalkylated amine quaternary
compound
Dipropylene glycol monomethyl ether
Boric acid; Ethanol; Ethylene glycol; Methanol;
Methyl Borate; Monoethanolamine borate;
Petroleum distillates, Terpenes and terpenoids
(sweet orange oil)
2-butoxyethanol; Ethylene glycol; Methanol
Petroleum distallates
(COGCC, 2013a)
l-butoxy-2-propanol; Guargum; Ethoxylated
isotridecanol; Petroleum distillates; Paraffinic
petroleum distillates; Quartz
Aldehyde; Chloromethylnaphthalene quinoline
quaternary amine; Isopropanol; Methanol;
Propargyl alcohol
Acetic acid; Acetic anhydride; Citric acid
Nitrogen
Oxyalkylated alcohol
2-butoxy-l-propanol; Boric oxide;
Formaldehyde; Glycerol; Lactose; Polyethlylene
glycol; Organic sulfonic acid; Sodium chloride;
Soy
Purpose
Clean out the wellbore, dissolve
minerals, and initiate cracks in rock
Help bond curable resin proppants
together
Control bacteria
Promote delayed breakdown of gel
polymers
Maintain effectiveness of other
compounds (such as crosslinker)
Establish water movement over an
extended time period
Create a brine carrier fluid
Protect against proppant diagenesis;
improves permeability of proppant
pack; enhances fracture conductivity
Maximize fluid viscosity at high
temperatures
Used to transport and place proppant
into fractures
Minimize friction between the fluid
and the pipe
Thicken water to suspend sand
Prevent corrosion of pipe by diluted
acid; reduce deposition of scales on
pipes
Prevent precipitation of metal oxides
Carry proppant
Trade secret
Not provided2
73
-------
Retrospective Case Study in the Raton Basin, Colorado
May 2015
Table 10. Disclosed chemical additives in hydraulic fracturing fluids used within the Raton Basin, CO (FracFocus,
2013).
Additive type
Oxygen Scavenger
Proppant
Surfactant
Compound
Alkoxylated amine; Alkylene oxide block
polymer; Antifoam; Organophilic clay; Polymeric
suspending agent; Polyquaternary amine;
Surfactant
[Ammonium bisulfate
(Vidicetal., 2013)]
Hexamethylenetetramine; Phenol -
Formaldehyde Resin; Quartz
2-Butoxyethanol; Amphoteric surfactant2;
Essential oils; Ethanol; Secondary alcohol;
Terpenes and terpenoids (sweet orange-oil)
Purpose
Trade secret
Remove oxygen from fluid to reduce
pipe corrosion
Keep fractures open
Decrease surface tension to allow
water recovery
Compounds that are known or possible human carcinogens, regulated under the Safe Drinking Water Act for their risks to
human health, or listed as hazardous air pollutants under the Clean Air Act (U.S. House of Representatives, 2011) are in
italics.
2 All listed compounds are proprietary.
3 Compounds listed are designated "Non-MSDS" by the operator; additional information, other than CAStt, was not provided
(FracFocus, 2013).
The results for organic compounds detected during this study are organized by study site and discussed
below. An additional discussion of the organic chemicals detected in this study and their distribution is
presented in topical sections on "Tert-Butyl Alcohol" and "Coal-Water Interactions."
6.6.1. North Fork Ranch
Volatile Organic Compounds
VOCs are a subset of organic compounds with inherent physical and chemical properties (i.e., high vapor
pressure, low to medium water solubilities, low molecular weights) that allow these compounds to
move from water and (preferentially) into air. Some VOCs occur naturally, while others occur as a result
of human activities, and some VOCs have both origins (Zogorski et al., 2006). Twelve VOCs were
detected in surface water and ground water samples from domestic wells, monitoring wells, and
production wells over the four sampling rounds in the North Fork Ranch area (see Table 11). The VOCs
are categorized into five groups: gasoline hydrocarbons, gasoline oxygenates, solvents, trihalomethanes
(THMs, chlorination by-products), and other.
• Gasoline hydrocarbons—Gasoline hydrocarbons comprise aromatic hydrocarbons or alkyl
benzenes and are among the most intensively and widely used VOCs; their predominant use is in
gasoline (Zogorski et al., 2006). A majority of the VOC detections (7/12) were relatively water-
soluble monoaromatic hydrocarbons collectively designated BTEX compounds (benzene,
toluene, ethylbenzene, and m- + p-, and o-xylene), and benzene derivatives. Benzene, benzene
derivatives (1,2,3-trimethylbenzene, and 1,2,4-trimethylbenzene), and ethylbenzene were
present in ground water collected from production wells and surface water. Benzene was
detected at low levels in all production wells (RBPW01, rounds 1, 2, and 4; RBPW02, round 1;
and RBPW03, rounds 2, 3, and 4), one domestic well (RBDW03, round 2), and one surface water
location (RBSW03, rounds 2, 3 and 4). The maximum benzene concentration was measured in
74
-------
Retrospective Case Study in the Raton Basin, Colorado
May 2015
surface water sample RBSW03 during round 2 (1.03 u.g/L); furthermore, this location was the
only sampling location where ethylbenzene was detected (rounds 2 and 3). Toluene was
detected in one domestic well (RBDW05, round 4), two monitoring wells (RBMW02, round 1;
RBMW03, rounds 3 and 4), one production well (RBPW03, round 3), and one surface water
location (RBSW03, round 3). As noted previously, produced water is disposed of via surface
discharge from several production wells located near surface water location RBSW03, and the
surface water sample composition reflects a dominant CBM component. Most toluene
detections were below the QL but above the MDL, with the exception of RBMW02 during round
1 (0.53 u.g/L). Benzene derivatives and xylene (m- + p-, and o-) were detected in two locations:
RBPW03 (1,2,3-trimethylbenzene and o-xylene, round 3) and RBSW03 (1,2,3-trimethylbenzene,
round 3; 1,2,4-trimethylbenzene and m- + p-xylene, rounds 2 and 3; o-xylene, round 3).
Concentrations of gasoline hydrocarbons were, in all cases, below MCLs or applicable drinking
water standards. The source of these compounds is discussed in a later topical section ("Coal-
Water Interactions").
Table 11. Detection of organic compounds in ground and surface water: North Fork Ranch study site.
Analyte/Well ID
Sampling Round
1
2
3
4
Result
H9/L
Average
H9/L
Range
H9/L
Volatile Organic Compounds
t 1,2,3-trimethylbenzene
RBPW03
RBSW03
NS2
NS
x,J3
X,J
0.16
0.13
t 1,2,4-trimethylbenzene
RBSW03
NS
X
X,J
1.05
0.13-1.96
t Acetone 4
RBDW03
RBPW03
RBSW01
NS
x,J-
X,J
X,J
62.3
0.65
0.30
t Benzene (MCL = 5 u.g/L)
RBDW03
RBPW01
RBPW02
RBPW03
RBSW03
x,J
X
NS
NS
X
X
NS
X
X
NS
x,J
X
X,J
NS
x,J
x,J
0.66
0.98
0.47
0.59
0.72
0.25-0.77
0.43-0.87
0.29-1.03
Carbon Disulfide
RBMW03
X,J
0.12
75
-------
Retrospective Case Study in the Raton Basin, Colorado
May 2015
Table 11. Detection of organic compounds in ground and surface water: North Fork Ranch study site.
Analyte/Well ID
Sampling Round1
1
2
3
4
Result
ra/i
Average
ng/L
Range
ng/L
Chloroform (MCL = 80 u,g/L)
RBDW02
RBDW05
RBMW03
X
X
X
X
x,J
X,J
X
0.09
0.35
5.58
0.14-0.56
1.93-14.0
t Ethylbenzene (MCL = 700 ug/L)
RBSW03
NS
X
X,J
0.87
0.06-1.67
t m + p xylene (MCL, ZXylenes = 10,000 ug/L)
RBSW03
NS
X
X,J
1.57
0.20-2.94
Methylene Chloride (MCL = 5 u,g/L)
RBMW03
X,J
x,J
0.18
0.12-0.23
o-xylene (MCL, ZXylenes = 10,000 ug/L)
RBPW03
RBSW03
NS
NS
X,J
x,J
0.08
0.10
Tert-Butyl Alcohol 5
RBDW03
RBMW02
RBMW03
RBPW01
X
X
x,J-3
X,J-
x,J-
X
x,J
X
x, H
x,J
51.3
6.90
30.4
1059
27.2-37.4
960-1310
t Toluene (MCL = 1000 u,g/L)
RBDW05
RBMW02
RBMW03
RBPW03
RBSW03
X
NS
NS
x,J
x,J
X,J
x,J
X,J
0.12
0.53
0.08
0.08
0.15
0.11-0.18
Semivolatile Organic Compounds
1 2-Butoxyethanol
RBDW05
RBMW03
X
X
0.65
1.45
2-Butoxyethanol Phosphate
RBDW02
RBDW13
X
NS
X,J
1.22
1.05
76
-------
Retrospective Case Study in the Raton Basin, Colorado
May 2015
Table 11. Detection of organic compounds in ground and surface water: North Fork Ranch study site.
Analyte/Well ID
Sampling Round1
1
2
3
4
Result
H9/L
Average
H9/L
Range
H9/L
Bis-(2-ethylhexyl) Phthalate6 (MCL = 6 u,g/L)
RBDW01
RBDW02
RBDW04
RBDW13
RBMW01
RBMW03
RBPW01
RBPW03
RBSW01
NS
X
NS
X
X
NS
x,J, H
NS
x,J
X
x, B
x, B
NS
x,J-
X
x,J-
X,J
x,J-
x,J-
4.27
9.56
53.6
9.66
5.28
47.6
22.6
1.39
177
135-291
Di-n-octyl Phthalate
RBMW03
X
X
7.50
7.35-7.65
Isophorone7
RBMW03
X
x,J, H
X
1.41
1.11-1.86
Nitrobenzene
RBMW03
X
0.63
t Phenol
RBMW03
X
0.52
Squalene
RBDW01
RBMW03
X
X
NS
NS
1.87
1.62
Glycol ethers8
t Diethylene Glycol
RBPW03
NS
x,J
1.1
t Triethylene Glycol
RBPW03
NS
x,J+3
2.6
Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons
Diesel-Range Organics 9
RBDW02
RBDW03
RBDW05
RBMW01
X
X
X
x
x
x
X
X
20.0
21.9
29.5
27.2
21.3-39.0
21.7-30.2
77
-------
Retrospective Case Study in the Raton Basin, Colorado
May 2015
Table 11. Detection of organic compounds in ground and surface water: North Fork Ranch study site.
Analyte/Well ID
RBMW03
RBPW01
RBPW02
RBPW03
RBSW01
RBSW02
RBSW03
Sampling Round1
1
x,J
X
X
NS
X
NS
NS
2
x,J
X
NS
X
X
X
X
3
X
X
NS
x,J-,*3
x, B
X
X
4
X
X
NS
x
X
X
X
Result
H9/L
40.1
Average
H9/L
1413
56.8
90.4
40.7
27.8
27.8
Range
H9/L
874-1940
31.9-77.0
73.6-118
34.2-46.9
23.6-30.3
26.6-28.7
Gasoline-Range Organics
RBMW03
x, B
X
30.7
30.1-31.3
Low-molecular-weight acids
t Acetate
RBDW04
RBDW05
RBMW01
RBMW02
RBMW03
RBPW01
RBPW03
RBSW02
RBSW03
R
R
R
R
R
R
NS
NS
NS
X,J
X
X,J
X
X,J
X,J
X
X
X,J
X
X,J
60
50
50
240
170
130
60
335
90
200-470
90
The sampling round in which the analyte was detected is designated using an "x" and qualified results are indicated using the
appropriate flag. Average values reflect the mean of the detected results; range is equivalent to the minimum and maximum
values detected for an analyte, at a given location. MCLs are provided where available. Analytes prefaced with a t are known
constituents of hydraulic fracturing fluids (U.S. House of Representatives, 2011; FracFocus, 2013).
1 Sampling events: round 1 = October 2011; round 2 = May 2012; round 3 = November 2012; and round 4 = April/May 2013.
2 NS = Not sampled.
3 J = The analyte was positively identified, and the associated numerical value is the approximate concentration; J- = Result may
be biased low; J+ = Result may be biased high; * = Relative percent difference of lab or field duplicate is outside acceptance
criteria; B = Analyte was detected in a blank sample above the QL. See Table A28, Appendix A, for more detailed descriptions.
Acetone—RBSW01, round 4: analyte was present in primary sample, but not in field duplicate.
Tert-Butyl Alcohol—"H" round 4 (RBMW03): analyte concentration was greater than the calibration range; re-analysis of diluted
sample missed holding time.
6 Bis-(2-ethylhexyl) Phthalate—RBDW02, round 4: analyte present in primary sample, but not in field duplicate.
7 Isophorone—"H", round 2 (RBMW03): sample foamed during prep and was lost; sample was re-extracted past its holding time.
8 Glycol ethers: the method used for glycol analysis was under development.
9 Diesel-Range Organics—RBDW02, round 4: DRO present in primary sample, but not in field duplicate.
78
-------
Retrospective Case Study in the Raton Basin, Colorado May 2015
• Gasoline Oxygenates—Gasoline oxygenates are compounds that contain oxygen as part of their
chemical structure and are added to gasoline to improve combustion and reduce emissions.
Commonly used oxygenates include alcohols (e.g., methanol, ethanol, isopropyl alcohol,
butanol) and/or ethers (e.g., methyl-tert-butyl ether (MTBE), tert-amyl methyl ether (TAME),
diisopropyl ether (DIPE), ethyl tert-butyl ether (ETBE)). These compounds, as well as their
chemical intermediates (e.g., TBA), were routinely analyzed as part of this study and were not
detected in any of the samples, with the exception of TBA. TBA, which is discussed in more
detail in a later topical section ("Tert-Butyl Alcohol"), was detected in one domestic well
(RBDW03, round 2), one production well (RBPW01, round 4), and consistently detected in
rounds 1 through 4 in two monitoring wells, RBMW02 and RBMW03, at concentrations up to
1,310 u.g/1 (J-). The source and formation pathway(s) of TBA within this area are currently
unresolved, and both anthropogenic and natural sources are possible for the documented
occurrences of TBA (see the "Tert-Butyl Alcohol" topical section for more information).
• Solvents—Solvents are compounds that are used to dissolve other substances. Acetone
((CH3)2CO) was detected in one domestic well (RBDW03, round 2), one production well
(RBPW03, round 3), and one surface water site (RBSW01, round 4). Methylene chloride (CH2CI2;
also known as dichloromethane (DCM)) was detected in monitoring well RBMW03 during
sampling events 3 and 4. Both compounds were detected at levels below the QL but above the
M Di-
ll is important to note that acetone can be produced microbially by solvent-producing strains of
Clostridium (Jones and Woods, 1986; Haggstrom, 1985). Most recently, Clostridium (sp.
Maddingley) was isolated from a brown coal-seam formation water sample collected from
Victoria, Australia, and products released by this bacterium during substrate fermentation may
support growth of certain methanogens (Rosewarne et al, 2013). Although these microbes lack
the solventogenesis genes found in closely-related Clostridium strains, this does not preclude
the existence of other solventogenesis Clostridium strains that may be associated with coal-
seam gas formation water, and could explain the low levels of acetone detected in these
samples.
• Trihalomethanes—Trihalomethanes (THMs) are chemical compounds in which three of the four
hydrogen atoms in methane (CH4) are replaced by halogen atoms—i.e., bromine (Br), chlorine
(Cl), fluorine (F), and/or iodine (I). Chloroform (CHCI3) was detected at low levels (<1 u.g/1) in
two domestic wells (RBDW02, round 4; RBDW05, rounds 1 and 4). This analyte was consistently
measured in ground water collected from monitoring well RBMW03 (rounds 1 through 4);
however, the concentration steadily decreased over the course of the four sampling events,
from 14.0 u.g/1 (round 1) to 2.3 u.g/1 (round 4).
Water that has been chlorinated, or exposed to products containing chlorine, is an important
source of chloroform. Both hydrochloric acid (HCI) and potassium chloride (KCI) are
components of hydraulic fracturing fluids used for CBM development in the Raton Basin
(FracFocus, 2013; COGCC, 2013a); however, chloroform was not detected in any production
wells. Both domestic wells (RBDW02 and RBDW05) are located west of monitoring well
RBMW03. Given the low, intermittent levels of this analyte detected in RBDW02 and RBDW05
and the steadily decreasing concentration in RBMW03, the presence of chloroform may be due
79
-------
Retrospective Case Study in the Raton Basin, Colorado May 2015
to disinfection of these wells; no well disinfection documentation was available. However,
transformations of chloroform linked to microbial activity have been observed in methanogenic
environments, and transformation products range from methylene chloride and chloromethane
through to carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, and volatile fatty acids (Chan et al., 2012; Lee et
al., 2012). The decreasing concentrations of chloroform in monitoring well RBMW03, coupled
with the appearance of methylene chloride in this well during later rounds, could be attributed
to microbial activity.
• Other—Carbon disulfide (CS2), a sulfur compound, was detected below the QL but above the
MDL in monitoring well RBMW03 during round 3.
Semivolatile Organic Compounds
Eight SVOCs were detected over the four sampling events (see Table 11). SVOCs are typically
hydrophobic organic compounds that have a moderate tendency to volatilize; consequently, SVOCs are
released slowly from their source and have a propensity to preferentially distribute into organic phases,
such as tissue (i.e., bioaccumulation) and/or sediments containing organic carbon (Lopes and Dionne,
1998; Smith et al., 1988).
During round 1, 2-butoxyethanol (2BE), nitrobenzene (C6H5NO2), phenol (C6H6O), and/or squalene
(C3oH5o) were detected in ground water samples from three locations: RBDW01, RBDW05, and RBMW03;
however, these compounds were not detected at any of these locations during subsequent sampling
events. Nitrobenzene, an industrial chemical, and phenol, a compound widely distributed in coal, were
detected at low levels (<1 u.g/L) in monitoring well RBMW03. Squalene, a common hydrocarbon
biomarker in fossil fuel environments (Peters et al., 2005), was detected in RBDW01 and RBMW03.
2-butoxyethanol, a chemical commonly used in hydraulic fracturing fluids, was detected at low levels
(<1.5 u.g/L) in domestic well RBDW05 and monitoring well RBMW03. (Note: the method QL for
2-butoxyethanol increased in later rounds due to method updates at the EPA Region 8 Laboratory
resulting from annual MDL studies.) The detections of 2-butoxyethanol should be viewed with caution:
detections were not repeated beyond the first sampling event, and there were no supportive detections
of 2-butoxyethanol using the LC-MS-MS method (developed by Region 3 for 2-butoxyethanol, diethylene
glycol, triethylene glycol, and tetraethylene glycol).
SVOCs with the some of the highest observed concentrations included phthalates and 2-butoxyethanol
phosphate (TnBP), the tributyl ester of phosphoric acid. These are manufactured chemicals used
primarily in the production of coatings, resins, and plastics (Orem et al., 2007). Bis-(2-ethylhexyl)
phthalate (DEHP) and di-n-octyl phthalate (DnOP), were detected in several water samples over the four
sampling rounds. Although detections were irregular, bis-(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate concentrations
exceeded the federally regulated MCL of 6 u.g/L (US EPA, 2013b) in three domestic wells (RBDW02,
round 4; RBDW04, round 3; and RBDW13, round 4), one monitoring well (RBMW03, rounds 1 through
4), and two production wells (RBPW01 and RBPW03, round 4). The highest concentrations were
consistently measured (rounds 1 through 4) in ground water samples from RBMW03 (mean = 177 u.g/L).
Bis-(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate was detected at concentrations less than the MCL in ground water collected
from RBDW01 (round 2) and RBMW01 (round 4), and from surface water location RBSW01 (round 1).
Di-n-octyl phthalate was also detected in RBMW03 (mean = 7.50 u.g/L) during rounds 1 and 4.
Phthalates are not common in nature, and their presence likely represents a contaminant from
processing of the samples and/or from leaching of plastic components in well materials (Orem et al.,
80
-------
Retrospective Case Study in the Raton Basin, Colorado May 2015
2007). Phthalates are not listed in Table 10 as components of chemical additives in hydraulic fracturing
fluids in the Raton Basin. 2-butoxyethanol phosphate was detected at low levels in ground water
collected from RBDW02 (round 1) and RBDW13 (round 4). Low levels of isophorone (mean = 1.41 u.g/L),
a widely used solvent (US EPA, 2013c), were measured in ground water collected from RBMW03 during
rounds 1, 2, and 4; this is the only well in which isophorone was measured within the Las Animas County
study areas. This compound is not a documented chemical additive of hydraulic fracturing fluid within
this study area, and the source is unknown.
Glycol ethers
Glycol ethers, a class of high-production-volume chemicals with widespread industrial applications as
solvents and chemical intermediates (Dieter, 1993), are commonly used chemical components of
hydraulic fracturing fluid (U.S. House of Representatives, 2011). These compounds are highly water
soluble, with high boiling points and low vapor pressures. Glycols are not normally detected in ground
and surface water, and because of their miscibility with water, they are difficult to separate for
analytical purposes (Fischer and Hahn, 2005).
Diethylene and triethylene glycol were detected at low levels (
-------
Retrospective Case Study in the Raton Basin, Colorado May 2015
2) to 73.6 u.g/L (round 4), but increased in RBPW01, from 31.9 u.g/L (round 1) to 77.0 u.g/L
(round 4). DRO was detected in water collected from all surface water locations, and analyte
concentrations were greater, per round and on average, in RBSW01 (mean = 40.7 u.g/L) than in
samples collected from RBSW02 (mean = 27.8 u.g/L) and RBSW03 (mean = 27.8 u.g/L). Water
within the sampled streams is predominantly sourced from surface discharges of production
water and reflects a dominant CBM component.
It is important to point out that the analytical methods used to analyze DRO in aqueous samples
measure a wide range of organics in the sample and are not specific to hydrocarbon compounds
that originate, for example, from a fuel release (Mohler et al., 2013). Well construction logs for
these locations indicate that many of these wells are screened in organic-rich layers, such as
shale, siltstone and coal, and this may be the source of these compounds. Non-targeted organic
compounds, such as pesticides, phenols, phthalates, and other hydrocarbons, can be captured
in the chromatographic integration window and reported as DRO; consequently, analytical
methods may actually overestimate the concentration of dissolved DRO (as fuel) in ground
water. Some of these compounds (e.g., phenols, phthalates, etc.) were detected in the
semivolatile scans previously described. Therefore, it is often helpful to view the DRO
chromatograms directly, as shown in Figure 29, for selected ground water wells and surface
water locations containing DRO detections. The chromatograms available for production wells
RBPW01 and PBPW03 (see Figure 29c) show a broad feature with a peak at about 27 minutes;
this pattern implies the presence of longer, alkane-series carbon chains that have undergone
weathering and/or biodegradation (Wang and Fingas, 1997; Grossi et al., 2002). The distinct
peaks located at about 27.5 minutes in the chromatograms for monitoring well RBMW03 (see
Figure 29a) and surface water RBSW01 (see Figure 29b) are consistent with chromatograms
depicting chemical composition changes of aromatic hydrocarbons by biodegradation (Wang et
al., 1998). However, it is important to note that compounds that originate in hydrocarbon
deposits, such as coal, may be mobilized by anthropogenic processes and/or natural water-rock
interactions. This is discussed in more detail in the "Coal-Water Interactions" topical section.
• GRO compounds—GRO were detected in one monitoring well sample (RBMW03; see Table 11)
during rounds 1 and 2.
Low-Molecular-Weight Acids (LMWAs)
LMWAs, predominantly acetate, were detected at low levels in several surface and ground water
samples collected within the North Fork Ranch study area (see Table 11). Acetate concentrations
ranged from 50 to 465 u.g/L, and maximum concentrations were measured in ground water samples
obtained from monitoring wells (Table 11). Acetate is one of the most important intermediates
produced during the degradation of hydrocarbons, including compounds like DRO, GRO, and/or BTEX, in
anaerobic environments (Cozzarelli et al., 1994; Jakobsen and Cold, 2007; Cozzarelli et al., 2010 and
references therein). Furthermore, certain microbial species are capable of synthesizing acetate by CO2
reduction with H2 or by fermentation of organic compounds (Westermann et al., 1989), and acetate is
an important precursor in biogenic methane production (i.e., Whiticar et al., 1986). Acetate was
detected in all surface and ground water samples where sufficient concentrations of methane were
present to obtain C and H isotope ratios (613CCH4; sample locations RBDW04, RBMW02, RBMW03,
RBPW01, RBPW03, and RBSW03); the carbon isotope results of methane (613CCH4) and dissolved
82
-------
Retrospective Case Study in the Raton Basin, Colorado
May 2015
4x1 0s-
CU
C
O
Q.
«
0-
JLL _L!_
RBMW03-1112
L
RBMW03-0512
^_
RBMW03-1011
8.0x105 -
<1> 6.0x10°
(A
c
O
Q.
(/)
0)
5 10 15 20 25 30
Time, minutes
6.0x1 05-
kJll
§
Q.
(fl
4.0x1 0s-
2.0x1 0s-
RBPW03-0512
RBPW01-0512
RBPW01-1011
a.oxio5 -
0)
«
C
o
Q.
(A
Q- 4.0X105 -
2.0X105-
15 20 25 30
B
RBSW01-1112
RBSW01-0512
RBSW01-1011
5 10 15 20 25 30
Time, minutes
RBDW06-1112
RBDW06-0512
RBDW06-1011
Time, minutes Tjmei minutes
Figure 29. Diesel-range organics (DRO) chromatograms for selected sampling locations. Samples
shown in A, B, and C were collected within the North Fork Ranch study area (Las Animas County);
sample RBDW06, shown in D, was collected from the Little Creek Field study area (Huerfano
County). The grey shaded area represents the integration window for DRO compounds. The peak at
~16 minutes is the surrogate compound, o-terphenyl.
83
-------
Retrospective Case Study in the Raton Basin, Colorado May 2015
inorganic carbon (613CD|C) are consistent with biochemical fractionation of gas due to linked microbial
methane generation and hydrocarbon degradation (see "Origin of Methane in Domestic Wells"
section—North Fork Ranch).
6.6.2. Arrowhead Ranchettes
Volatile Organic Compounds
Three VOCs were detected in water samples collected from domestic well RBDW11 during the four
sampling events (see Table 12): TBA (gasoline oxygenate), chloroform (trihalomethane), and carbon
disulfide. Chloroform (rounds 3 and 4) and carbon disulfide (rounds 3 and 4) were detected at levels
below the QL but above the MDL Both hydrochloric acid (HCI) and potassium chloride (KCI) are
components of hydraulic fracturing fluids used for CBM development in the Raton Basin (FracFocus,
2013; COGCC, 2013a); however, chloroform was not detected in any production wells within the
immediate area (COGCC, 2014b). The presence of chloroform may be due to disinfection of these wells;
no well disinfection documentation was available.
TBA was consistently detected (rounds 1 through 4) in water samples collected from RBDW11. The
concentration increased from 11.7 u.g/L to 32 u.g/L over rounds 1, 2 and 3 and then decreased to
(12 u.g/L) in round 4, mirroring the round 1 result. The source and formation pathway(s) of TBA within
this area are currently unresolved, and both anthropogenic and natural sources are possible for the
documented occurrences of TBA (see the "Tert-Butyl Alcohol" topical section for more information).
Semivolatile Organic Compounds
Three SVOCs were detected over the four sampling events: bis-(2-ethylhexyl) adipate (DEHA), bis-
(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate, and squalene (see Table 12). Bis-(2-ethylhexyl) adipate was detected in ground
water collected from RBDW11 and RBDW12 during the first sampling event; however, these results are
likely due to lab contamination. Adipate is known to leach from tubing made of PVC plastic (US EPA,
2013d) and was measured in lab blanks during round 1. Bis-(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate was detected
during rounds 3 and 4 in ground water samples from RBDW11; the concentration increased from
3.84 u.g/L in round 3 to 18.1 u.g/L (J-) in round 4. Levels detected in sampling round 4 exceed the
federally regulated MCL of 6 u.g/L. Squalene, a naturally occurring hydrocarbon, was detected at
3.13 u.g/L (J-) in RBDW11 during round 4; however, this compound was measured in the field blank
sample at a similar concentration of 3.12 u.g/L (J-).
Diesel- and Gasoline-Range Organic Compounds
DRO compounds (see Table 12), described in the North Fork DRO/GRO section (above), were detected in
ground water collected from RBDW12 during round 1 (54.7 u.g/L) and RBDW11 (22.5 u.g/L) during round
4. GRO compounds were not detected at this site.
6.6.3. Little Creek Field
Volatile Organic Compounds
One or more of nine different VOCs were detected in ground water samples during at least one of the
four sampling events (see Table 13) and are categorized into five groups: gasoline hydrocarbons,
gasoline oxygenates, solvents, trihalomethanes (THMs), and other. These groups were introduced and
described in the North Fork Ranch VOC section above.
84
-------
Retrospective Case Study in the Raton Basin, Colorado
May 2015
Table 12. Detection of organic compounds in ground water: Arrowhead Ranchettes study site.
Analyte/Well ID
Sampling Round1
1
2
3
4
Result
H9/L
Average
H9/L
Range
m/i
Volatile Organic Compounds
Carbon Disulfide
RBDW11
x,J2
x,J
0.18
0.14-0.22
Chloroform (MCL = 80 ug/L)
RBDW11
X,J
X,J
0.27
0.22-0.31
Tert-Butyl Alcohol
RBDW11
X
x,J-2
X
X
19.0
11.7-32
Semivolatile Organic Compounds
Bis-(2-ethylhexyl) Adipate3 (MCL = 400 u,g/L)
RBDW11
RBDW12
x, B
x, B
NS4
NS
NS
2.61
2.37
Bis-(2-ethylhexyl) Phthalate (MCL = 6 ug/L)
RBDW11
x
x,J-
11.0
3.84-18.1
Squalene5
RBDW11
x, B, J-
3.13
Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons
Diesel-Range Organics
RBDW11
RBDW12
X
NS
NS
X
NS
22.5
54.7
The sampling round in which the analyte was detected is designated using an "x" and qualified results are indicated using the
appropriate flag. Average values reflect the mean of the detected results; range is equivalent to the minimum and maximum
values detected for an analyte, at a given location. MCLs are provided where available. Analytes prefaced with a t are known
constituents of hydraulic fracturing fluids (U.S. House of Representatives, 2011; FracFocus, 2013).
1 Sampling events: round 1 = October 2011; round 2 = May 2012; round 3 = November 2012; and round 4 = April/May 2013.
2 J = The analyte was positively identified, and the associated numerical value is the approximate concentration; J- = Result may
be biased low; B = Analyte was detected in a blank sample above the QL. See Table A28, Appendix A, for more detailed
descriptions.
3 Bis-(2-ethylhexyl) Adipate—"B" round 1: lab blank detection at 1.10 |ag/L
4 NS= Not sampled.
Squalene—"B" round 4: field blank detection at 3.12 [ig/L (J-); concentration data for RBDW11 are suspect.
85
-------
Retrospective Case Study in the Raton Basin, Colorado
May 2015
Table 13. Detection of organic compounds in ground water: Little Creek Field study site.
Analyte/Well ID
Sampling Round1
1
2
3
4
Result
ng/L
Average
ng/L
Range
ng/L
Volatile Organic Compounds
1,2-dichlorobenzene (MCL = 5 |ig/L)
RBDW09
x,J2
0.08
t 1,2,3-trimethylbenzene
RBDW08
RBDW09
t Acetone
RBDW06
RBDW08
Carbon Disulfide
RBDW06
RBDW08
RBDW09
RBDW10
RBDW14
RBDW15
NS3
NS
NS
Chloroform (MCL = 80ng/L)
RBDW06
RBDW08
RBDW14
RBDW15
X
NS
NS
X
NS
X,J
x,J-2
x,J-
X
x,J-
x,J
x,J-
x,J-
x,J-
x,J-
x,J-
x,J
X,J-
x,J-
X,J
x,J
NS
x,J
X
X,J
NS
0.10
0.08
1.6
0.54
0.56
0.71
0.22
0.16
1.3
0.58
0.31
1.2
0.54
13
0.16-1.0
0.17-0.45
0.08-3.0
0.41-0.66
0.16-39
Methylene Chloride (MCL = 5 ug/L)
RBDW06
RBDW15
t Naphthalene
RBDW08
RBDW09
NS
NS
x,J-
X,J-
X
X,J-
NS
2.1
0.11
0.73
0.78
Tert-Butyl Alcohol
RBDW15
NS
NS
X,J-
NS
9.1
t Toluene (MCL = 1000 u,g/L)
RBDW06
RBDW10
x, B
X
X
X
X,J-
x,J-
x,J
x,J
0.94
3.09
0.21-1.96
0.50-5.91
86
-------
Retrospective Case Study in the Raton Basin, Colorado
May 2015
Table 13. Detection of organic compounds in ground water: Little Creek Field study site.
Analyte/Well ID
Sampling Round1
1
2
3
4
Result
H9/L
Average
H9/L
Range
H9/L
Semivolatile Organic Compounds
Bis-(2-ethylhexyl) Adipate4 (MCL = 400 ug/L)
RBDW06
RBDW07
RBDW08
RBDW09
RBDW10
RBMW04
RBMW05
x, B
x, B
x, B
x, B
x, B
x, B
x, B
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
1.46
2.28
2.21
2.33
2.31
3.07
2.56
Bis-(2-ethylhexyl) Phthalate (MCL = 6 ug/L)
RBDW06
RBDW08
RBDW09
RBDW14
RBMW05
Di-n-butyl Phthalate
RBMW05
t Phenol
RBDW07
x
NS
x
X
X
x
NS
NS
NS
NS
x
x
NS
NS
2.17
9.33
11.5
5.71
1.03
5.68
1.08
Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons
Diesel-Range Organics5
RBDW06
RBDW07
RBDW08
RBDW09
RBDW10
RBDW14
RBMW05
X
X
X
X
X
NS
X
x
x
x,J
NS
x
x
x, B
x
x
NS
x
x, B
x, B
x, B
NS
21.1
52.5
117
22.3
40.0
56.1
420
81.4-148
21.5-23.0
21.1-52.3
40.5-79.3
24.1-12006
Gasoline-Range Organics
RBDW06
RBDW09
RBDW10
X
X
x
X
X
x
31.8
22.0
29.8
21.5-22.5
20.6-44.8
87
-------
Retrospective Case Study in the Raton Basin, Colorado
May 2015
Table 13. Detection of organic compounds in ground water: Little Creek Field study site.
Analyte/Well ID
RBDW14
RBDW15
Sampling Round1
1
NS
NS
2
x,J-
NS
3
X
4
NS
Result
H9/L
49.8
29.6
Average
H9/L
Range
H9/L
The sampling round in which the analyte was detected is designated using an "x" and qualified results are indicated using the
appropriate flag. Average values reflect the mean of the detected results; range is equivalent to the minimum and maximum
values detected for an analyte, at a given location. MCLs are provided where available. Analytes prefaced with a t are known
constituents of hydraulic fracturing fluids (U.S. House of Representatives, 2011; FracFocus, 2013).
1 Sampling Events: round 1 = October 2011; round 2 = May 2012; round 3 = November 2012; and round 4 = April/May 2013.
2 J = The analyte was positively identified, and the associated numerical value is the approximate concentration; J- = Result may
be biased low; B = Analyte was detected in a blank sample above the QL. See Table A28, Appendix A, for more detailed
descriptions.
3 NS= Not sampled.
4 Bis-(2-ethylhexyl) Adipate—"B" round 1: lab blank detection at 1.10 [ig/l.
Diesel Range Organics—RBDW10, round 1: DRO present in primary sample, but not in field duplicate.
The high concentration of DRO at location RBDW14 during round 2 is likely related to residual chemicals from well treatment.
• Gasoline hydrocarbons—While the full suite of BTEX compounds dominated VOC detections in
the North Fork Ranch study site, only three gasoline hydrocarbon analytes were measured in
ground water samples collected in the Little Creek Field study area. Benzene derivative
1,2,3-trimethylbenzene was detected at low levels (
-------
Retrospective Case Study in the Raton Basin, Colorado May 2015
domestic well, and RBDW15 was collected from the homeowner's kitchen faucet and reflects
post-treatment of ground water.
• Trihalomethanes—Chloroform was detected in samples collected from three locations during
the four sampling events: RBDW06/RBDW15, RBDW08, and RBDW14. The analyte was detected
in water collected from RBDW06 during rounds 1, 3, and 4. Low levels were detected in sample
RBDW15 during round 3 (1.3 u.g/L, J-), and in water samples collected from RBDW08 during
rounds 3 and 4 (<1 u.g/L). The highest concentration was obtained during round 2 from
RBDW14 (39.0 u.g/L); however, the concentration decreased dramatically by round 3 (0.19 u.g/L,
J-) and remained low (0.16 u.g/L, -0 through round 4. The presence of chloroform is most likely
due to disinfection of the wells, and was the source of the high chloroform concentration
detected at location RBDW14 during round 2 (see Table 13; disinfection confirmed by
homeowner).
• Other—Carbon disulfide was not detected in any wells during the first or second sampling
events. It was detected at low levels (<1 u.g/L) in water samples collected from all domestic
wells sampled during round 3, except for sample RBDW07 (undetected). Carbon disulfide was
detected only in water sample RBDW08 during round 4.
Semivolatile Organic Compounds
Four SVOCs were detected over the four sampling events: bis-(2-ethylhexyl) adipate (DEHA), bis-
(2-ethylhexyl phthalate), di-n-butyl phthalate, and phenol (see Table 13). Bis-(2-ethylhexyl) adipate was
detected at low levels (1.46 u.g/Lto 3.07 u.g/L) in all wells sampled during round 1; however, these
results are likely due to lab contamination because adipate was measured in a lab blank following the
first sampling event. Bis-(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate and di-n-butyl phthalate were sporadically detected in
several water samples over four sampling rounds. Bis-(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate concentrations exceeded
the federal MCL of 6 u.g/L (US EPA, 2013b) in two domestic wells RBDW08 (round 2, 9.33 u.g/L) and
RBDW09 (round 4, 11.5 u.g/L). The compound was detected at concentrations less than the MCL in
ground water collected from RBDW06 (round 1), RBDW14 (round 4), and RBMW05 (round 1). Di-n-butyl
phthalate was also detected in RBMW05 (5.68 u.g/L) during round 1. Phthalates are discussed in more
detail in the North Fork Ranch "Semivolatile Organic Compounds" section, above. Phenol was detected
at low levels in one well, RBDW07, during round 1. Phenols present in ground water are linked to lower
rank coal deposits (Orem et al., 2007) and are discussed in a later topical section ("Coal-Water
Interactions").
Diesel- and Gasoline-Range Organic Compounds
GRO and DRO were introduced and described in the North Fork Ranch DRO/GRO section above. DRO
and GRO were detected in several water samples collected in the Little Creek Field study area (see Table
13).
• DRO compounds—DRO were detected in all domestic wells in at least one sampling event, as
well as in one monitoring well (RBMW05) during round 1. DRO were consistently detected in
ground water collected from RBDW06 (mean = 117 u.g/L), RBDW09 (mean = 56.1 u.g/L), and
RBDW14 (mean = 420 u.g/L; the high mean concentration at this location is affected by residual
chemicals used for well disinfection, see Table 13). These compounds were intermittently
detected in ground water sampled from RBDW07 (rounds 1 and 3), RBDW08 (rounds 1, 3, and
89
-------
Retrospective Case Study in the Raton Basin, Colorado May 2015
4), and RBDW10 (round 1). The chromatogram available for domestic well RBDW06 (see Figure
29d) shows a broad feature with a peak at about 27 minutes; this pattern implies the presence
of longer, alkane-series carbon chains that have undergone weathering and/or biodegradation
(Wang and Fingas, 1997; Grossi et al., 2002). This is discussed in more detail in the "Coal-Water
Interactions" topical section.
• GRO compounds—GRO were detected above the QL in ground water collected at four domestic
well locations. The highest concentration was detected during round 2 from a sample collected
at RBDW14 (49.8 u.g/L, J-); however, this was the only sampling event where GRO was detected,
and the result may have been affected by the sample matrix. Upon receipt, the EPA Region 8
Laboratory noted the sample smelled strongly of acid or chlorine and that the spike compounds,
added to an additional sample for matrix spike/matrix spike duplicate (MS/MSD) analysis, were
degraded by the sample matrix. GRO were detected during rounds 1 and 2 in ground water
collected from RBDW06, and from RBDW15 (kitchen faucet at location RBDW06) during round 3.
The result obtained in the water sample collected at RBDW15 reflected the highest
concentration detected at this location (29.6 u.g/L). GRO were also detected in ground water
collected from RBDW09 during round 2, and from RBDW10 during rounds 1, 2, and 3.
GRO were not detected in any water samples collected in the Little Creek Field site during the
last sampling event (round 4).
6.7. Water Isotopes
Stable isotopes of hydrogen (62H) and oxygen (618O) were measured for all ground and surface water
samples collected in rounds 1 through 4. These environmental isotopes are suitable tools for
hydrogeological investigations because (i) they are part of the water molecules and follow their behavior
through hydrological cycles, and (ii) they behave conservatively as long as the relative amount of water
involved in chemical reactions remains limited (IAEA, 1983). As such, 62H and 618O serve as useful
tracers of water flows, and information can be obtained about the recharge environments and
geochemical evolution of dissolved constituents in water (IAEA, 1983).
Isotope results are reported in standard delta (6) notation, in units of permil relative to the VSMOW
reference water, on scales normalized to the 62H and 618O values of the Standard Light Antarctic
Precipitation (SLAP) reference water: -428%o and -55.5%o, respectively (Kendall and Coplen, 2001). For
stable hydrogen and oxygen ratios:
r (2u/!«) , i
g2tf= rv1^ -1 xloo° (2)
|_ ^ ' * standard \
and
(18o/15o) ,
^ ' 'sample
-
B0/16Q\
' 'standard
The 6 notation expresses the isotope ratios of hydrogen (Eqn. 2) and oxygen (Eqn. 3) of water in a given
sample, relative to the same isotope ratios in an isotopic standard. A positive 5 value means that the
sample is more enriched in the heavy isotope than the standard; a negative 5 value indicates that the
sample is depleted in the heavy isotope relative to the standard.
90
-------
Retrospective Case Study in the Raton Basin, Colorado May 2015
Oxygen and hydrogen isotope compositions for water samples collected at each study site are
represented in Figures 30 and 31, together with the global meteoric water line (GMWL; Craig, 1961) and
the local meteoric water line (LMWL) for the state of Colorado. The GMWL defines the relationship
between 618O and 62H in worldwide fresh surface waters, based on global precipitation data, and is used
as a reference line when local or nearby precipitation data are not available for comparison (Mayo et al.,
2007). LMWLs may differ from the GMWL, where 618O and 62H values reflect the imprint of seasonal
variations in precipitation, and evaporative loss from rivers, reservoirs, and lakes, on a regional scale
(see Figure 30A, inset; Gat, 1971). As seen in Figure 30A (inset), seasonal changes and/or changes in
relative altitude within a given area can influence the signature of water stable isotopes. Precipitation
is the ultimate source of ground water in nearly all systems. On average, seasonal variations in the 618O
and 62H composition of precipitation remain fairly constant from year to year due to the constancy in
the annual range and sequence of climatic conditions experienced within a geographic region (e.g.,
temperature, vapor source, direction of air movement, etc.). Through selective recharge and infiltration
processes within saturated and unsaturated zones, ground water attains a uniform isotopic character
that normally closely approaches a damped reflection of precipitation over a period of years (Sklash et
al., 1976).
6.7.1. North Fork Ranch
The oxygen and hydrogen isotope compositions for water samples collected in the North Fork Ranch
area are presented in Figure 30. The water isotope values ranged from -14.3 to -8.7%o for 618O, and
from -101.7 to -65.7%o for 62H. The range in 618O and 62H values was greatest for domestic well
samples, ranging from -14.3 to -8.7%o for 618O, and from -101.7 to -67.1%o for 62H. The isotopic values
at each sample location remained fairly constant over the four sampling events, and total variability was
<0.8%o for 618O and <2%o for 62H. Isotope results for samples collected from monitoring wells,
production wells, and surface water bodies ranged from -10.9 to -10.3%o for 618O, and from -76.4
to -65.7%o for 62H. The total isotopic variability over the four sampling events was: <0.7%o for 618O and
<0.9%o for 62H at monitoring well sites,
-------
Retrospective Case Study in the Raton Basin, Colorado
May 2015
A)
-60
0)
Q.
IM
CO
-70-
-80-
-90-
-100-
-110
North Fork Ranch
o Domestic Wells
» Monitoring Wells
Production Wells
O Surface Water
Arrowhead Ranchettes
Domestic Wells
High Altitude .
Recharge /
5180
-15 -14
-13
-12
I
-11
-10
-9
-8
B)
Q.
TJ
"3
o
\J —
-
0-
_
n —
w —
-
~*
-
0 -
\j
0-
^
**
i
®®
® o ®
North Fork Ranch
O RBDWOI
O
O
O
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
Arrov
0
RBDW02
RBDW03
RBDW04
RBDWOi
RBDW13
DW, Avg Al*0
RBMW01
RBMW02
RBMW03
MW, Avg ®
• RBPWOl
O RBPW02
O RBPW03
0 PW, AvgS18O
O RBSW01
O RBSW02
• RBSW03
0 SW, Avg 818O
43 2 1
43 1
OSD
fidO 9
43 2 1
**
+ & 4>
*&
402 J
-15
I
-14
1 1 1 1
-13 -12 -11 -10 -9 -i
818Omn, permil (VSMOW)
'H20'
Figure 30. Isotopic trends in 818O and 82H in ground water and surface water samples A) and depth trends,
relative to the 618O composition of water B), for samples collected from the North Fork Ranch and Arrowhead
Ranchettes study areas (Las Animas County, CO). The inset diagram (top) summarizes how hydrologic processes
affect the 818O and 82H composition of water. Numbers, located next to symbols, refer to sampling rounds.
92
-------
Retrospective Case Study in the Raton Basin, Colorado
May 2015
-60
"So
-70-
^ -80-
fcO
>. -90
0.
- -100
-110-
-120
Little Creek Field
• Domestic Wells
* Monitoring Wells
-16
-14 -12
518O, permil (VSMOW)
-10
Figure 31. Isotopic trends in 8 O and 8 H for ground water samples collected from the Little Creek Field study
area (Huerfano County, CO).
Group B includes water isotope data from all other (non-alluvial) domestic wells, monitoring wells,
production wells, and surface water bodies in the North Fork Ranch study area. The data in Group B are
isotopically enriched relative to Group A, and there is a similarity in the isotopic composition of ground
water samples, regardless of geologic formation. Non-alluvial domestic wells (RBDW02, RBDW03,
RBDW04, and RBDW05) and monitoring wells are located in the Cuchara-Poison Canyon aquifer,
whereas production wells are screened in the coal-bearing Raton and Vermejo formations. The 618O
and 62H measurements for ground water samples collected from the Poison Canyon aquifer ranged
from -10.9 to -8.7%o for 618O, and from -77.7 to -66.9%o for 62H. The isotopic composition of ground
water sampled from the Raton-Vermejo aquifers ranged from -10.8 to -9.1%o for 618O, and from -72.1 to
-65.7%o for 62H. Samples collected from production well RBPW03, located in the Vermejo Formation,
were the most isotopically enriched of all ground water samples collected in the North Fork Ranch study
area.
With the exception of monitoring well RBMW03, the isotopic composition of water collected from
Poison Canyon domestic and monitoring wells (RBMW01 and RBMW02) plots slightly below the
meteoric water lines, indicating isotopic fractionation. The Vermejo-Raton aquifer is unconfined within
the vicinity of their outcrop locations, but confined when overlain by other units at depth; the Poison
Canyon aquifer is a water-table aquifer (Howard, 1982). It is important to note the heterogeneity and
anisotropic nature of these aquifers: the Cuchara-Poison Canyon and Raton-Vermejo aquifers consist of
93
-------
Retrospective Case Study in the Raton Basin, Colorado May 2015
thick sequences of interbedded and discontinuous sandstones, shales, and coals, in which hydraulic and
storage properties vary spatially (Watts, 2006a). If it is assumed that ground water collected from the
production wells represents meteoric water trending from the late Cretaceous-Paleocene period
(because water penetrating deep confined aquifers responds less to precipitation cycles), then the
isotopic composition of the domestic and monitoring wells could indicate that there was intermixing of
the waters within the aquifer (i.e., since the Poison Canyon formation is unconfined, the isotopic
composition of ground water should reflect a precipitation imprint).
Alternatively, deviation from the GMWL could indicate that the different aquifers were subject to similar
recharge and/or evolutional paths for the water, so that the net difference in the 62H and 618O was
minimal (Bartos and Ogle, 2002). A plot of 618O versus well depth (see Figure 30B) shows little variability
in the isotopic composition of oxygen: isotope values for Poison Canyon domestic and monitoring wells
fall, for the most part, within the range measured in ground water from production wells. Furthermore,
temporal trends (at each sampling location) in isotopic composition indicate similar ranges of oxygen
isotope values but different deuterium values. Trends observed in the 618O values of formation waters
in deep basins can be explained by isotopic exchange between water and minerals, which almost always
results in an increase in the 618O value of the water (Kharaka and Thordsen, 1992).
Ground water sampled from monitoring well RBMW03 fell above the GMWL, indicating excess
deuterium. This is likely a result of methanogenesis via a CO2 reduction pathway, which is discussed in
more detail in a later section ("Molecular and Isotopic Composition of Coalbed Methane").
The water isotope results of surface water samples suggest that water within the sampled tributaries is
composed predominantly of production water discharged to the surface with minor contributions from
precipitation, and the resulting isotopic composition of the water reflects an evaporative imprint (see
Figure 30A). A linear fit of surface water data yields a regression line (62H = 4.37 * 618O - 29.27, R2 =
0.94) that intersects the GMWL slightly below the isotopic composition of the production wells but far
above the annual isotopic composition of precipitation. The location of these data suggests that water
within the sampled streams is predominantly sourced from surface discharges of production water, with
minor contributions from seasonal precipitation events: if the 62H and 618O isotopic values were
significantly influenced by precipitation, then the data would plot along the GMWL, somewhere
between production well values and the isotopic values observed in alluvial aquifers and/or local
precipitation events. Further, the enrichment of 618O, relative to the GMWL and production well water
isotope values, occurs as a result of evaporation processes; the slope of the regression line (4.37) is
consistent with evaporation trends observed in arid regions (slope <5; Kendall and Coplen, 2001).
6.7.2. Arrowhead Ranchettes
Water isotope results for samples collected from domestic well RBDW11 ranged from -10.9 to -10.2%o
for 618O, and from -81.6 to -80.6%o for 62H; these data are shown in Figure 30. Domestic well RBDW12
was sampled only during round 1; the measured isotopic values for this sample were -10.2 and -80.3%o
for oxygen and hydrogen, respectively.
Ground water collected from RBDW11, located in the Raton Formation, is enriched in 618O but depleted
in 62H relative to the GMWL, and surface and ground water samples collected from non-alluvial
domestic wells, monitoring wells, and production wells in North Fork Ranch area; the isotopic
composition steadily shifts towards the GMWL during rounds 2-4 (Group B, Figure 30A). A comparative
94
-------
Retrospective Case Study in the Raton Basin, Colorado May 2015
ground water sample from the Raton Formation is sample RBPW01, obtained from a production well in
North Fork Ranch; the isotope composition of the ground water sample collected from domestic well
RBDW11 is isotopically heavier than sample RBPW01. This difference is not unexpected because both
the (subsurface) geology and weather patterns shift moving from west to east within the basin. Ground
water composition within the Arrowhead Ranchettes study area is modified to a greater extent, relative
to RBPW01, by precipitation events because the Raton Formation is exposed at the surface, and not
overlain by the Poison Canyon Formation. Furthermore, the central part of the basin receives less
precipitation than the western margin, where the North Fork Ranch study area is located (Powell, 1952),
so evaporative imprints are much stronger.
6.7.3. Little Creek Field
The oxygen and hydrogen isotope compositions for water samples collected in the Little Creek Field area
are represented in Figure 31. The water isotope results for samples collected from domestic wells
(excluding RBDW15, collected from a kitchen faucet) in this area ranged from -13.1 to -ll.l%o for 618O,
and from -99.1 to -86.7%o for 62H. The total isotopic variability over the four sampling events, at each
domestic well, was <0.80%o for 618O and <2.2%o for 62H, with the exception of the water sample
collected at RBDW06 during round 1. Mean isotopic values in ground water collected from this location,
-11.8 ± 0.52%o for 518O and -91.3 ± 3.1%o for 52H, were the heaviest (i.e., isotopically enriched) of all
water isotope values collected in the Little Creek study area during all sampling events. The results for
samples collected from monitoring wells (round 1) fell within the isotopic range observed in the
domestic wells.
Domestic wells within the Little Creek study site are screened within the Cuchara-Poison Canyon aquifer,
a confined aquifer that is recharged principally from precipitation falling on the Culebra Range (Abbott
et al., 1983; Abbott, 1985), a subrange of the Sangre de Cristo Mountains. The water isotope data
collected from this area indicate that ground water recharge is predominantly controlled by
precipitation events and evaporative processes, which occur in high areas west of the study area. The
results for all samples trend along the LMWL for Colorado; minor deviations are due to regional and
seasonal variations in the 618O and 62H of precipitation. The distinctive slope of the Colorado LMWL
relative to the GMWL reflects the effect of regional evaporative processes on precipitation. The
intersection of the Colorado LMWL and the GMWL coincides with the annual average 618O and 62H
values for peaks within the Sangre de Cristo Mountains (Bowen and Wilkinson, 2002; Bowen and
Ravenaugh, 2003; Bowen et al., 2005), which are located west of the study area. Confined aquifers tend
to respond less to precipitation cycles (Abbott et al., 1983). The annual average 618O and 62H values for
precipitation falling on the study site (Bowen and Wilkinson, 2002; Bowen and Ravenaugh, 2003; Bowen
et al., 2005) are shown in Figure 31 as a dark blue, dashed circle. If localized precipitation events
significantly contributed to ground water recharge within this area, then the data points would trend
along a line that intersected the GMWL closer to the annual precipitation values.
6.8. Dissolved Gases
Coals serve as both sources and reservoirs of substantial quantities of hydrocarbon and CO2 gases
(Clayton, 1998). Methane is predominantly a product of the conversion of organic matter in different
temperature regimes, and gas produced from bituminous and sub-bituminous coals is typically
generated by two distinct processes: biogenic and thermogenic. Biogenic gas, primarily methane and
CO2, is produced via anaerobic decomposition of organic matter by microorganisms (Rice, 1993; Johnson
95
-------
Retrospective Case Study in the Raton Basin, Colorado May 2015
and Floras, 1998). Microbial methane reservoirs are typically located at shallow depths in thermally
immature shales and coals (Mclntosh et al., 2008). Under favorable conditions, large amounts of
biogenic methane can be generated over a period of tens of thousands of years (Johnson and Flores,
1998). In contrast, thermogenic gas is generated over geologic timescales in organic-rich formations
that were subject to high temperature and/or pressures, and are typically located at depth in
sedimentary basins (Mclntosh et al., 2008). Methane is usually the major component; hydrocarbon
gases, including ethane (C2H6), propane (C3H8), and butane (C4H10) are produced during thermal
decomposition of organic matter in the subsurface and accumulate with methane in subsurface
reservoirs (Rice, 1993; Quistad and Valentine, 2011). In the Raton Basin, Raton and Vermejo coalbed
gases are dry (90 to 95% CH4), very low in CO2 (~1%) and higher chain (C2+) hydrocarbons (<0.1%), and
contain ~5% nitrogen.
Ground water movement is an important mechanism by which methane migrates from its source, in
solution, and accumulates in suitable traps (Edwards, 1991). The production of methane is a concern
because it can migrate in the subsurface and reach indoor or confined spaces (e.g., basements,
underground piping systems), where it can accumulate to explosive levels (lower explosive limit (LEL) = 5
to 15%; Eltschlager et al., 2001). The concentration of methane within ground water that can lead to an
explosive hazard depends on the confined space properties; a potential hazard exists if the partial
pressure of methane is greater than 0.05 bars, which is equivalent to 1.6 mg/L (Goody and Darling,
2005). The COGCC identifies 1.1 mg/L as the threshold level at which water well systems have the
potential to accumulate explosive vapors in confined spaces (LT Environmental, Inc., 2007).
Methane is widely distributed in shallow aquifers within the Raton Basin, and concentrations of
dissolved methane ranging from about 0.0003 mg/L to 38 mg/L were reported for water wells in a
baseline study conducted by the COGCC (2003b). The major paths for the vertical migration of gas are
formed by natural faults and fractures in the rock; the volume of gas migrating toward the surface is
directly related to the type and width of the path along which it migrates. Additional avenues of
migration may be created by drilling operations, which not only creates a hole through the strata but
also causes fracturing around the wellbore (Gurevich et al., 1993; Van Stempvoort et al., 2005).
The distribution of methane and ethane (C2H6) in ground water and surface water samples collected
from each study site is shown in Figures 32 through 34 and summarized in Tables 14 through 17.
6.8.1. North Fork Ranch
Dissolved methane was detected above the MDL in ground water and surface water samples (n = 46)
collected during sampling rounds 1 through 4; mean concentrations at these sampling locations ranged
up to 21.87 mg/L (see Table 14). The distribution of methane concentrations observed in this area, as
well as dissolved methane data obtained from private water wells in 2002 from the COGCC study
(COGCC, 2003a), is shown in Figure 33A.
Dissolved methane concentrations were greatest in the samples collected from production wells
(RBPW01 and RBPW03), with average values >20 mg/L. The methane concentration measured in
ground water collected from RBPW02 was 14.8 mg/L; this location was sampled only during round 1.
Average methane values obtained from monitoring wells (RBMW01, RBMW02, and RBMW03) ranged
from 0.29 mg/L to 10.4 mg/L; all monitoring wells are located within ~0.5 miles of the production wells.
Dissolved methane concentrations in five of the six domestic wells were consistently <0.1 mg/L, with the
96
-------
Retrospective Case Study in the Raton Basin, Colorado May 2015
exception of domestic well RBDW04. The concentration of methane in this well increased from 10.0
mg/L in round 1 to 14.4 mg/L in round 4, with an average concentration of 12.4 mg/L (n = 3). Methane
was consistently detected in rounds 2, 3 and 4 at surface water locations RBSW02 (mean = 0.014 mg/L,
n = 3) and RBSW03 (mean = 15.6 mg/L, n = 3). Methane was also detected at low levels (C2; e.g., propane and butane), were not observed in any
ground water or surface water sample during any sampling event.
6.8.2. Arrowhead Ranchettes
Dissolved methane was detected above the QL in domestic well RBDW11 during all sampling events;
methane concentrations increased from 0.573 mg/L in round 1 to >2 mg/L in round 4, with an average
of 1.57 mg/L (n = 4; see Table 14). Dissolved ethane (see Table 15) was detected at low levels in this
well during three of the four sampling events (rounds 1, 2, and 3); the average concentration was 0.0018
mg/L (n = 3). Methane was also detected in ground water collected from domestic well RBDW12 during
round 1 (0.832 mg/L); this location was sampled only during round 1. Higher chain hydrocarbons (>C2;
e.g., propane and butane) were not detected in any ground water samples, during any sampling round.
6.8.3. Little Creek Field
The distribution of methane concentrations observed in this area is shown in Figure 33B, and the data
are summarized in Table 16. Dissolved methane was detected above the QL in all ground water wells
during all sampling events, with the exception of domestic well RBDW14 during round 4: no methane
was detected in this well at that time. Average concentration values in domestic wells ranged from
0.001 mg/L to 13.5 mg/L and exhibited a bimodal distribution that correlates to geographic location:
methane concentrations were <0.02 mg/L in samples from domestic wells in the northern part of the
study area (RBDW07, RBDW14; see Figure 24), but exceeded ~4 mg/L, during each sampling event, in
samples from wells south of RBDW07 and RBDW14. Methane was detected in both monitoring wells
(RBMW04 and RBMW05) during round 1 (results = 15.1 mg/L and 17.5 mg/L, respectively); this was the
only sampling round in which ground water was obtained from these wells. Methane was detected
above the QL in water collected from sample RBDW15 during round 3 (0.0817 mg/L). This sample was
obtained from the kitchen faucet at location RBDW06, and water chemistry reflects post-treatment
ground water. The pre-treatment methane concentration at the well head was 10.40 mg/L.
97
-------
Retrospective Case Study in the Raton Basin, Colorado
May 2015
>.
0
Ł
3
CT
i_
LL.
25-
20-
15-
10-
5-
n
A
North Fork Ranch
Production Wells
n = 8
-
-
-
30
c
Ł
25-
20-
-------
Retrospective Case Study in the Raton Basin, Colorado
May 2015
A)
)
E
c
TO
>
O
I/)
(/»
'5
30-
25-
20-
15-
10-
5:
*
0-
"
;
I < < i i i i i
North Fork Ranch Monitoring
Domestic Wells Wells
COGCC DW
(2003) .,
i
.r -
i i i ' i i i i i i i
! Surface
T Water
-
•
•r -
c
o
C =
0
1.1 mg/L, COGCC Threshold
•*•• •-•-• -
B)
20
E
O 12
TO
8-
0)
-o
_>
S 4
0-
Little Creek Field
Domestic Wells
Mnnitnring
1.1 mg/L, COGCC Threshold
Figure 33. Box diagrams for dissolved methane (mg/L) in water samples collected within the A) North Fork Ranch
(Las Animas County) and B) Little Creek Field (Huerfano County) study areas; results obtained from North Fork
Ranch, this study, are compared (top) to dissolved methane data reported by the COGCC following a survey
conducted in the region in 2002.
99
-------
Retrospective Case Study in the Raton Basin, Colorado
May 2015
A)
"SB 0.02-
o?
1
UJ
-------
Retrospective Case Study in the Raton Basin, Colorado
May 2015
Table 14. Detection of methane in ground and surface water: North Fork Ranch and Arrowhead Ranchettes
study sites.
Sample ID
Sampling Round1
1
2
3
4
Result
mg/L
Average
mg/L
Range
mg/L
North Fork Ranch
RBDW01
RBDW02
RBDW03
RBDW04
RBDW05
RBDW13
RBMW01
RBMW02
RBMW03
RBPW01
RBPW02
RBPW03
RBSW01
RBSW02
RBSW03
x,B2
X
x, B
X
x, B
NS
x, B
x
X
X
X
NS
NS
NS
x
x
x,J2
NS
x
X
X
X
X
X
NS
X
X,J
X
X
NS3
x
x *2
A/
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
NS
X
X
X
NS
x
x *
A/
x
x *
A/
x
X
X,*
NS
x *
A/
x
X
14.80
0.0012
0.0113
0.0697
0.0156
12.37
0.0952
0.0185
0.2906
4.32
10.37
20.88
21.87
0.0144
15.57
0.0069-0.0157
<0.0013-0.1010
<0.0013-0.0328
10.00-14.40
0.0069-0.1820
0.0005-0.0306
0.0134-1.04
3.27-4.93
4.21-18.70
16.70-27.80
17.10-28.90
0.0078-0.0212
14.60-16.30
Arrowhead Ranchettes
RBDW11
RBDW12
x
x
X
NS
X
NS
X,*
NS
0.8320
1.57
0.550-2.87
The sampling round in which the analyte was detected is designated using an "x" and qualified results are indicated using the
appropriate flag. Average values reflect the mean of the detected results; range is equivalent to the minimum and maximum
values detected for an analyte, at a given location.
1 Sampling Events: round 1 = October 2011; round 2 = May 2012; round 3 = November 2012; and round 4 = April/May 2013.
2 B = Analyte was detected in a blank sample; J = The analyte was positively identified, and the associated numerical value is
the approximate concentration; * = Relative percent difference of lab or field duplicate is outside acceptance criteria. See
Table A28, Appendix A, for more detailed descriptions. Data determined to be unusable due to unacceptable blank levels
were not used in this table (see Table A25, Appendix A).
3 NS = Not sampled.
101
-------
Retrospective Case Study in the Raton Basin, Colorado
May 2015
Table 15. Detection of ethane in ground and surface water: North Fork Ranch and Arrowhead Ranchettes study
sites.
Sample ID
Sampling Round1
1
2
3
4
Result
mg/L
Average
mg/L
Range
mg/L
North Fork Ranch
RBDW01
RBDW02
RBDW03
RBDW04
RBDW05
RBDW13
RBMW01
RBMW02
RBMW03
RBPW01
RBPW02
RBPW03
RBSW01
RBSW02
RBSW03
x,B4
NS
x, B
x, B
X
NS
NS
NS
NS
x,J4
X
X
NS
x
X
NS2
x
x
X
NS
x
X
NS
x
X,J
X
NS
x
X
0.0893
ND3
ND
ND
0.0081
ND
ND
ND
0.0011
0.0173
0.0066
0.0141
ND
ND
0.0069
0.0065-0.0096
<0.0027-0.0013
<0.0027-0.0274
0.0061-0.0074
0.0107-0.0181
0.0065-0.0075
Arrowhead Ranchettes
RBDW11
RBDW12
x,J
X,J
NS
X,J
NS
NS
ND
0.0018
0.0009-0.0027
The sampling round in which the analyte was detected is designated using an "x" and qualified results are indicated using the
appropriate flag. Average values reflect the mean of the detected results; range is equivalent to the minimum and maximum
values detected for an analyte, at a given location.
1 Sampling Events: round 1 = October 2011; round 2 = May 2012; round 3 = November 2012; and round 4 = April/May 2013.
2 NS= Not sampled.
3 ND = Not detected.
4 B = Analyte was detected in a blank sample; J = The analyte was positively identified, and the associated numerical value is
the approximate concentration. See Table A28, Appendix A, for more detailed descriptions. Data determined to be unusable
due to unacceptable blank levels were not used in this table (see Table A25, Appendix A).
102
-------
Retrospective Case Study in the Raton Basin, Colorado
May 2015
Table 16. Detection of methane in ground water: Little Creek Field study site.
Sample ID
Sampling Round1
1
2
3
4
Result
mg/L
Average
mg/L
Range
mg/L
Little Creek Field
RBDW06
RBDW07
RBDW08
RBDW09
RBDW10
RBDW14
RBDW15
RBMW04
RBMW05
X
X
X
X
X
NS2
NS
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
x,J3
NS
NS
NS
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
NS
NS
X
X
X
X
X
NS
NS
NS
0.0817
15.10
17.50
9.67
0.0209
5.81
10.01
10.87
0.0027
6.71-13.50
0.0178-0.0241
3.58-8.40
5.92-13.30
9.58-11.70
<0.0013-0.0044
The sampling round in which the analyte was detected is designated using an "x" and qualified results are indicated using the
appropriate flag. Average values reflect the mean of the detected results; range is equivalent to the minimum and maximum
values detected for an analyte, at a given location.
1 Sampling Events: round 1 = October 2011; round 2 = May 2012; round 3 = November 2012; and round 4 = April/May 2013.
2 NS= Not sampled.
J = The analyte was positively identified, and the associated numerical value is the approximate concentration. See Table A28,
Appendix A, for more detailed descriptions.
Dissolved ethane was detected above the QL in four of six domestic wells, and average concentrations
ranged from 0.006 mg/L to 0.018 mg/L. Ethane was detected in both monitoring wells during round 1
(RBMW04 = 0.008 mg/L, RBMW05 = 0.016 mg/L). The distribution of ethane concentrations observed in
this area is shown in Figure 34B, and the data are summarized in Table 17. This analyte was never
detected in wells located in the northern part of the Little Creek Field study area (RBDW07 and
RBDW14).
Propane was not detected in any ground water samples during rounds 1 through 4. Butane was
detected in ground water collected from domestic well RBDW08 during round 1 (0.0072 mg/L). Butane
was not detected in any samples during subsequent sampling events.
6.9. Molecular and Isotopic Composition of Coalbed Methane
Hydrocarbons in coalbed gas are derived from either thermal breakdown of kerogen or microbial
generation via demethylation of organic molecules or CO2 reduction (Clayton, 1998). Gases can be
generated from coal beds during three stages (Johnson and Flores, 1998):
• Early biogenic gas, formed by microbes in the early stages of coalification.
• Thermogenic gas, formed by thermal processes during the main stages of coalification.
• Late-stage biogenic gas, which can form in coal of any rank if the right conditions are met for
methane-producing microbes to flourish.
103
-------
Retrospective Case Study in the Raton Basin, Colorado
May 2015
Table 17. Detection of ethane in ground water: Little Creek Field study site.
Sample ID
Sampling Round1
1
2
3
4
Result
mg/L
Average
mg/L
Range
mg/L
Little Creek Field
RBDW06
RBDW07
RBDW08
RBDW09
RBDW10
RBDW14
RBDW15
RBMW04
RBMW05
X
X
X
X
NS3
NS
X
X
X
X
X
X
NS
NS
NS
X
X
X
X
NS
NS
X
NS
NS
NS
ND
0.0079
0.0161
0.0100
ND2
0.0077
0.0123
0.0091
ND
0.0071-0.0137
<0.0027-0.0087
<0.0027-0.0180
<0.0027-0.0099
The sampling round in which the analyte was detected is designated using an "x" and qualified results are indicated using the
appropriate flag. Average values reflect the mean of the detected results; range is equivalent to the minimum and maximum
values detected for an analyte, at a given location.
1 Sampling Events: round 1 = October 2011; round 2 = May 2012; round 3 = November 2012; and round 4 = April/May 2013.
2 NS= Not sampled.
J = The analyte was positively identified, and the associated numerical value is the approximate concentration. See Table
A28, Appendix A, for more detailed descriptions.
Three categories of geochemical tools are commonly used to correlate natural gas to their sources: gas
concentration, molecular composition, and stable isotope ratios (Whiticar, 1996). The relative
proportions of CH4 and higher carbon-number hydrocarbons indicate the dryness of the gas (i.e., CjC2+},
and depends mainly on (Clayton, 1998):
• The mechanism of gas generation (microbial versus thermogenic).
• Elemental composition of organic material in the coal (i.e., hydrogen/carbon ratio).
• Thermal maturity of the coal.
• Possible retention of higher chain hydrocarbons (>Ci) in the coal matrix at low thermal
maturities.
Coalbed gas contains the greatest proportions of methane (most "dry") at high and low ranks, with
variable hydrocarbon compositions at intermediate ranks (Clayton, 1998). Gas composition may be
used as a first-order approximation for distinguishing between microbial and thermogenic gas; however,
multiple post-genetic processes, such as microbial oxidation and migration, may alter gas contents
(Osborn and Mclntosh, 2010). Empirically defined interpretative diagrams that combine molecular and
isotope compositional fields can be used to identify not only primary gases, but also those that have
been altered by secondary effects such as microbial oxidation or mixing (Whiticar, 1996).
104
-------
Retrospective Case Study in the Raton Basin, Colorado May 2015
The stable isotopes of carbon and hydrogen are natural tracers in organic matter, and isotopic variations
can be used to elucidate conditions during their formation and/or establish genetic relationships
between them, specifically between source and product (Schoell, 1984). Important genetic and post-
genetic information (i.e., organic matter source, thermal maturation of source rock, post-generation
alteration, reservoir accumulation/loss history) can be obtained from stable carbon and hydrogen
isotope compositions of hydrocarbons and fixed gases (Zou et al., 2007, and references therein). The
isotopic composition of methane produced by a particular pathway depends on the 613C of the methane
precursor and the isotope fractionation associated with the production process (Alperin et al., 1992).
Biogenic methane is an ultimate dissimilation product of microbially mediated reaction of organic
molecules, and methane production rates are related to microbial activity, organic content, and
temperature (Bernard et al., 1978; Whiticar et al., 1986). Two pathways have been identified for
methane generation via microbial activity, and competitive substrates include CO2 (reduced by
hydrogen) and acetate. The first one, the "CO2 reduction pathway" (Eqn. 4), uses CO2 as a substrate,
and is represented by the general reaction:
CO2 reduction: CO2 + 4H2 ^> CH4 + 2H2O (4)
The net reaction for the "acetate fermentation" pathway is shown in Eqn. 5, where the "*" indicates the
intact transfer of the methyl position to methane (CH4; Whiticar, 1999):
Acetate fermentation: *CH3COOH =>*CH4 + CO2 (5)
Biogenic methane has a wide range of carbon and hydrogen isotope ratios, and there are coincidental
shifts in the 613C and 62H values of methane relative to the methane production pathway (Chanton et
al., 2005): the isotopic composition of carbon (613CCH4) ranges from -110 to -50%o, and in hydrogen
(62HCH4), from -400 to -150%o. Microbial methane generated via a CO2 reduction pathway (Eqn. 4) in
closed reservoir systems can have 613CCH4 values similar to those of thermogenic methane: ~-55
to -40%o (Martini et al., 1998). Fermentation of acetate (Eqn. 5) will result in methane that is enriched
in 613CCH4 and depleted in 62HCH4 relative to methane produced via the CO2 reduction pathway (Chanton
et al., 2005). The separation of the two microbial CH4 fields, when 613CCH4 and 62HCH4 are plotted, is
located at approximate boundaries of -60%o for 613CCH4 and -250%o for 62HCH4 (Whiticar, 1999).
Thermogenic methane is generally enriched in 13C compared to microbial methane, and 613CCH4 roughly
ranges from -50 to -20%o (Whiticar, 1999). Methane, and to a minor extent ethane and other gaseous
hydrocarbons that emerge from thermally stressed organic matter, are at first enriched in the light C
isotope and then become isotopically heavier during the maturation process (Stahl, 1977). Eventually,
the 613CCH4 will approach the 13C/12C of the original organic matter or kerogen (Whiticar, 1999). The
hydrogen isotope ratios of thermogenic methane range from 62HCH4 values of approximately -275
to -100%o (Whiticar, 1999).
Additionally, carbon isotopic differences between methane (513CCH4) and CO2 (513CC02), A13CC02-CH4, can
aid in deciphering gas origin. Thermogenic processes are characterized by low A13CC02-CH4 values due to
high pressures, whereas, low-temperature microbial enzymatic processes lead to 13C enrichment in
residual CO2 (Strqpoc et al., 2011). Within ground water systems, the production of highly 13C-depleted
methane, via CO2 reduction or acetate fermentation, supplies 13C-enriched CO2 to the system, resulting
in increasing 613C values within the formation water (Sharma and Frost, 2008).
105
-------
Retrospective Case Study in the Raton Basin, Colorado
May 2015
6.9.1. Gas Characterization: Raton Basin
Molecular and gas composition data are presented first, and then linked to isotope data in a later
section. Gas concentrations are generally reported as volume percent. Isotope data for the stable
isotopes of carbon and hydrogen in methane (613CCH4, 62HCH4), and carbon in dissolved inorganic carbon
(513CD|C), are reported in standard delta (6) notation, in units of permil. For stable hydrogen and carbon
ratios:
r2rT_
V IH
' '
,
sample
(2H/1H) . .
^ ' ' standard
- 1
x 1000
(6)
and
, (13c/12c) ,
.,13 _ _ | V ' > sample
C13c/12c)
^ ' 'standard
-1
x 1000
(7)
The 6 notation expresses the isotope ratios of hydrogen (Eqn. 6) and carbon (Eqn. 7) of methane in a
given sample, relative to the same isotope ratios in an isotopic standard. Hydrogen isotope ratios are
relative to the VSMOW reference water, where the H isotopic value of SLAP is -428%o (Gonfiantini,
1978). Stable carbon isotopes are relative to the VPBD standard, which is defined by assigning a value of
+1.95%o to National Bureau of Standards (NBS) reference material: NBS19-CaCO3. A positive 5 value
means that the sample is more enriched in the heavy isotope than the standard; a negative 5 value
indicates that the sample is depleted in the heavy isotope relative to the standard.
6.9.2. Characterization of Raton- and Vermejo-Produced Gas in the Raton Basin
To evaluate the source of methane in ground water and the potential impact on ground water resources
in the Ration Basin due to CBM development, the Raton and Vermejo formations were first
characterized using historical compositional and isotopic analyses of gas in ground water samples
collected from production wells. The molecular composition of CBM gas and isotopic signatures for
each formation were determined using data collected in 2001 by ESN Rocky Mountain (2003) for the
COGCC. The COGCC contracted ESN Rocky Mountain to collect and analyze gas and water samples from
50 selected CBM gas wells in Huerfano and Las Animas counties (ESN Rocky Mountain, 2003). Gas
samples were analyzed for gas hydrocarbon and fixed gas composition, including isotopic ratios. Two
criteria were used to evaluate the applicability of these data for use in this study: (i) molecular
compositional analyses: data points containing statistical outliers were eliminated (>±3SD from the
mean); and (ii) geographic location: sampled production wells were located within a 3-mile radius of all
wells sampled during this case study. These secondary data are summarized in Table 18 and are
organized by the producing coal formation: Raton (RT), Vermejo (VJ), or both (RT-VJ).
In Las Animas County, compositional analyses were available for 44 wells: three from Raton coal, 33
from Vermejo coal, and eight from wells producing Raton-Vermejo coals. After applying the criteria
above, data from nine wells remained: one from Raton coal, four from the Vermejo coal, and four from
Raton-Vermejo coals. It is difficult to fully characterize the gas composition of the coal-bearing Raton
Formation based on a single sample. In general, the molecular composition of the gases was similar,
regardless of the formation of origin. CBM gas within the case study area was predominantly composed
of methane (93 to 95%) and nitrogen (3 to 5%), and higher-chain hydrocarbons (>C2) were only
measured in Raton-Vermejo and Vermejo gas samples. The hydrocarbon composition of Raton-Vermejo
106
-------
Retrospective Case Study in the Raton Basin, Colorado
May 2015
coalbed gas was composed of methane and ethane, and one sample also contained minor propane.
Detectable concentrations of butane (C4), pentane (C5), or hexanes (C6) were not measured in any of the
gas samples.
Table 18. Molecular composition (%) of coalbed methane gas and isotopic signatures (%o) of coalbed-methane-producing
formations in the Raton Basin, compiled from selected data in 2001 by ESN Rocky Mountain (ESN Rocky Mountain, 2003;
see text). Results are organized by the producing coal formation: Raton (RT), Vermejo (VJ), or both (RT-VJ). Average values
reflect the mean of the detected results; range is equivalent to the minimum and maximum values detected for an analyte,
at a given location.
Producing Fm:
Analyte
Las Animas County
Raton Fm.
(RT;lwell)
Result
Raton -Vermejo Fm. (RT-
VJ; 4 wells)
Mean
Range
Vermejo Fm.
(VJ; 4 wells)
Mean
Range
Huerfano County
Vermejo Fm.
(VJ; 3 wells)
Mean
Range
Molecular composition
He
H2
Ar
02
C02
N2
CO
Ci
C2
C2H4
C3
iC4
nC4
iC5
nC5
C6+
ND1
ND
0.040
0.920
0.570
3.56
ND
94.9
0.010
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.040
0.980
0.490
4.23
ND
94.2
0.014
ND
0.0014
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NA2
NA
0.030-0.050
0.810-1.22
0.080-0.810
3.78-4.84
NA
93.2-95.3
0.007-0.020
NA
(n=D
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
ND
ND
0.040
0.970
0.713
3.89
ND
94.4
0.025
ND
0.0024
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NA
NA
0.030-0.050
0.084-1.15
0.520-1.18
3.25-4.44
NA
93.8-95.3
0.010-0.030
NA
0.001-0.004
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.0038
0.02
0.123
1.23
1.35
8.50
ND
88.8
0.0059
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.00-0.0083
(n=D
0.110-0.140
1.11-1.32
0.100-3.78
7.47-9.19
NA
86.0-91.1
0.005-0.007
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Isotopes: Methane (613CCH4, 62HcH4) and CO2 (613CC02)
6 CC02
613CCH4
6 HCH4
-13-
A MCCG-CH4)
n =
12.9
-43.7
-218
56.6
1
14.3
-47.4
-230
58.3
11.3-19.1
-54.7 to -42.5
-243 to -215
54.7-61.6
4
19.6
-41.2
-214
60.8
17.7-21.1
-42.1 to -40.5
-225 to -210
58.6-62.1
4
-35.9
-56.1
-247
17.5
(n=D
-58.5 to -53.3
-254 to -244
(n=D
3
1ND = Not detected.
! NA= Not applicable.
107
-------
Retrospective Case Study in the Raton Basin, Colorado May 2015
The isotopic composition of headspace gases in the nine samples shows 613CCH4 and 62HCH4 values
ranging from -54.7 to -40.5%o, and from -243.3 to -209.6%o, respectively. Raton-Vermejo gas was
slightly depleted in 613CCH4 and 62HCH4, relative to the Raton and Vermejo coal gas samples (see Figure
35; all sample data plotted). When plotted, these values correspond to a thermogenic methane source
(see Figure 35). Values for 613Cc02were positive, where 613CC02, RT< 513Qo2, RT,VJ < 613Qo2,vj; only one
613CC02 value was available for Raton gas. These enriched CO2 carbon isotope signatures, when plotted
against 613CCH4, are consistent with biochemical fractionation of gas (Pallasser, 2000; Jones et al., 2008;
Golding et al., 2013) due to linked microbial methane generation and hydrocarbon degradation.
Coalbed gases collected from the Las Animas portion of the Raton Basin likely contain secondary
microbial methane generated during CO2 reduction (James and Burns, 1984; Zhang et al., 2011) wherein
microbes metabolize wet gas components (C2+), n-alkanes, and other organic compounds at relatively
low temperatures (generally less than 150°F, or 56°C) to generate methane and CO2 (Scott et al., 1994).
Microbial consumption of CO2 during methane production is supported by the low CO2 concentration
measured in these gases (range = 0.08 to 1.2%). Furthermore, the presence of heavier hydrocarbons
(C2+) with biogenic methane indicates the overprint of late-stage biogenic methane in coals that have
already generated thermogenic hydrocarbons (Rice, 1993).
Of the six wells sampled in Huerfano County (ESN Rocky Mountain, 2003), only three samples remained
after applying the criteria described above; all samples were screened in the coal-bearing Vermejo
Formation. Relative to Vermejo gas collected in Las Animas County, samples collected in Huerfano
County contained a lower volume % of methane (mean = 88.8%) and more nitrogen (mean = 8.5%). The
hydrocarbon composition of these samples was composed only of methane and ethane; propane,
butane, pentane, and hexane were not detected. The isotopic compositions of these samples (see
Figure 35) were depleted in 613CCH4 and 62HCH4 relative to samples collected in Las Animas County. When
the carbon and hydrogen isotope composition of methane are plotted on a discriminate diagram, the
values fall between the thermogenic and microbial fields, into a "transitional" isotopic composition field.
The overlap is related to the combined effect of (i) kinetic isotope fractionation by methanogens, (ii)
mixtures of various pathways and/or CH4 types (e.g., migration/diffusion), and/or (iii) variations in C-
and H-isotope composition of precursor organic matter (Whiticar, 1999). None of these samples
contained enough CO2for isotopic analyses (613CC02), so further interpretation of the processes
modifying the isotopic and chemical compositional of these gases is difficult.
6.9.3. Characterization of Gases in the Raton Basin: This Study
All water samples were analyzed for molecular gas composition and the stable isotope ratios of DIG and
methane (513CD|C, 513CCH4, 62HCH4). The data obtained from gas analyses, coupled with the isotopic
composition of carbon and hydrogen in methane, and carbon in DIG, indicate that different
biogeochemical processes are occurring within each study site. Molecular and gas composition data are
presented first and then linked to isotope data in a later section.
108
-------
Retrospective Case Study in the Raton Basin, Colorado
May 2015
-160
-180-
^ -200-
O
| -220-
E -240 -
O
Q.
-260-
-280-
-300
Microbial
Mixed
Las Animas County
O Raton Fm.
O Raton - Vermejo Fm.
O Vermejo Fm.
Huerfano County
O Vermejo Fm.
O
o?:,o ccb
o
Wet Thermogenic
Gas
-65
-60
-55
513C
CH4'
-50 -45
permil (VPDB)
-35
Figure 35. The stable C and H isotopic composition of methane in samples collected from CBM gas wells (n = 50),
located throughout the Raton Basin, in 2001 (ESN Rocky Mountain, 2003); data are organized by location (Las
Animas/Huerfano County) and the producing coal formation. Zonation is after Jackson et al. (2013).
6.9.4. Molecular Composition: Study Sites
North Fork Ranch
Three production wells were sampled in the North Fork Ranch study site over the four sampling rounds:
RBPW01 is producing gas from Raton coals, while RBPW02 and RBPW03 are producing gas from the
deeper, Vermejo coals. The molecular composition and gas concentrations, measured in ground water
collected from these production wells were nearly identical to the samples collected by ESN Rocky
Mountain in 2001. The only difference was that ground water samples collected from the Vermejo
formation (RBPW02, RBPW03) contained more propane (C3), isobutane (iC4) and n-butane (nC4) than
samples obtained from the Raton-Vermejo and Vermejo coals in 2001. Hexanes were detected in
RBPW02 during round 1 and in RBPW03 during round 4; none of the samples in the comparative 2001
dataset contained pentane or hexane. It is important to note that no samples were collected within the
vicinity of the North Fork Ranch study site during the 2001 sampling event, so the apparent differences
in hydrocarbon distribution and concentration could be a result of geographic location.
109
-------
Retrospective Case Study in the Raton Basin, Colorado May 2015
All monitoring wells are screened in the Poison Canyon Formation; however, there was variability
among the molecular and gas compositions. The molecular and gas composition of samples collected
from monitoring well RBMW01 was composed predominantly of nitrogen (mean = 92%), oxygen (mean
= 3.4%), and carbon dioxide (mean = 2.5%); hydrocarbon composition (Ci+) was <0.2%. The molecular
and gas composition of samples collected from monitoring wells RBMW02 and RBMW03 are quite
similar with respect to their fixed gas composition: composition is dominated by nitrogen (mean = 58%;
n = 8), but to a lesser extent than in RBMW01. However, RBMW02 and RBMW03 differ with respect to
their hydrocarbon composition. Methane and ethane were consistently detected, over all sampling
rounds, in RBMW02 and RBMW03; however, ethylene (C2H4), and propane (C3) were also consistently
detected in RBMW03. These analytes were never detected in ground water samples obtained from
RBMW01 or RBMW02. Furthermore, isobutane (rounds 1, 3, and 4), n-butane (rounds 1 and 3), and
isopentane (round 1) were detected in monitoring well RBMW03; when detected, concentrations
exceeded those found in production wells during the same sampling round.
Dissolved gases in ground water samples collected from alluvial domestic wells (RBDW01, RBDW13)
were composed predominantly of nitrogen (range 76.7-87.7%), oxygen (range 5.4-16.9%), and minor
amounts of CO2 (range 4.9-5.2%). Low levels of methane (<0.05%) were consistently detected in water
from these wells. During round 1, hexanes (C6+) were measured in ground water sampled from RBDW01
(0.0004%).
The molecular and gas composition in ground water collected from three of the four domestic wells
located in the Poison Canyon Formation mirrored the results obtained in the alluvial aquifer samples.
The most abundant gas in water from RBDW02, RBDW03, and RBDW05 was nitrogen (range 70 to 93%),
followed by oxygen (range 4.7 to 27.7%), and carbon dioxide (range 0.28 to 7.7%). Methane
concentrations in these wells (<0.55%) were higher than the results obtained from alluvial aquifer wells.
Higher-chain hydrocarbons (C2+) were sporadically detected over the four sampling events: during round
1, ethane (C2), propane (C3), and n-butane (n-C4) were detected in ground water obtained from
RBDW03; hexane was detected in two wells during round 1 (RBDW02, RBDW03), and in RBDW05 during
round 4 (range 0.0004 to 0.0012%).
In contrast, gas and molecular composition results collected from RBDW04, also screened in the Poison
Canyon Formation, contained mostly methane (mean = 74.3%; n = 3), nitrogen (mean = 18.8%; n = 3),
and oxygen (mean = 5.8%; n = 3). In addition, ethane (C2) was consistently detected in ground water
obtained from this well, as was ethylene (round 1), propane (rounds 1 and 4), and isobutane (round 1).
The molecular and gas composition of surface water collected from RBSW01 and RBSW02 was
dominated by nitrogen (range 67.3 to 74.5%), followed by oxygen (range 21.9 to 30.7%), and carbon
dioxide (range 0.45 to 2.2%). Low levels of methane (<0.06%) were consistently detected in these
surface waters during all sampling rounds; no higher-chain hydrocarbons (C2+) were ever detected. The
molecular and gas composition of water obtained from RBSW03 was strongly influenced by surface
discharges of produced water. Methane (mean = 83.4%; n = 2) was the predominant gas component;
nitrogen (mean = 11.4%; n = 2), oxygen (mean = 4.0%; n = 2), and a minor amount of carbon dioxide
(0.94%; n = 2) was also present. The volume % of methane and ethane increased between rounds 3 and
4; propane was detected during rounds 3 and 4, and hexanes were detected during round 3.
110
-------
Retrospective Case Study in the Raton Basin, Colorado May 2015
Arrowhead Ranchettes
Domestic wells within this area (RBDW11 and RBDW12) are screened within the Raton Formation;
ground water was obtained from domestic well RBDW11 during rounds 1-4, and from RBDW12 during
round 1. The headspace gas composition of water collected from location RBDW11 is composed mostly
of nitrogen (mean = 76.6%), followed by methane (12.0%), and oxygen (8.4%); the volume % of methane
increased from 4 to 21%, over the four sampling events. Ethane was consistently detected at low levels
during all sampling rounds (mean = 0.0030%; n = 4), and hexanes (C6+) were detected in this well during
round 4 (0.0005%). The composition of RBDW12 was similar to that of RBDW11, where N2>C1«O2;
however, ethylene, propane, and n-butane were detected in this well during round 1, but never in
RBDW11.
Little Creek Field
Total compositional variability in the gas and molecular composition of ground water collected in the
Little Creek field is broadly correlated with spatial location: samples located in the northern part of the
study area (RBDW07, RBDW14) contained very little methane (<0.2%), while all other wells south of
RBDW07 and RBDW14 contained abundant methane (range 37 to 68%; see Figure 36). The dissolved
gases in ground water samples collected from domestic wells RBDW07 and RBDW14 were
predominantly composed of nitrogen (mean = 89.3% and 82.3%, respectively; n = 3) and oxygen (mean =
8.7% and 15.4%, respectively; n = 3). Methane concentrations were slightly higher in samples from
RBDW07 than from RBDW14 (mean = 0.15% versus 0.02%, respectively), and samples from both
contained minor levels of carbon dioxide. Ethylene (C2H4) was detected in ground water collected from
RBDW14 during the last sampling event (0.0009%); however, this was the only hydrocarbon detection
(>Ci), other than methane, during the four sampling rounds.
For ground water collected from the other domestic and monitoring wells (south of RBDW07 and
RBDW14), the gas was composed predominantly of methane and nitrogen. In water obtained from
domestic wells RBDW06 and RBDW10 and monitoring wells RBMW04 and RBMW05, methane was the
dominant gas present. The highest methane concentration was collected from monitoring well
RBMW05 during round 1 (81%). On average, nitrogen was the most abundant gas in water collected
from RBDW08 and RBDW09; however, during some sampling rounds, methane % exceeded nitrogen %.
Ethane (C2) and propane (C3) were consistently detected in domestic and monitoring wells located in the
southern part of the study area; however, at most domestic well locations, propane decreased over the
four sampling rounds. During round 1, ethylene (C2H4) was detected in all domestic wells in the
southern portion of the study area (RBDW06, RBDW08, RBDW09, and RBDW10), but not in the
monitoring wells. Higher-chain hydrocarbons (>C3) were inconsistently detected at RBDW06, RBDW09,
and RBDW10 during the four sampling events, but not at domestic well RBDW08. Iso- and n-butane (iC4,
nC4) were detected at low levels during round 1 in RBDW06, RBDW09, RBDW10, and RBMW05; only
isobutane was detected in water obtained from RBMW04. Butane was also detected in later sampling
rounds in ground water collected from RBDW06 (iC4 and nC4, round 3), RBDW09 (iC4, round 4), and
RBDW10 (nC4, rounds 2 and 3). Low levels of pentane (iC5 and nC5) were detected during round 1 in
domestic well RBDW06.
Ill
-------
Retrospective Case Study in the Raton Basin, Colorado
May 2015
Figure 36. Gas exsolution in ground water collected from domestic well RBDW09,
located within the Little Creek Field study area (Huerfano County), during the
November 2012 sampling event. The bubbles reflect a mixture of dissolved gases:
results from headspace gas analyses (Appendix B, Table B-8) indicated the presence
of methane (44.3%), nitrogen (54.3%), argon (0.99%), carbon dioxide (0.31%), and
ethane (0.03%). (Vial diameter = 2.4 cm).
Gas and molecular composition analyses of ground water collected from three production wells located
within the Vermejo Formation in 2001 (ESN Rocky Mountain, 2003) showed abundant methane (mean =
88.8%), nitrogen (mean = 8.5%), and minor oxygen (mean = 1.2%). The hydrocarbon composition of
these samples was composed only of methane and ethane; propane, butane, pentane, and hexane were
not detected. This is in contrast to the hydrocarbon composition measured in ground water collected
from domestic wells within the southern part of the Little Creek Field study area, where propane,
butane, and pentane were detected over four sampling events.
112
-------
Retrospective Case Study in the Raton Basin, Colorado May 2015
In summary, historical molecular and gas composition results of ground water samples obtained from
CBM wells producing within the Raton, Raton-Vermejo, and Vermejo formations (ESN Rocky Mountain,
2003) in Las Animas and Huerfano counties indicated that these gases were predominantly composed of
methane. Higher-chain hydrocarbons (>C2+) were restricted to Vermejo-produced gas within Las Animas
County, which contained propane (C3). Headspace gas analyses of ground water collected from
production wells during this case study, screened within the Raton and Vermejo formations (North Fork
Ranch), were also dominated by methane. Butane (iC4, nC4), pentane (iC5, nC5), and hexanes (>C6+) were
absent in the 2001 dataset; however, these compounds were detected in a number of ground water
samples—regardless of study area, well type, or geologic formation—over the four sampling events.
The presence of these compounds suggests that coalbed methane resources have been modified
through biogeochemical reactions and microbial activity (i.e., Oremland, 1988) and corroborates results
from isotope measurements of methane (613CCH4, 62HCH4) and DIG (613CD|C), which are discussed in a later
topical section ("Methane Oxidation: Little Creek Field").
6.9.5. Origin of Methane in Wells
North Fork Ranch
Water samples collected from seven of 15 locations in the North Fork Ranch study site contained
sufficient amounts of methane for isotopic analyses (613CCH4, 62HCH4): one domestic well (RBDW04), two
monitoring wells (RBMW02 and RBMW03), all production wells (RBPW01, RBPW02, and RBPW03), and a
single surface water site (RBSW03).
Figure 37 shows a methane C and H isotope diagram, with genetic zonation as indicated by Jackson et al.
(2013). The isotopic composition of headspace gases in the production wells shows 613CCH4 and 62HCH4
ranging from -52.7 to -45.6%o and -238.4 to -220.8%o, respectively; these values correspond to a
thermogenic source. Water collected from the producing Raton Formation is isotopically depleted
relative to produced water from the Vermejo Formation. Comparing average 613CCH4 and 62HCH4 results
in samples collected from RBPW01 to the results for the single Raton sample in the 2001 dataset
revealed similar gas and methane isotopic compositions; however, the 613CD|C composition was
isotopically enriched in water collected from RBPW01. Ground water samples collected from the
Vermejo Formation over four sampling rounds were isotopically depleted in both methane and DIG
relative to the data obtained in the 2001 study (ESN Rocky Mountain, 2003); however, fixed gas and
methane concentrations were similar.
The 513CD|C values in ground water collected from all production wells (this study) ranged from 1.2 to
18%o (n = 8), with a mean value of 16.8 ± 0.82%o (n = 4) for Raton-produced water and 7.6 ± 4.9%o for
Vermejo-produced water (n = 4). In general, a positive correlation was observed between DIG
concentrations and 513CD|C (R2= 0.69). The enriched 613CD|C carbon isotope signatures (relative to 513CCH4
results obtained at these locations) are consistent with biochemical fractionation of gas (Pallasser, 2000;
Jones et al., 2008; Golding et al., 2013) due to linked microbial methane generation and hydrocarbon
degradation.
113
-------
Retrospective Case Study in the Raton Basin, Colorado
May 2015
w>
0)
Q.
•^
o
(M
to
-25
-50
-75
-100
-125
-150
-175
-200
-225
-250
-275
-300
North Fork Ranch
O Domestic Wells
« Monitoring Wells
O Production Wells
O Surface Water
Arrowhead Ranchettes
Domestic Wells
Little Creek Field
O Domestic Wells
Monitoring Wells
Las Animas County
• RT Fmn
» RT-VJ Fmns
o VJ Fmn
Huerfano County
° VJ Fmn
-50 -45
, permil (VPDB)
-35
-30
Figures?. The isotopic composition of dissolved methane in water samples collected during four sampling events, this study. Data points (this study)
represent isotopic results per sampling round (i.e., they are not averages; see Table B-8). Historical methane isotope data, obtained from CBM wells (n = 50)
in 2001, are also shown (ESN Rocky Mountain, 2003); these data are organized by the producing coal formation (RT = Raton Formation; RT-VJ = Raton-
Vermejo Formations (co-mingled); VJ = Vermejo Formation). Zonation is after Jackson et al. (2013).
114
-------
Retrospective Case Study in the Raton Basin, Colorado May 2015
Isotopic data collected from monitoring wells RBMW02 and RBMW03 indicate that methane is
microbially sourced (see Figure 37). The isotopic composition of headspace gases in monitoring wells
show 613CCH4 and 62HCH4 ranging from -65.8 to -59.6%o and -257.2 to -220.4%o, respectively. 513CD,C
values in ground water collected from RBMW02 and RBMW03 ranged from -15.7 to -1.06%o, with a
mean value of -15.3 ± 0.3 l%o (n = 4) for RBMW02 and -1.52 ± 0.59%o (n = 4) for RBMW03. In domestic
well RBDW04, the mean isotopic (n = 3) compositions of 613CCH4, 62HCH4, and 513CD|C were -54.5 ±
2.0%o, -253.1 ± 9.6%o, and -11.0 ± 2.5%o, respectively. The isotopic composition of methane transitions
from the microbial region during round 1, into the "wet thermogenic" region during rounds 2 and 4, and
these data are similar to trends observed in the isotopic composition of Raton and Raton-Vermejo-
produced gas (see Figure 37). The well construction log indicates that this well (RBDW04) is screened in
carbonaceous material, including coals, and a similarity in coal composition could explain the
complementary isotope compositions. There was a good correlation between DIG concentrations and
513CDIC (R2 = 0.62, n = 11) for these samples (RBMW02, RBMW03, RBDW04), which were obtained from
wells screened within the Poison Canyon Formation.
The isotopic composition of headspace gases in surface water collected from RBSW03 shows a mean (n
= 2) 613CCH4, 62HCH4, and 513CDIC composition of -52.6 ± 1.4%o, -232.8 ± 3.5%o, and 9.0 ± 1.2%o,
respectively. Methane isotope data straddle the boundary between thermogenic and microbially
sourced methane (see Figure 37); when combined with the positive 513CD|C value (slightly less than the
mean 513CD|C for Vermejo produced water), these data are consistent with surface discharge of produced
water in this area.
The carbon isotope approach for distinguishing metabolic pathways considers fractionation values
between carbon sources. The processes that control the stable isotope composition of inorganic carbon
(513CD|C) in ground water include breakdown of organic matter, carbonate mineral dissolution and
precipitation, microbially mediated processes that oxidize reduced carbon and generate CO2, microbially
mediated processes that reduce CO2 and generate CH4, and mixing of waters with different 513CD,C values
(e.g., Deines et al., 1974; Botz et al., 1996; Alperin et al., 1992). Fractionation factors are usually
compared between CO2 and CH4, where the fractionation factor a is defined as the ratio of carbon
isotopes in CO2 divided by the corresponding carbon isotope ratio in CH4. This relationship is shown in
Eqn.8:
+1000) ,R,
+1000)
Since DIG reflects dissolved ZCO2 sources, 513CD,C is used in place of 513CC02 (e.g., Alperin et al., 1992;
Cheung et al., 2010). Whiticar et al. (1986) proposed that a13Cc02-cH4 > 1-06 are representative of
methanogenic environments dominated by CO2 reduction, while a13Cc02-cH4 < 1-06 are characteristic of
acetate fermentation. The fractionation factors between DIG and CH4, A13C(DIC-CH4), commonly
featured in coal seam gases (Sharma and Frost, 2008; Golding et al., 2013), are illustrated in Figure 38.
Included in this figure are lines representing calculated isotopic fractionations of 1.09, 1.06, and 1.03,
which correspond to A13C(DIC-CH4) values of 90, 60, and 30%o, respectively. The A13C(DIC-CH4) of
ground water collected from monitoring well RBMW03 is 63.8%o, indicating that methane is being
produced via the CO2 pathway. The A13C(DIC-CH4) value for RBMW02 is 44.6%o, and the value for
RBDW04 is 43.6%o, each of which corresponds to a13CD|C-CH4 < 1.06, characteristic of acetate
fermentation.
115
-------
Retrospective Case Study in the Raton Basin, Colorado
May 2015
North Fork Ranch
O RBDW04
« RBMW02
Q RBMW03
^ RBPW01
RBPW03
O RBSW03
Arrowhead Ranchettes
• RBDW11
Methyl-type
Fermentation
, permil
~CH4'
Figure 38. A combination plot of 813CCH4 and 813CD|C with isotope fractionation lines a13CD|C-cH4 (see Eqn. 8) for samples collected within the North Fork Ranch
study area (Las Animas County), where a = 1.09, 1.06, and 1.03. Data that plot above the a = 1.06 line (i.e., a 13CD|C.CH4 >1.06) are representative of
methanogenic environments dominated by CO2 reduction, while those that plot below (i.e., a 13CD|C.CH4 < 1-06) are characteristic of acetate fermentation
(Whiticar et al., 1986). Numbers located inside of, or next to, symbols indicate the sampling round.
116
-------
Retrospective Case Study in the Raton Basin, Colorado May 2015
Hydrogen isotope compositions of CH4 also differentiate between gas origins and can identify secondary
processes such as migration or mixing; when gas and water are sampled from the same well, hydrogen
isotope compositions of the H2O-CH4 system provide a constraint on methanogenesis independent of
the carbon isotope system (Schoell, 1980; Whiticar et al., 1986; Martini et al., 1998; Golding et al.,
2013). When gases are microbially derived, as indicated by the hydrogen isotope compositions seen in
Figure 39, the product 62HCH4 reflects that of the formation water (Smith et al., 1993, and references
therein). In CO2 reduction (i.e., Eqn. 4), all the hydrogen in the methane produced is derived from the
formation water, and the hydrogen isotope composition of the produced methane can be calculated
using Eqn. 9:
62HCH4 = 62HH20 - 180%o (VSMOW) (9)
In contrast, when methane is a product of acetate fermentation (i.e., Eqn. 5), only one hydrogen in the
methane is obtained from the formation water; the hydrogen isotope composition of the produced
methane can be calculated using Eqn. 10:
62HCH4 = 0.25 * 62HH20 - 321%o (VSMOW) (10)
The expected 62HCH4composition rising from each pathway was calculated using Equations 9 and 10 for
all locations in the North Fork Ranch study site where methane isotope data were obtained, and the
data are shown in Figure 39. A comparison of calculated 62HCH4 values with the measured value of
62HCH4 indicates that CO2 reduction is the dominant methane-generating process at domestic well
RBDW04 and both monitoring wells (RBMW02 and RBMW03). This conclusion is different from the
methanogenic pathways determined using the DIC-CH4 system; the discrepancy could be due to changes
in the organic source as carbon is metabolized. Microbes preferentially utilize 12CO2 (12C-12C bonds are
easier to break than 12C-13C bonds), causing residual CO2to become 13C-enriched (Figure 38; e.g.,
Milkov, 2011; Strqpoc et al., 2007).
Arrowhead Ranchettes
The isotopic composition of headspace gases in domestic well RBDW11 show 613CCH4 and 62HCH4 ranging
from -52.4 to -33.7%o (mean = -44.1%o) and -213.2 to -51.5%o (mean = -142.4%o), respectively (n = 4).
Over the course of four sampling events, the isotopic composition of methane transitioned from a
thermogenic source during round 1, into a "mixed" source in rounds 2, 3, and 4. This isotopic transition
was accompanied by an increase in dissolved methane, from 0.573 mg/L in round 1 to >2 mg/L in round
4. The 513CD|C values showed far less variability, ranging from -16.5 to -14.4%o, with a mean value
of -15.6 ± 0.87%o (n = 4); however, A13C(DIC-CH4) increased from 17.2%o in round 1 to 31.1%o in round 4.
There was good correlation between DIG concentration and the carbon isotope ratio: R2= 0.89.
The rapid changes in the isotopic composition could be due to gas migration. Based on the carbon
isotope compositions of the DIC-CH4 system, the isotopic shift in 613CCH4, relative to 513CD,C (see Figure
38) is trending toward a region characterized by acetate fermentation. Furthermore, as 62HCH4 becomes
isotopically depleted, the hydrogen composition of the water remains stable (mean = -81.1 ± 0.47%o; n =
4), suggesting the hydrogen composition in methane has not had time to equilibrate with ground water
(see Figure 39). The source of the contributing end-member is unclear.
117
-------
Retrospective Case Study in the Raton Basin, Colorado
May 2015
0
-50-
-100-
1 -150-
r>J
CO
-200-
-250
-300-
-350
North Fork Ranch
O RBDW04
O RBMW02
O RBMW03
RBPW01
RBPW02
O RBSW03
Arrowhead Ranchettes
RBDW11
*
E c
1
-90
-85
-80
-75
-70
-65
-60
-55
-50
, permil
Figure 39. A combination plot of 82HCH4 and 82HH2o for samples collected within the North Fork Ranch study area (Las Animas County). Dashed lines
represent the dependence of 82HCH4 composition as a function of the co-existing formation water (82HH2o); data points that fall between the dashed lines are
consistent with methanogenesis dominated by CO2 reduction. Numbers located inside of, or next to, symbols indicate the sampling round.
118
-------
Retrospective Case Study in the Raton Basin, Colorado May 2015
Little Creek Field
The isotopic composition of headspace gases in ground water collected from four domestic wells
(RBDW06, RBDW08, RBDW09, and RBDW10) and two monitoring wells (RBMW04 and RBMW05), all of
which are located in the Poison Canyon Formation, shows 613CCH4 and 62HCH4 ranging from -49.2
to -37.7%o and -230.6 to -130.5%o, respectively; these values correspond to a thermogenic source (see
Figure 37). Ground water collected from domestic wells RBDW07 and RBDW14 did not contain a
sufficient concentration of methane to obtain C and H isotope ratios, and monitoring wells were only
sampled during round 1. The 513CD,C values in ground water collected from all domestic and monitoring
wells within the Little Creek Field area ranged from -40.9 to -12.0%o, with a mean value of -27.1 ± 10.3%o
(n = 25). The correlation between the DIG concentration and 613CD,C composition was better in domestic
wells located in the northern part of the study area (RBDW07, RBDW14) than in the southern area
(RBDW06, RBDW08, RBDW09, RBDW10): R2 = 0.93 (n = 7) versus R2 = 0.73 (n = 16), respectively.
The coincident enrichment of 613CD|C, coupled with 613CCH4 depletion, is consistent with anaerobic
methane oxidation. During anaerobic methane oxidation, methane is oxidized with different terminal
electron acceptors such as sulfate, nitrate, nitrite, and metals; microorganisms preferentially consume
12CH4, resulting in 13C depletion in the CO2 produced and 13C enrichment in the residual methane
(Grossman et al., 2002). Methane attenuation within the Little Creek Field is discussed in more detail in
a later topical section ("Methane Oxidation: Little Creek Field").
6.10. Summary of Dissolved Gases
Dissolved methane was ubiquitous in domestic well samples; mean concentrations ranged widely from
about 0.003 to 12.4 mg/L, with a median value of 0.46 mg/L. Methane was also detected in all of the
production wells and monitoring wells sampled as a part of this study. In addition, methane was
detected in flowing streams, typically at low levels (<0.05 mg/L) at locations downstream (RBSW01 and
RBSW02) of surface discharged CBM water (RBSW03). At locations where methane concentrations were
sufficient, measurements of the carbon (513CCH4) and hydrogen isotope (52HCH4) signature were made to
compare methane in the domestic wells and monitoring wells with methane present in the gas-
producing Raton and Vermejo formations. A variety of isotope patterns and potential sources were
identified in this study. Methane isotope data collected from some of the domestic wells and
monitoring wells indicate that the methane is microbially sourced and distinctive from thermogenic gas
present in the deeper coal beds. In another domestic well, a large isotopic shift was observed over the
course of four sampling events; at this location (RBDW11) the isotopic composition of methane
progressively transitioned from a thermogenic signature during the first sampling event to a mixed
thermogenic/biogenic signature in the later three rounds. The rapid change in the isotopic composition
at this location could be due to gas migration, and based on the carbon isotope compositions of DIG and
methane, the isotopic shift in 613CCH4 relative to 513CD|C suggests a transition to an environment
characterized by acetate fermentation. Finally, domestic wells in the Little Creek Field area contained
methane with a thermogenic signature, similar to gas from deeper coal beds (discussed in more detail in
a later topical section, "Methane Oxidation: Little Creek Field"), but with a distinctive trend indicative of
methane oxidation.
119
-------
Retrospective Case Study in the Raton Basin, Colorado
May 2015
6.11. Strontium Isotopes
Samples were collected during each of the four field events for strontium isotope analysis by thermal
ionization mass spectrometry. The strontium isotopic composition of water is dependent only upon
dissolution of minerals and ion exchange reactions; as water flows through an aquifer, it progressively
acquires a 87Sr/86Sr ratio from the rocks with which it interacts (Frost and Toner, 2004). The chemical
evolution of ground water is a function of a variety of factors that include, but are not limited to,
residence time, initial water composition, and differences in the distribution and reactivity of individual
minerals (Gosselin et al., 2004). As such, the Sr isotopic composition of ground water records an
integrated signal of water-rock interaction along a flow path and can be used as a dynamic tracer to
constrain subsurface flow patterns (Graustein, 1990; Gosselin et al., 2004).
The precision of the strontium isotopic tracer allows for the detection of small variations in ground
water strontium isotope composition (Frost and Toner, 2004). Studies have shown that fluid mixing
behavior can be understood by a combined evaluation of strontium concentrations and strontium
isotope signatures (87Sr/86Sr). This technique is highly sensitive, especially in cases where end-member
fluids differ significantly in both concentration and isotope ratio (e.g., Capo et al., 1998; Shand et al.,
2009; Peterman et al., 2012; Chapman et al., 2012). In this case study, the practical problem is applying
strontium isotopes and concentrations to evaluate whether or not shallow ground water has been
impacted by the development of CBM gas.
North Fork Ranch
Strontium concentrations and the isotopic composition of strontium (87Sr/86Sr) were determined for
ground water and surface water samples collected in the North Fork Ranch study site (see Table 19).
Strontium concentrations were highest in ground water samples collected from the Vermejo Formation
coal aquifers (RBPW02, RBPW03; mean = 597 u.g/L), and lowest in ground water samples obtained from
domestic wells in alluvial aquifers (RBDW01, RBDW13; mean = 308 u.g/L); however, the range in
strontium concentration was greatest for domestic and monitoring well samples screened within the
Poison Canyon Formation (66.0 to 1,260 u.g/L; mean = 473 u.g/L). Samples collected from RBPW01
(Raton Formation) showed the least variability over the four sampling rounds (311 to 382 u.g/L; mean =
357 u.g/L). Strontium concentrations obtained from surface water locations ranged from 254 to 694
u.g/L (mean = 425 u.g/L).
Table 19. Strontium isotope and concentration data from coal, sandstone, and alluvial aquifers in the
Raton Basin, CO. Mean values are shown.
Water Sample ID
Well Type1
Study Area2
n
87Sr/86Sr
Sr, ug/L3
Quaternary Alluvium
RBDW01
RBDW13
DW
DW
NFR
NFR
2
3
0.712372
0.712304
365
270
Poison Canyon Sandstone Aquifer
RBDW02
RBDW03
RBDW04
RBDW05
DW
DW
DW
DW
NFR
NFR
NFR
NFR
4
4
3
4
0.713102
0.713333
0.712908
0.713399
394
538
869
88
120
-------
Retrospective Case Study in the Raton Basin, Colorado
May 2015
Table 19. Strontium isotope and concentration data from coal, sandstone, and alluvial aquifers in the
Raton Basin, CO. Mean values are shown.
Water Sample ID
RBMW01
RBMW02
RBMW03
RBDW06
RBDW07
RBDW08
RBDW09
RBDW10
RBDW14
RBMW04
RBMW05
Well Type1
MW
MW
MW
DW
DW
DW
DW
DW
DW
MW
MW
Study Area2
NFR
NFR
NFR
LCF
LCF
LCF
LCF
LCF
LCF
LCF
LCF
n
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
3
1
1
87Sr/86Sr
0.712916
0.712910
0.712585
0.707301
0.707787
0.707608
0.707686
0.707841
0.707829
0.707833
0.707932
Sr, ug/L3
1223
154
143
489
84
170
911
88
284
95
40
Raton Formation
RBDW11
RBDW12
RBPW014
DW
DW
PW
AR
AR
NFR
4
1
4
0.711247
0.711218
0.711783
475
212
357
Vermejo Formation Coal Aquifers
RBPW02
RBPW03
PW
PW
NFR
NFR
1
3
0.708331
0.708965
268
706
Surface Water
RBSW01
RBSW02
RBSW03
NA5
NA
NA
NFR
NFR
NFR
4
3
3
0.712136
0.712641
0.711122
308
630
375
1 Well Type: DW = Domestic Well; MW = Monitoring Well; PW = Production Well.
2 Study Area: NFR = North Fork Ranch; LCF = Little Creek Field; AR = Arrowhead Ranchettes.
3 Sr concentrations from USGS results; these may differ from previous tables that reported metals data from SwRI and
Shaw. Of the 90 paired results for strontium (filtered), 96% agreed to within 15%, indicating good agreement in the
reproducibility of strontium concentrations between different laboratories.
4 RBPW01 = Raton Formation coal aquifer.
NA = Not applicable (surface water location).
The strontium isotope ratios for all samples ranged from 0.708331 to 0.713420. The isotopic values at
each well location remained constant over the four sampling events; furthermore, differences in the
87Sr/86Sr ratio appear to be constrained with respect to the geologic formation from which the water
sample was sourced (see Figure 40A). Strontium isotope ratios for domestic and monitoring wells
exhibit the highest strontium isotope values (mean = 0.712917); however, domestic wells located within
alluvial aquifers (RBDW01 and RBDW13) are isotopically depleted (mean = 0.712331) relative to
121
-------
Retrospective Case Study in the Raton Basin, Colorado May 2015
domestic and monitoring wells screened within the Poison Canyon Formation (mean = 0.713026).
Figure 40B shows a semilog plot of strontium concentrations versus 87Sr/86Sr values for samples
collected in this study area. Strontium isotope data obtained from Fort Union Formation coal aquifers in
the Powder River Basin of Wyoming (Frost et al., 2002) are included in Figure 40B. Both the Fort Union
Formation and the Poison Canyon Formation (Raton Basin) were deposited during the Paleocene period.
The similarity in both strontium concentration and isotope composition suggests that the source of
strontium to these geologic units is the same and likely due to weathering of radiogenic Precambrian
rocks uplifted during the Laramide orogeny.
Ground water samples collected from production wells RBPW02 and RBPW03, screened within the
Vermejo Formation, reflect the most depleted 87Sr/86Sr values (mean = 0.708806). This value is
consistent with 87Sr/86Sr ratios obtained from leaching experiments on igneous rocks emplaced during
the Tertiary period and is discussed in more detail in the "Little Creek Field" section below. Strontium
isotope values measured in ground water samples collected from production well RBPW01, which is
screened within the Raton Formation, reflected higher 87Sr/86Sr ratios relative to Vermejo samples, and
lower Sr ratios relative to domestic and monitoring well samples (mean = 0.711783).
The greatest variability in strontium isotope composition was observed in water samples collected from
surface water locations (range=0.710440-0.712673). The range of 87Sr/86Sr ratios in surface water
samples, coupled with temporal changes in concentration (254 to 694 u.g/L), indicates that water within
the sampled tributaries is composed predominantly of production water discharged to the surface, with
minor contributions from precipitation.
Arrowhead Ranchettes
Strontium concentrations ranged from 377 to 604 u.g/L (mean = 475 u.g/L) in samples collected from
RBDW11, screened within the Raton Formation (see Table 19). The average strontium isotope
composition, over four sampling rounds, was 0.711247. This value is lower than that for production well
RBPW01 (Raton Formation), located in the North Fork Ranch study area (see Figure 40). Domestic well
RBDW12 was sampled only during round 1; the measured strontium concentration and isotopic
composition for this sample were 212 u.g/L and 0.711218, respectively.
Little Creek Field
Strontium concentrations and the isotopic composition of strontium (87Sr/86Sr) were determined for
ground water collected from domestic and monitoring wells over four sampling events (see Table 19).
All sampled wells within the Little Creek study area are screened within the Poison Canyon Formation.
Strontium concentrations ranged from 40 to 1,790 u.g/L (mean = 318 u.g/L); these values are typically
less than those measured for ground water collected from the Poison Canyon Formation in the North
Fork Ranch area. The lowest values were consistently measured in ground water from domestic well
RBDW10 (mean = 88.3 u.g/L), and the highest values were measured in domestic well RBDW09 (mean =
911.3 u.g/L). There is no apparent trend in the spatial distribution of strontium concentrations.
The isotopic values at each well location remained constant over the four sampling events; furthermore,
differences in 87Sr/86Sr ratios appear to be constrained with respect to the geologic formation from
which the water sample was sourced (see Figure 41A). All samples are isotopically depleted in strontium
(mean = 0.707686) relative to the samples collected in the North Fork Ranch and Arrowhead Ranchettes
122
-------
Retrospective Case Study in the Raton Basin, Colorado
May 2015
A)
a
RBSW02
O RBSW03
Arrowhead Ranchettes
RBDW11
*
Rato
'
1 •
RBMWOl
RBMW02
RBMW03
RBPW01
RBPW02
RBPW03
ejo Fm
n Basin
1
o GBDQ CD "
S o
0
CO
O Fort Union Formation
Coal Aquifers
Powder River Basin
1
Ł•
i- Poison
OJ
Raton Fm ro Canyon Fm
Raton Basin <3 Raton Basin
• 1 i 1 i
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.708
0.710
0.712
0.714
0.716
87
Sr/86Sr
B)
0.714-
0.712 -
0.710-
0 708
1
North Fork Ranch
O RBDW01
O RBDW02
O RBDW03
O RBDW04
• RBDW05 » 4
O RBDW13
O RBMWOl
O RBMW02
9 RBMW03
* RBPW01
* RBPW02
RBPW03
O RBSW01
O RBSW02
6 RBSW03
Arrowhead Ranchettes
O RBDW11
O RBDW12
1 '
1 i
x *'--;
<' X v.
*X-X x
1 x , I-J
® Gfi^ V' -.-^ xM^
^gj s * ^X WQ \
tTQ
O ©CD
Xx ^
-
/
\-
Frost et al. (2002)
-
1 1 1
0 100 1000 10000 100
000
Sr,
Figure 40. A) Strontium isotope ratios relative to well depth, in feet, for the North Fork Ranch and Arrowhead
Ranchettes study areas (Las Animas County, CO). Colored blocks represent the range of Sr ratios observed in water
samples, with respect to the geologic unit the well was screened in. B) Sr isotope data obtained from Fort Union
Formation coal aquifers in the Powder River Basin of Wyoming (Frost et al., 2002) are superimposed on a semilog
plot of Sr concentrations versus 87Sr/86Sr values for samples collected during this study.
123
-------
Retrospective Case Study in the Raton Basin, Colorado
May 2015
A)
Q.
OJ
Q
"oJ
0 -
-ROO
innn
_
_L_)*JU
?oon
-
2500-
3000
CD o
^^ i i
cd"
_•_
O RBDW06
O RBDW07
O RBDW08
O RBDW09
O RBDW10
O RBDW14
Q RBMW04
• RBMW05
1 1 '
1 1
B7Sr/"Sr range
for leached Tertiary
"* igneous sills
(Miggins, 2002)
Vermejo Fm
Raton Basin
1 ' 1 '
II 1
c
•35
&
c
°
i
Ł
13
J
er
ra
c Poison
Raton Fm *j Canyon Fm
Raton Basin o Raton Basin
1 ' 1 ' 1 '
"
-
_
-
^
0.707 0.708 0.709 0.710 0.711 0.712 0.713 0.714
87
Sr/"Sr
B)
0.714 -
0.711 -
to
u>
00
CO
r»
oo
0.708 -
0.705
North Fork Ranch &
Arrowhead Ranchettes
(Las Animas County)
Poison Canyon Fm,
Quaternary Alluvium
Raton Fm
Vermejo Fm
Little Creek Field
O RBDW06
O RBDW07
O RBDW08
O RBDW09
O RBDW10
O RBDW14
Q RBMW04
@ RBMW05
o
GOQ)
O Oc
,: Q •;
' >
10
100
1000
10000
Sr, jig/L
Figure 41. Strontium isotope ratios relative to well depth, in feet (A), and strontium concentrations (B)
for the Little Creek Field study area (Huerfano County, CO). Colored blocks represent the range of Sr
ratios and concentrations observed in samples collected from Las Animas County, with respect to the
geologic units the well was screened in (see Figure 40).
124
-------
Retrospective Case Study in the Raton Basin, Colorado May 2015
study areas (see Figure 40). Figure 41B shows a semilog plot of strontium concentrations versus
87Sr/86Sr values for samples collected in this study area. The isotopic composition of strontium in ground
water in this area is similar to the strontium isotope values obtained during leaching experiments of
Tertiary igneous rocks (lamprophyres and basalt) collected along the western margin of the Raton Basin
(Miggins, 2002). This isotopic similarity suggests that ground water in the Little Creek Field study area
has been extensively modified via water-rock interactions, and fluid is near equilibrium with surrounding
aquifer materials, including stocks, plugs, and sills emplaced during the Tertiary and into the Quaternary
period. This large-scale igneous activity also produced extensive fractures and faults. Igneous activity
within the northern Raton Basin is largely associated with the Spanish Peak Mountains, which are
located southwest of the Little Creek study site. The Spanish Peaks represent two igneous stocks that
injected no fewer than 500 radial and sub-parallel dikes throughout the Raton Basin (Cavness, 2009;
Miggins, 2002).
Experimental results from leaching experiments of lamprophyre sills (n = 5) and basalt (n = 1), indicated
that, for some of the rocks in the study (particularly lamprophyres), there was a significant difference in
the isotopic compositions between the leachate, the silicate residue, and the whole-rock without
leaching (Miggins, 2002). Initial whole rock values for two of these samples ranged from 0.706216 to
0.707408; however, the leachate produced a mean value of 0.708401 (±0.000267). In addition, analyses
of leached secondary calcium carbonate contained significant amounts of Srthat increased the 87Sr/86Sr;
this has important implications for ground water in carbonate or carbonate-cemented aquifers that
acquire their strontium signatures within a relatively short period of time (Frost and Toner, 2004). The
invariant strontium isotope ratios measured in ground water obtained from domestic and monitoring
wells in the Little Creek Field suggests that the fluid is near equilibrium with surrounding aquifer
materials.
In summary, within the Las Animas portion of the Raton Basin, differences in the isotopic composition of
strontium appear to be constrained with respect to the geologic formation from which the well water
was sourced. Despite similar strontium concentrations, produced water from the Vermejo and Raton
formations in the North Fork Ranch area is easily distinguished from ground water collected from the
alluvial and Poison Canyon aquifers by its 87Sr/86Sr ratio; however, to better access the utility of
strontium isotopes tracers, additional strontium isotope data are needed from CBM-producing
formations. The strontium isotope composition of ground water in the Little Creek Field has probably
been modified from water interactions with igneous bodies emplaced during the Tertiary period.
Ground water was collected from water within the Poison Canyon Formation; without strontium isotope
data from producing formations in the area, it is unclear as to whether strontium isotopes can be used
to trace mixing of water from different geologic units within the Little Creek Field area.
6.12. Sulfur Isotopes
Samples were collected for measurements of 534S of sulfide and 534S/518O of sulfate in the last three
rounds of sampling (May 2012, November 2012, and April/May 2013). These data were collected in
order to follow upon observations made during the first sampling event related to increased
concentrations of sulfate and wide-ranging sulfide concentrations in some of the ground water samples
collected within the Little Creek Field study area in Huerfano County. Sulfate isotope data are presented
in this section, and the combined carbon-sulfur isotope data are discussed later in a section on
biogeochemical methane attenuation in ground water.
125
-------
Retrospective Case Study in the Raton Basin, Colorado May 2015
Figure 42 is a plot of 534SS04 versus 518OS04 for samples collected within Las Animas and Huerfano
counties during rounds 2, 3, and 4. Data from the North Fork Ranch area (Las Animas County) show a
steep linear trend defined by a narrow range of 534SS04 values, from -10.4 to -1.7%o, and 518OS04 values,
from -0.2 to 7.6%o. The negative 534S values suggest that dissolution of pyrite is the probable source for
the moderate levels of sulfate in the ground water of this area (sulfate = 0.95 to 98.5 mg/L; median =
40.6 mg/L). Data from location RBDW11, also in Las Animas County, show a parallel and more restricted
trend that is offset to positive 534SS04 values, perhaps resulting from oxidation of more 34S-enriched
pyrite (see Figure 42). When pyrite is oxidized under predominantly anaerobic conditions, the oxygen
molecules in sulfate are derived from water (e.g., Pellicori et al., 2005). Because the 518O values of
sulfate and ground water differ significantly (see Figure 42), pyrite dissolution under anaerobic
conditions cannot be the only process controlling the 534S-518O trend for sulfate. The linear trend for
534S and 518O of sulfate displayed by samples from the North Fork Ranch area may be controlled by
mixing of a sulfate reservoir derived from pyrite dissolution with a sulfate reservoir derived from
dissolution of sulfate enriched in 34S. Dissolution of gypsum and/or anhydrite is a possibility for the 34S-
enriched sulfate. The 534SS04 values of Cretaceous to Paleocene sulfate are expected to be ~17 ± 2%o
(e.g., Claypool et al., 1980; Strauss, 1997); dissolution of sulfate minerals with this isotopic composition
could provide an end-member composition to explain the data trends for the North Fork Ranch area
observed in Figure 42. Additional data are needed regarding the sulfur isotopic composition of sulfate
and sulfide minerals within sedimentary rocks in order to further understand these data.
In contrast to the North Fork Ranch area, data from the Little Creek Field area show a wider range in
534SS04 values, from -2.2 to 39.5%o. The positive correlation of 534SS04 and 518OS04, enrichment of 34S in
sulfate, the ratio of 18O to 34S of ~1:5 (0.19), and the presence of dissolved sulfide provide evidence for
microbial sulfate reduction (Van Stempvoort et al., 2005; Spence et al., 2005; Fritz et al., 1989). Sulfate-
reducing bacteria preferentially respire 32S-enriched sulfate; consequently, residual sulfate becomes
progressively enriched in 34S and 534SS04 values increase (Harrison and Thode, 1957). The significance of
microbial sulfate reduction in the Little Creek Field area is discussed in a later topical section ("Methane
Oxidation: Little Creek Field").
126
-------
Retrospective Case Study in the Raton Basin, Colorado
May 2015
15
O
I
o>
Q.
to
10-
-5-
-10-
-15
O North Fork Ranch
Arrowhead Ranchettes
O Little Creek Field
6 O of H O
-10
10
20
30
40
,34,
8 S , permil (VCDT)
SO4
Figure 42. Relationship of stable oxygen and sulfur isotope ratios for dissolved sulfate measured in water samples
collected during this study in Las Animas and Huerfano counties during rounds 2, 3, and 4. The aqua box shows the
range of the 618O values of water (618OH20) obtained for these samples.
127
-------
Retrospective Case Study in the Raton Basin, Colorado May 2015
7. Tert-Butyl Alcohol
The concentration data and geographic distribution of TBA detections observed in this study have not
been observed or documented in previous studies in the Raton Basin. TBA is the simplest tertiary
alcohol, with the structural formula (CH3)3COH, and is one of four butanol isomers (C4H9OH). TBA is
miscible in gasoline, ethers, other alcohols, and water, has a low Henry's Law constant (i.e., it does not
easily partition from water to air), and weakly sorbs to organic material (Schmidt, 2003). These physico-
chemical properties enable TBA to easily partition into water, and once dissolved, TBA can travel at
almost the same velocity as ground water (Somsamak et al., 2005). TBA is a significant potential ground
water contaminant because of its mobility, recalcitrant nature, and potential toxicity (Clark, 2002).
Nevertheless, there is limited research regarding the environmental behavior and fate of TBA in ground
water environments. EPA does not have an MCL for TBA; however, several states have passed drinking
water action levels because of its potential human toxicity (Cirvello et al., 1995; Kane et al., 2001;
Sgambato et al., 2009). For instance, in California and Wisconsin, the primary (health-based) drinking
water standard is 12 u.g/L (CA-OEHHA, 1999; NEIWPCC, 2006; Wl DNR, 2011).
TBA is broadly classified as a gasoline oxygenate (Zogorski et al., 2006). TBA is also a widely used solvent
and an intermediate chemical in industrial processes (Schmidt et al., 2004; Wei and Finneran, 2011).
Gasoline oxygenates are compounds that contain oxygen as part of their chemical structure and are
added to gasoline to improve combustion and reduce emissions. Commonly used oxygenates include
alcohols (e.g., methanol, ethanol, isopropyl alcohol, butanol) and ethers (e.g., MTBE, tert-amyl methyl
ether (TAME), diisopropyl ether (DIPE), and ETBE). These compounds, as well as their chemical
intermediates (e.g., TBA), were routinely analyzed as part of this study but were not detected in any of
the samples, with the exception of TBA.
TBA was detected in ground water samples collected from domestic, monitoring, and production wells
in the North Fork Ranch study area, as well as a domestic well located in the Arrowhead Ranchettes
study area. Within the North Fork Ranch area, TBA was detected in ground water collected from
domestic well RBDW03, monitoring wells RBMW02 and RBMW03, and production well RBPW01;
concentrations ranged from 6.9 u.g/L to 1,310 u.g/L (J-). TBA was consistently (rounds 1 through 4)
detected in RBMW02 and RBMW03; during each sampling round, the TBA concentration was highest, by
an order of magnitude, in monitoring well RBMW03 (range = 960 u.g/L to 1,310 u.g/L, J-), compared to
monitoring well RBMW02 (range = 27.2 u.g/L to 37.4 u.g/L). The lowest concentration, which was below
the QL but above the MDL, was measured in ground water sampled from production well RBPW01
during round 4 (6.9 u.g/L, J). TBA was also detected in a water sample collected from domestic well
RBDW03 during round 2 (51.3 u.g/L, H
Figure 43 shows the spatial distribution of TBA detections in the North Fork Ranch area over the four
sampling rounds. This figure incorporates data from a private water well (Glibota Environmental, 2013)
where TBA has been detected using appropriate analytical methods (GC-MS; concentration range = 11
u.g/L to 45 u.g/L. Note: TBA data collected from this location were not evaluated during the ADQ).
Water chemistry has been privately monitored at this location since 2007. Although this domestic well
was not included as a sample location in this case study, ground water samples were collected at a
former domestic well (see COGCC, 2010) at a nearby location, designated as monitoring well RBMW02
128
-------
Retrospective Case Study in the Raton Basin, Colorado
May 2015
1,
8
? «•
JQ
1
o.
6.9, J
1
2 3
Sampling Round
1
2 20
1
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
43
19
11
ND ND ND
JAJOJAJOJAJOJAJOJAJOJAJOJAJO
1
45-
30-
15-
n
51.3, J-
N
2 3
Sampling Round
Sample Locations
© Private Water Well
O Active CBM Wells
O Active Shale Gas Well
ND^non-detect
*= Method Detection Limit
Source: /magery ESRI: Wetland Sample Locations. EPA ORD
1,000
Tert-butyl alcohol (CHi0O) Concentrations
North Fork Study Area
2,000 Las Animas County, Colorado
EPA Hydraulic Fracturing Study
loon-
500-
n-
1310, J-
965
QL
QL
1000, J
QL
960, H
QL
2 3
Sampling Round
45-
i
o" 30-
|
i
n.
37.4
QL
27.2, J-
QL
29
QL
*
28
QL
K
2 3
Sampling Round
Figure 43. Map showing the spatial distribution of TBA detections and concentrations in the North Fork Ranch sampling area over the four sampling events.
Water chemistry has been privately monitored at the "Private Water Well" location (orange symbol) since 2007 (Glibota Environmental, 2013), but it was not
sampled during this study. Histograms show TBA concentration (ng/L), quantitation limit (QL), method detection limit (MDL), and the date/round sampled.
129
-------
Retrospective Case Study in the Raton Basin, Colorado May 2015
(this study), during rounds 1 through 4. There is good agreement within these datasets: the results
collected in April 2013 (same day) are similar (private water well = 39 u.g/L; RBMW02 = 28 u.g/L).
TBA was also consistently detected in domestic well RBDW11, located within the Arrowhead Ranchettes
study area. Concentrations ranged from 12 to 32 u.g/L (mean = 19 u.g/L) over the four sampling rounds.
TBA was not detected at nearby location RBDW12 during the first round of sampling (see Figure 44).
While the typical source of TBA in ground water is usually as a degradation product of the fuel
oxygenate compounds MTBE and/or ETBE, several non-gasoline-related sources of TBA exist: (i) TBA can
be generated as a biochemical and/or chemical breakdown product of tert-butyl acetate; (ii) TBA can be
produced through the chemical decomposition of tert-butyl hydroperoxide; (iii) TBA can be microbially
generated from isobutane; or (iv) TBA can be produced by the reaction of isobutylene and water in the
presence of a catalyst. Each of these pathways represents a possible source of TBA within the North
Fork Ranch and Arrowhead Ranchettes study sites, and each pathway is considered below.
7.1. Degradation of Methyl Tert-Butyl Ether (MTBE)/Ethyl Tert-Butyl Ether
(ETBE)
TBA is one of the most widely distributed organic contaminants in ground water at gasoline spill sites
(Wilson and Adair, 2007). TBA is the key intermediate in the degradation of several dialkyl ethers used
as fuel oxygenates, (i.e., MTBE, ETBE); however, TBA is also an impurity in commercial MTBE (Schmidt,
2003; Wilson et al., 2005) and a fuel additive in its own right (US EPA, 2000c). MTBE degradation has
been reported in the presence of all environmentally relevant terminal electron acceptors (i.e., oxygen,
nitrate, sulfate, and iron(lll)); however, except for oxic conditions, the interpretations of results are
controversial within the literature or very limited studies have been conducted (Schmidt et al., 2004).
During aerobic MTBE biodegradation, the initial transformation is believed to be carried out by a mono-
oxygenase enzyme; these enzymes insert one oxygen atom from molecular oxygen into the organic
compound being metabolized, and the other oxygen atom is reduced to form water. The first stable
products are TBA and either formaldehyde or formic acid, the latter of which is readily degraded (Wilson
etal., 2005).
Degradation of fuel oxygenates under anoxic conditions also yields TBA, possibly by enzymes that cleave
the ether bond (- C - O - C -) in the absence of molecular oxygen (Kolhatkar et al., 2002). Anaerobic
biodegradation of MTBE is dependent on the predominant terminal electron-accepting conditions, and
MTBE degradation can be substantial under relatively oxidized, denitrifying, or humics-amended
iron(lll)-reducing conditions. In the presence of substantial methanogenic activity, significant
accumulations of TBA can occur (Bradley et al., 2001; Finneran and Lovley, 2001; Bradley et al., 2002).
Lastly, abiotic transformations of MTBE may occur due to acid hydrolysis of MTBE to TBA during sample
preservation or analysis (O'Reilly et al., 2001; Lin et al., 2003).
It is unlikely that the presence of TBA collected from the selected ground water wells in the North Fork
Ranch and Arrowhead Ranchettes study areas is the result of MTBE degradation. The following gasoline
oxygenate compounds were routinely analyzed as part of this study, but never detected: MTBE, TAME,
DIPE, ETBE, and ethanol. There were no documented gasoline spills in this area within a 1-mile radius
(see Appendix C), and MTBE was completely banned in the state of Colorado as of April 30, 2002 (US
EPA, 2008). Lastly, aerobic biodegradation of MTBE/ETBE by most known bacterial strains produces TBA
130
-------
Retrospective Case Study in the Raton Basin, Colorado
May 2015
O Active CBM Wells
O Sampling Locations
Faults
*- Method Detection Limit
QL = Quontit or/on i./mr'r
^g/i = mtcrogroms per //'fer
Source: /magery, ESffl; Wet Information: EPA PRO
Tert-butyl alcohol (C4H ,0O) Concentrations
Vicinity of RBDW11 and RBDW12
Las Animas County, Colorado
EPA Hydraulic Fracturing Study
Figure 44. Tert-butyl alcohol (TBA) concentrations in ground water collected from location RBDW11
(Arrowhead Ranchettes, Las Animas County), over four sampling rounds. The histogram shows TBA
concentration (ng/L), quantitation limit (QL), method detection limit (MDL), and the round sampled.
131
-------
Retrospective Case Study in the Raton Basin, Colorado May 2015
as a metabolite; therefore, the presence/absence of TBA monooxygenase enzyme can be monitored and
used as a proxy for continued biodegradation at a particular location. Microbial analyses conducted on
ground water collected from production well RBPW01 in April 2013 (COGCC, 2013b) did not indicate the
presence of the "TBA Monooxygenase Functional Gene"; this gene catalyses biodegradation of gasoline
oxygenates to TBA (Microbial Insights, 2013).
7.2. Degradation Product of Tert-Butyl Acetate (TBAc)
TBAc (C6H12O2) is a natural gas-derived oxygenated-ester solvent originally utilized in the 1950s as a fuel
additive to improve the combustion quality of diesel fuel and reduce harmful exhaust emissions;
however, it was never commercialized for that purpose (Ziegler, 2010). More recently, TBAc has been
developed for use in industrial coatings, adhesives, inks, and degreasers, and is a potential substitute for
a variety of hazardous air pollutant (HAP) solvents and VOCs, as well as ozone-depleting solvents
(Lyondell Chemical Co., 2006). Based on publically available data, TBAc has not been used in hydraulic
fracturing processes (US EPA, 2011b; FracFocus, 2013). There are limited environmental studies
regarding the impact and fate of this compound; however, TBAc is known to hydrolyze to TBA in
chemical and mammalian studies (Groth and Freundt, 1994). The half-life (t/2) for abiotic hydrolysis of
TBAc is dependent upon pH: at 20°C, hydrolysis to TBA at pH 7, 8, and 9 is 135 years, 14.6 years, and 1.5
years, respectively (Lyondell Chemical Co., 2006; Hyman, 2012). The chemical transformation of TBAc
with water, resulting in the formation of TBA, is summarized in Eqn. 11:
C6H12O2 + H2O => CH3COO" + (CH3)3COH + H+ (11)
Experimental results from short-term microcosm laboratory studies suggest that TBAc is readily or
inherently biodegradable depending on the microorganisms present (Lyondell Chemical Co., 2006;
Hyman, 2012); however, neither the mechanism, nor reaction products, were provided in previous
reports. Research regarding the kinetics of TBAc biodegradation in natural systems has not been
conducted; however, the postulated reaction biodegradation pathway involves cleavage of the acetate
group from the tert-butyl alkyl group (Hyman, 2012). This has important implications as to the
environmental fate of this compound within aqueous systems; for example, the produced tert-butyl
group could participate in a number of reactions (i.e., hydrolysis, substitution reactions, etc.), that could
lead to the formation of TBA. If the environment does not contain appropriate TBA-degrading
microorganisms (i.e., Nava et al., 2007), TBA can accumulate and, at high concentrations, may inhibit
microorganism growth (North et al., 2012).
It is doubtful that the presence of TBA within the North Fork Ranch study area is due to the direct
addition of this solvent (TBAc) to hydraulic fracturing fluids because there is no documented use of this
chemical in hydraulic fracturing operations within the Raton Basin (FracFocus, 2013). In addition,
analysis of environmental records indicated no spills of this chemical in areas around the sampling
locations of this study (Appendix C).
7.3. Decomposition of Tert-Butyl Hydroperoxide (TBHP)
TBHP (C4Hi0O2) is an alkyl hydroperoxide utilized in commercial and industrial applications. In the
petrochemical industry, it is used as an initiator for the emulsion and suspension polymerization of
ethylene, vinyl acetate, acrylates, and polyvinyl chloride (PVC), and as a curing agent for unsaturated
polyesters (Wang et al., 2007). It is also used as a gel breaker in hydraulic fracturing fluids. The thermal
132
-------
Retrospective Case Study in the Raton Basin, Colorado May 2015
decomposition of TBHP in either liquid phase or inert solvents results in the liberation of oxygen and the
formulation of TBA (Wang et al., 2007). Under conditions where thermal decomposition is negligible
(<45°C), induced decomposition may occur from the attack of radicals produced by the hydroperoxide
on itself (Hiatt et al., 1964). Organic hydroperoxides, such as TBHP, can be destroyed by a variety of
reagents, including acids, bases, phenols, and catalytic amounts of various metal ions (Hiatt et al., 1964,
and references therein; Stepovik and Potkina, 2013) into TBA and oxygen (Denney and Rosen, 1964).
The decomposition of TBHP into TBA and oxygen (Denney and Rosen, 1964) is represented by Eqn. 12:
2(CH3)3COOH ^> 2(CH3)3COH + O2 (12)
On December 13, 2011, Colorado passed a Hydraulic Fracturing Disclosure Rule that requires
comprehensive public disclosure of the chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing treatments (COGA, 2013);
the COGCC requires oil and gas generators to post the disclosure of chemicals on FracFocus.org, the
national hydraulic fracturing chemical disclosure registry (COGCC, 2011). The database does not contain
proprietary chemical information and/or the chemical ingredients of many additives. The FracFocus.org
database is searchable by company, well location, and type of chemical used. According to the
database, none of the hydraulic fracturing fluids used in Las Animas County, Colorado, since January 1,
2011, contained TBHP as a component.
7.4. Microbial Oxidation of Isobutane
TBA can be produced by microbial oxidation of isobutane (C4H10), shown in Eqn. 13 (Mason, 1957),
where:
C4H10 + O2 + 2e~ => (CH3)3COH + O2" (H2O) (13)
Typically, microorganisms will use short-chain gaseous hydrocarbons as a growth substrate, and then
initiate metabolism of gaseous alkanes by inserting one atom from molecular oxygen into the
hydrocarbon through the action of broad-spectrum mono-oxygenase enzymes (Shennan, 2006). Hyman
(2012) observed TBA production, under both carbon- and oxygen-limited conditions, in over 20
isobutane-utilizing isolates. Under carbon-limited conditions, TBA was consumed, whereas the
concentration of TBA remained stable under oxygen-limited conditions.
The equation above implies oxidation. Ground water examined in this study was generally not oxidizing;
thus, for this reaction to proceed (in nearly anaerobic conditions), the organisms would need an
enzymatic mechanism that involved the addition of water, rather than molecular oxygen, to oxidize
isobutane (Atlas, 1981; Parekh et al., 1977). Neither dissolved butane nor propane were detected in any
ground water or surface water samples collected from the North Fork Ranch or Arrowhead Ranchette
study areas; nevertheless, iC4 was frequently found in the gas phase in monitoring well RBMW03
(rounds 1, 3, and 4), which also had the highest TBA concentrations. Yet other wells (including
RBMW04, RBMW05, RBDW04, RBDW06, RBDW09, and RBDW10) showed iC4 detections in the
headspace gas analysis, but TBA was not detected in samples collected from these locations.
Furthermore, other sampling locations that showed consistent detections of TBA (e.g., RBMW02,
RBDW11) did not show headspace concentrations of iC4.
133
-------
Retrospective Case Study in the Raton Basin, Colorado May 2015
7.5. Formation via an Isobutylene Precursor
Both TBA and TBAc are formed by the reaction of isobutylene (C4H8), a component of natural gas, and
water in the presence of a catalyst. Liquid phases are formed by water and isobutylene when a solvent
is used. Delion et al. (1986) reported the production of TBA and TBAc in the presence of the following
solvents: butyl cellosolve (2-butoxyethanol), isopropyl alcohol, cyclohexanol, tetrahydrofurfurylic
alcohol, and acetic acid; TBA yield was greatest when acetic acid was used.
The equilibrium reaction in the liquid phase (water) is shown in Eqn. 14:
(14)
Isobutylene can be a component of natural gas. Historical headspace gas results of ground water
samples obtained from CBM wells producing within the Raton, Raton-Vermejo, and Vermejo formations
(ESN Rocky Mountain, 2003) in Las Animas and Huerfano counties indicated that higher-chain
hydrocarbons (>C2+) were largely restricted to Vermejo-produced gas within Las Animas County, which
contained only propane (C3). Under these circumstances, i.e., in the absence of C4 compounds, this
reaction could not proceed. However, higher molecular weight gaseous alkanes (>C4+) were detected in
a number of ground water samples during this case study, and the presence of these compounds
indicates that CBM resources have been modified through microbial activity (i.e., Oremland, 1988).
Furthermore, in three of the four wells where TBA was detected, isobutane compounds (iC4) were
measured in the gas phase during headspace gas analyses. Acetic acid, isopropyl alcohol, and
2-butoxyethanol are reported chemical additives within hydraulic fracturing fluids used in Las Animas
County (FracFocus, 2013). However, anaerobic microbial oxidation of hydrocarbons can also generate
these compounds (e.g., acetic acid (LMWAs), alcohols) as metabolic intermediates (Alperin et al., 1994;
Cozzarelli et al., 1994; Cozzarelli et al., 2010). Consequently, the microbial production of low levels of C4
compounds through time, coupled with the addition of solvents, may favor TBA production into slow
moving or stagnant ground water.
The persistent occurrence of TBA through time in the area shown in Figure 43 suggests the presence of a
migrating plume. Furthermore, the trends observed at the private water well, with no detections before
January 2008 and with increasing levels afterward, are also consistent with leading-edge plume
behavior. It is important to note that, prior to April 1, 2012, operators within the state of Colorado were
not required to publically disclose information regarding hydraulic fracturing treatments (COGCC, 2011);
given that many of the CBM wells located within the study sites were drilled prior to that time, hydraulic
fracturing fluid, as the source of TBA within the North Fork Ranch and Arrowhead Ranchettes sampling
areas, cannot be completely discounted. It is also possible that the TBA present within the two study
areas is from TBA production via microbially mediated processes. Due to limited experimental and field
data, a definite pathway could not be determined.
In a recent study, the COGCC examined the occurrence and distribution of TBA from 49 sites in the
Raton Basin (Las Animas and Huerfano counties; COGCC, 2015). Samples were collected from CBM and
domestic wells. TBA was present in ground water samples from 24% of the domestic wells and from
22% of the CBM wells sampled in the study (COGCC, 2015). COGCC found no evidence that the
occurrences of TBA were related to contaminants from hydraulic fracturing fluids; anthropogenic and
natural sources of TBA were suggested, but definitive sources of TBA were not identified (COGCC, 2015).
134
-------
Retrospective Case Study in the Raton Basin, Colorado May 2015
8. Coal-Water Interactions
The Raton Basin contains substantial resources of high- and medium-volatile bituminous coals that
extend from outcrops along the periphery of the basin to depths of at least 3,000 feet in the deepest
parts of the region (Jurich and Adams, 1984). Extensive commercial mining of coal in the Vermejo and
Raton formations began in 1873; however, production started decreasing after 1920, and the last
remaining coal mine was closed in 1995 (Flores and Bader, 1999). Coal mining has gradually been
replaced by development of CBM: the Raton Basin's CBM contribution was approximately 3% of the
nation's total in 2006, with proved reserves estimated at 14.2% (U.S. Energy Information Administration,
2007). Most of the coal-bearing formations targeted for development in Colorado, many of which occur
within some of the same formations as aquifers used for water supply, have low porosity and
permeability, and hydraulic fracturing operations are needed to produce economic quantities of CBM
(COGCC, 2013a). In Colorado, approximately 96% to 98% of the fracturing volume is water and sand,
and the remaining volume comprises 10 or more chemical additives that are generally complex organic
compounds (COGCC, 2013a); these compounds are difficult to identify in waters that naturally contain
complex organics such as those in CBM-producing formations (Dahm et al., 2012).
Ground water and surface water samples were analyzed for a suite of 133 organic compounds, including
VOCs, SVOCs, glycol ethers, petroleum hydrocarbons (DRO and GRO), and LMWAs. The purpose of
these analyses was to examine the potential occurrence in ground and surface water of chemicals
generally documented to be components of hydraulic fracturing fluids (e.g., Ely, 1989; Veatch et al.,
1989; Vidic et al., 2013; U.S. House of Representatives, 2011) and, more specifically, of the chemicals in
fracturing fluids that have been used in Colorado (see Table 10; FracFocus, 2013). A total of 28
compounds were identified in ground water and surface water samples collected within the three study
areas. These data were categorized by the presumed origin of the compounds (i.e., source):
anthropogenic, natural, and undetermined; these groupings are organized by study site in Figure 45. It
is important to note that compounds that originate in hydrocarbon deposits, such as coal, may be
mobilized by anthropogenic processes and/or natural water-rock interactions. A detailed summary of all
organic compounds detected in this study, for each study area, is provided in Tables 11, 12, and 13. It is
unlikely that the presence of these compounds is related to past mining operations within the region:
(i) mining operations were largely confined to the peripheral outcrop belt (eastern margin of the basin),
located east of the study areas; (ii) while abandoned underground mines in this area often became filled
with water after mining operations ceased, water quality is largely derived from filtration of stream flow
and does not reflect interaction with ground water (Mclaughlin, 1966); and (iii) abrupt changes in the
permeabilities of the Poison Canyon and Raton formations can result in Poison Canyon waters being
perched over the less permeable units of the Raton Formation, thus limiting hydrogeologic interactions
such as mixing (Howard, 1982).
At least 13 of the detected analytes (1,2-dichlorobenzene, 2-butoxyethanol phosphate,
2-butoxyethanol, bis-(2-ethylhexyl) adipate, bis-(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate, chloroform, diethylene glycol,
di-n-butyl phthalate, di-n-octyl phthalate, isophorone, methylene chloride, nitrobenzene, and
triethylene glycol) do not occur naturally and are, therefore, considered organic compounds of
anthropogenic origin. The source of two analytes, acetone and TBA, is undetermined (see "Organic
Compounds" and "Tert-Butyl Alcohol" sections). The remaining 12 detected compounds, which will be
collectively referred to as "Petroleum Hydrocarbons," included BTEX compounds and benzene
135
-------
Retrospective Case Study in the Raton Basin, Colorado
May 2015
15
12-
o
c
0)
IS
3-
0
12/28
Organic Compound Detections, by source
n=2B
H Anthropogenic
Undetermined
Hydrocarbons
10/28
2/28
D
North Fork Ranch (24/28) Arrowhead Ranchettes (8/28) Little Creek Field (15/28)
Study Area Location
Figure 45. Twenty-eight organic compounds (see Tables 11-13), categorized by compound origin, were detected in ground water and surface water samples
collected from the three study areas. The sources of anthropogenic and undetermined compounds are discussed in the text (see "Organic Compounds");
hydrocarbon compounds, which may be mobilized by anthropogenic processes, are likely derived from coal-water interactions within the study areas.
136
-------
Retrospective Case Study in the Raton Basin, Colorado May 2015
derivatives (1,2,3-trimethylbenzene and 1,2,4-trimethylbenzene), DRO, GRO, carbon disulfide,
naphthalene, phenol, and squalene (see Tables 11, 12, and 13). There are no records of fuel spills or
leaking storage tanks/pipelines (see Appendix C) or documented use of petroleum distillates in hydraulic
fracturing fluid that could account for the presence of these compounds within the three study areas
(discussed in more detail below).
8.1. Petroleum Hydrocarbons: Origin
Organic compound speciation and characterization in coalbed-produced water has not been widely
studied. The geochemical composition of produced water reflects the contributions of at least two
sources: the original fracturing fluid, altered through interactions with the coal seam, and water
associated with the coal deposits that becomes mobilized as part of the drilling operation (Batley and
Kookana, 2012; Gordalla et al., 2013). Research to date indicates that extractable hydrocarbons show a
surprisingly consistent pattern in CBM-produced water from different CBM plays (Dahm et al., 2011;
Dahm et al., 2012; Orem et al., 2014). Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), the dominant
compound class identified in most samples, are primarily composed of lower-molecular-weight (2-ring)
compounds and their alkyl derivatives (Orem et al., 2007; Orem et al., 2014); the presence of these
compounds reflects a signal derived from interactions between the coal and the aquifer (Dahm et al.,
2012).
Within coal seams, the injection of fluid under high pressure causes cracking that extends for distances
typically up to 30 meters (Batley and Kookana, 2012). Upon the penetration of the fluid into the coal
structure, coal molecules dissociate as weak bonds are broken and rearrange and reassociate in lower
free energy formations, macropores are created in the coal structure, and new reactive sites are formed
(Pinto et al., 1999; Makitra and Bryk, 2008). The physical alteration of the coal structure increases the
available surface area for fluid to penetrate and react with (Takarada et al., 2003), causing the structure
to "swell": there is an overall increase in the volume of the coal as a result of adsorbing the liquid, and
the structure becomes distorted (Green et al., 1982; Spears et al., 1993; Van Niekerk et al., 2010, and
references therein). Pre-swollen coals are inherently "more reactive" than the original coal (Larsen et
al., 1981; Larsen et al., 2001; Kawashima and Saito, 2004), as previously inaccessible reactive sites
become available and generate higher yields of solubilized (extracted) matter (Marzec, 1986; Kamieriski
et al., 1987; Makitra and Bryk, 2008 and references therein). The mechanism of coal extraction seems
to occur by substitution reactions, wherein electron-donating solvent molecules replace the coal
electron-donor participants. The higher the electron-donor capability of the solvents, the more coal
electron-donor centers are replaced by solvent molecules and, therefore, the higher the extraction
yields (Marzec, 2002). Additionally, an increase in the nitrogen content of the solvent is reported to
enhance extraction yield (Rivolta, 2012), and this may have important implications for areas where coal
seams are fractured using nitrogen foams.
Hydraulic fracturing processes within the Raton Basin are relatively short (lasting <1 week, maximum),
which limits the amount of time the coal is exposed to the solvent; however, experimental work of coal
extraction in both inorganic and organic solvents has revealed that swelling/extraction can occur over
short time periods (<1 week; Hombach, 1980; lino and Matsuda, 1984; Pinto et al., 1999; Sakanishi et
al., 2002; Takarada et al., 2003). The rates of solvent uptake and the kinetics of swelling are strongly
influenced by factors such as the nature of the coal, the size of the coal particles, the nature of the
solvent, the size and shape of the solvent molecules, the accessibility of solvents to coal
137
-------
Retrospective Case Study in the Raton Basin, Colorado May 2015
macromolecules, solvent sorption and diffusion processes in coals, temperature, and moisture content
(Krzesiriska, 2001). Additionally, modification of the physical structure ultimately promotes chemical
dissolution of the coal matrix (Marzec et al., 1979; Szeliga and Marzec, 1983; Marzec and Kisielow, 1983;
lino and Matsuda, 1984; Charlesworth, 1987; Chawla and Davis, 1989). Although some of the hydraulic
fracturing fluid is withdrawn after the fracturing event, a portion remains; chemical additives react
under the conditions of the fracturing process and form degradation and reaction products (Choi et al.,
1989; Gordalla et al., 2013), and continued contact with ground water (a polar solvent) will generate
low-molecular-weight hydrocarbons (lino et al., 2007).
8.2. Discussion
In CBM gas wells, water production is necessary to facilitate the lowering of hydrostatic pressure in the
coal seam, allowing gas desorption and production (Dahm et al., 2012). The injection of fluid with
solvent-like properties into coal seams may have a secondary impact: the eventual solubilization of the
coal matrix, by swelling and solvation, ultimately yielding hydrocarbons with lower molecular weights
(Rivolta, 2012; Gordalla et al., 2013). Benzene (and derivatives), ethylbenzene, phenol, squalene,
toluene, and xylenes have been reported in analyses of organic compounds in formation fluids
associated with shale and coal, as well as produced water (Orem et al., 1999; Orem et al., 2007; Dahm et
al., 2011; Dahm et al., 2012; Schlegel et al., 2013).
BTEX compounds were consistently detected in production wells and surface water locations within the
North Fork Ranch study area. The BTEX suite of organic compounds was not consistently detected in
domestic or monitoring wells in any of the study areas, with the exception of low levels of benzene
(RBDW03, round 2) and toluene (RBDW05, round 4; RBMW03, rounds 3 and 4) in North Fork Ranch.
Geochemical and isotopic analyses of surface water indicate that water within the sampled tributaries is
composed predominantly of production water discharged to the surface, and production wells are
producing from the Raton coal (RBPW01) and Vermejo coal (RBPW02, RBPW03) formations. Many of
these compounds are commonly associated with the unintended release of petroleum fuel, which can
occur as large, discrete events or as chronic, slow leakage from storage tanks and pipelines (Peters et al.,
2005). However, there are no records of fuel spills or leaking storage tanks/pipelines occurring in the
vicinity of the three study areas within a 1-mile radius (see Appendix C). Alternatively, the COGCC
(2013b) has reported that these compounds may be added to hydraulic fracturing fluids, as petroleum
distillates, during hydraulic fracturing operations within the state of Colorado. Petroleum distillates
were documented as a hydraulic fracturing fluid additive by one operator in Huerfano County; however,
this record is limited to a single fracturing job, which occurred in August 2013, located over 14 miles
northwest of the Little Creek Field study area. There are no records of petroleum distillates being used,
by any operator, in Las Animas County (FracFocus, 2013), where the suite of BTEX compounds was
detected (see Tables 11, 12, and 13).
DRO compounds were detected at all three study sites, and detections were not limited to a particular
well type. GRO compounds were detected in a single monitoring well in North Fork Ranch study area
(RBMW03) during rounds 1 and 2 and in four domestic wells in the Little Creek Field study area. The
methods used to analyze DRO/GRO in aqueous samples measure all organics in the sample and are not
specific to hydrocarbon compounds that originate, for example, from a fuel release (Mohler et al.,
2013). As such, non-targeted organic compounds, such as pesticides, phenols, phthalates, and other
hydrocarbons can be captured in the chromatographic integration window and reported as DRO/GRO.
138
-------
Retrospective Case Study in the Raton Basin, Colorado May 2015
Chromatogram patterns (see Figure 29), determined in ground and surface water samples collected
during this case study, are consistent with chromatograms documenting the presence of longer, alkane-
series carbon chains and/or aromatic hydrocarbons that have undergone weathering and/or
biodegradation (Wang and Fingas, 1997; Wang et al., 1998; Grossi et al., 2002).
Phenol, squalene, naphthalene, and carbon disulfide were detected in ground water collected from
domestic and monitoring wells, and detections varied by study area. Note that these compounds were
not observed in any production well or surface water samples. Most of the domestic and monitoring
wells are screened within organic-rich units (i.e., predominantly shale and/or siltstone), and these
compounds can be generated as ground water interacts with algal-derived shale-type organic matter,
compared to the more aromatic character of vascular plant-derived organic matter found in coal
(Stuermer et al., 1982; Scott et al., 2009; Orem et al., 1999; Orem et al., 2007; Schlegel et al., 2013;
Orem et al., 2014).
8.3. Summary
The suite of organic compounds analyzed in this study was selected in order to evaluate the potential
occurrence of chemicals generally documented as components of hydraulic fracturing fluids (e.g., Ely,
1989; Veatch et al., 1989; Vidic et al., 2013; U.S. House of Representatives, 2011), and more specifically
of the chemicals in fracturing fluids that have been used in Colorado, within ground water and surface
water. In addition, results from these analyses will contribute to our understanding of organic matter
mobilization and composition in water (i.e., produced, formation) related to hydraulic fracturing
activities. Coal is known to contain a number of potentially toxic organic substances, including PAHs,
heterocyclic compounds, and aromatic amines (Orem et al., 2007). Environmental impacts due to the
mobilization of organic compounds in coal, by ground or surface water, are largely unknown, and few
studies have been published on organic substances present in produced and formation water related to
CBM extraction activities (Orem et al., 2014, and references therein).
Almost half of the detected compounds (46%; 13 of 28) were hydrocarbons commonly associated with
petroleum fuel releases. The presence of BTEX compounds and benzene derivatives is consistent with
results reported for other areas developing CBM resources and may reflect solubilization of coal
material, either as a by-product of natural water-rock interactions or the injection of fluid with solvent-
like properties into coal seams. While experimental research demonstrates the effects of solvents on
the coal matrix, very little research has been reported regarding compound-specific products generated
during solvent-coal interactions. Nonetheless, these findings have important implications for areas
undergoing extensive CBM development where, due to the lack of baseline data, water quality
conditions must be estimated after hydraulic fracturing has already begun.
139
-------
Retrospective Case Study in the Raton Basin, Colorado May 2015
9. Methane Oxidation: Little Creek Field
The Little Creek Field (see Figure 11) is located southwest of Walsenburg, Colorado, and was operated
by Petroglyph. In the spring of 2007, potentially explosive levels of methane vented into shallow
domestic water wells completed in the Poison Canyon Formation; the first report of gas within a water
well occurred on May 22, 2007 (COGCC, 2007b). The release of methane gas from the Vermejo
Formation coalbed production zone into the shallower Poison Canyon aquifer system led to elevated
dissolved methane concentrations in an aquifer used for drinking water (Norwest Corporation 2011a,
2011b). The purpose of ground water analyses collected within this study area was to examine potential
drinking water well contamination (methane and/or other contaminants) and secondary water quality
impacts related to methane migration.
Hydraulic fracturing was completed in the Little Creek Field in 1998 (five wells), 2004 (one well), and
2005 (three wells). Following a series of hydraulic fracturing applications in August 2005 (one well) and
November 2005 (two wells), gas and water production within the Little Creek Field began to rapidly
increase. By January 2006, daily gas volume had increased from ~10 thousand cubic feet (Mcf; daily gas
volume mean, 2002-2005) to 60 Mcf (Petroglyph, 2012). Positive production trends continued into
2007. In June 2007, daily mean gas volume had increased to 200 Mcf (Petroglyph, 2012), when it was
discovered that high—and potentially explosive—levels of methane were venting into domestic water
wells screened within the shallow aquifer system of the Poison Canyon Formation (COGCC, 2007a). At
this time, free-phase gas was present and dissolved gas concentrations began to increase in water
withdrawn from drinking water wells. Petroglyph, in conjunction with COGCC, began to actively monitor
the shallow aquifer water wells and CBM wells in July 2007 (COGCC, 2008). Initial measurements of gas
flow collected at some domestic water well heads exceeded 50 thousand cubic feet per day (Mcfd), and
a maximum gas flow rate, >100 Mcfd, was measured at one location in September 2007 (Norwest
Corporation, 2011b). Cumulative gas production of up to 5,000 Mcfd was reported in several domestic
water and CBM wells located east of the Little Creek Field (Norwest Questa, 2007b) and southeast of the
hydraulic barrier location (described below), indicating that methane migration was occurring on a
regional level, instead of locally. Shortly thereafter, Petroglyph and, through contract, Norwest Questa
Engineering and Norwest Applied Hydrology (Norwest), began reviewing, analyzing, and evaluating
available data to determine the origins of the methane found in the shallow ground water aquifers
(Norwest Questa, 2007b). The methane isotope composition indicated methane migration from the
Vermejo Formation coals (Norwest Questa, 2007a). The size and nature of the migration pathway
between the shallow Poison Canyon aquifer and the Vermejo Formation coals is unknown (Norwest
Applied Hydrology, 2008); however, results from numerical simulations suggested that: (i) methane was
migrating vertically along localized dikes, which trend southwest-northeast across the Little Creek Field,
through buoyancy effects; and/or (ii) the conduit existed within the vicinity of one of the CBM wells
(Lively #03-10; Norwest Questa, 2007a).
On July 20, 2007, Petroglyph shut-in 52 gas wells in the field at the request of COGCC. In January 2008,
COGCC issued Order 1-C6, which outlined a three-phase plan (Methane Investigation, Monitoring, and
Mitigation Program, MIMMP; see COGCC, 2008) to mitigate the methane migration and potentially
allow operations to eventually resume in the field. The goals of this program were to: (i) determine the
extent of the methane-impacted ground water, its origins, and migration using scientific and
engineering data; and (ii) to develop: (a) a remediation strategy for affected aquifers, (b) an ongoing
140
-------
Retrospective Case Study in the Raton Basin, Colorado May 2015
strategy for continued CBM operations, and (c) a strategy for degassing Vermejo coals in a controlled
manner for future public utilization of a large, fresh water aquifer (Norwest Questa, 2007b).
In March 2008, Petroglyph initiated Phase I of their mitigation program and recovery wells began
passively venting; this reduced, and in some cases eliminated, venting methane at private well locations
(Petroglyph, 2009). Mitigation efforts focused on removing methane from the produced water stream
at the affected wells, with the preferred outcome being the identification and plugging of the conduit;
however, identifying the specific conduit was not possible because this would have required reactivation
of CBM wells (Norwest Questa, 2007a). Instead, a hydraulic barrier was created by installing water
injection wells every 3,000 feet around the migration hot zone to help contain the migration of
methane. Methane dissolved in the water was removed, and the ground water was then re-injected
into the same shallow aquifer. This configuration of extraction and injection wells was designed to
create a hydraulic gradient for the methane and ground water to flow toward the pumping capture well
and prevent gas migration (Norwest Questa, 2007b). Landowner issues were addressed by installing
methane monitors (10 landowners), supplying water (seven land owners), or installing methane vent
systems on water wells (five wells) (Norwest Questa, 2007a). Over time, the remediation system for
the Poison Canyon aquifer appeared to reduce free-phase gas and dissolved gas concentrations
(Norwest Corporation 2011a, 2011b), and in September 2011 the remediation system was shut down. It
is important to note that the significant reduction in domestic well gas flows, after installation of the
recovery wells, was interpreted to mean that the mitigation system was removing gas from the Poison
Canyon Formation, and that a hydraulic barrier would contain gas migration (Norwest Applied
Hydrology, 2008).
9.1. Methane Attenuation
The release of methane gas from the Vermejo Formation coalbed production zone into the shallower
Poison Canyon aquifer system led to elevated methane concentrations in an aquifer used for drinking
water. The gas migration event occurred in the spring of 2007, approximately two years after hydraulic
fracturing occurred in the Little Creek Field.
Sampling for this retrospective case study was conducted from October 2011 to April/May 2013.
Changes in the concentrations and isotopic compositions of dissolved gases were tracked over four
sampling events and used to evaluate the intermediate-term response and water quality characteristics
of the shallow aquifer several years after the methane release. Geochemical and isotopic data indicate
that methane in the aquifer has undergone anaerobic oxidation of methane (AOM), which provides a
sink for upwardly diffusing methane (e.g., Pohlman et al., 2013 and references therein). AOM is a
microbially mediated process where methane is oxidized with different terminal electron acceptors;
known pathways include: (i) AOM coupled to sulfate reduction; (ii) AOM coupled to metal-oxide
reduction (i.e., iron and manganese; Beal et al., 2009; Riedinger et al., 2014); (iii) AOM by nitrite
dismutation (Ettwig et al., 2010); and (iv) AOM and disulfide disproportionation (Milucka et al., 2012).
The most thoroughly investigated biochemical hypothesis for AOM involves the oxidation of methane to
CO2 using sulfate (SO42~) as the terminal electron acceptor (pathway (i); see Hoehler et al., 1994;
Caldwell et al., 2008). This interaction is a cooperative metabolic process mediated by associations
between anaerobic methanotrophic archaea (ANMEs; single-celled organisms) and sulfate-reducing
bacteria (Hinrichs et al., 1999; Boetius et al., 2000). The coupled reaction is proposed to proceed
141
-------
Retrospective Case Study in the Raton Basin, Colorado May 2015
according to Eqn. 15 (Reeburgh, 1977), where methane is oxidized to CO2 using sulfate (SO42~) and the
end products of this microbially mediated reaction are bicarbonate (HCO3~) and bisulfide (HS~):
CH4 + SO42" ^> HCO3" + HS~ + H2O (15)
Time-related changes in the geochemical and isotopic composition of ground water collected from
impacted domestic wells within the Little Creek Field area are consistent with sulfate-dependent AOM.
Multiple lines of evidence, discussed in detail below, suggest that AOM is occurring; these include:
• Consumption of dissolved methane and sulfate and production of dissolved sulfide and
bicarbonate.
• CH4 loss coupled to production of higher-molecular-weight (C2+) gaseous hydrocarbons.
• A distinct pattern of 613C in dissolved inorganic carbon.
• A systematic shift in sulfur and oxygen isotope ratios of SO4, indicative of microbial sulfate
reduction.
9.1.1. Dissolved Methane and Sulfate Coupled with the Production of Dissolved Sulfide and
Bicarbonate
The initial, explosive gas venting incident occurred south of the mitigation area, at domestic well
RBDW06 (see Figure 11), and subsequent incidents of venting methane trended northward from this
location, which is in the same direction as the hydraulic gradient from the Spanish Peaks. Table 20
summarizes the observed average changes in methane, sulfate, sulfide, and bicarbonate concentrations
measured in ground water collected from all domestic wells within the Little Creek Field study area; data
are organized with respect to water type. Domestic wells RBDW07 and RBDW14, located north of the
hydraulic barrier (Norwest Questa, 2007b), contained very low concentrations of methane (<0.05 mg/L)
compared to other wells and may reflect an area of undisturbed ground water. These wells were used
as "control wells," and concentrations observed in these wells are used as baseline data, representative
of an impact-free Poison Canyon aquifer. Baseline values for RBDW07 (sodium-bicarbonate type) and
RBDW14 (sodium-sulfate type) are provided for comparative purposes (see Table 20). Historical water
quality data, collected during Petroglyph's monitoring program (2008-2011), were available for
domestic wells RBDW08, RBDW09, and RBDW10; these data were compiled with results obtained during
this case study. Historical data were not available for domestic well RBDW06, and the data shown were
collected over four sampling events during this case study. It is important to note that wells were
sampled only once in 2013, and the value shown for 2013 may not capture the seasonal variation in
methane oxidation observed in previous sampling rounds (Chanton et al., 2005; Smemo and Yavitt,
2007).
Observed concentration trends for bicarbonate and dissolved sulfide and sulfate in the methane-
impacted domestic wells are consistent with the CH4 oxidation reaction stated above (Eqn. 15).
Dissolved oxygen, nitrate, and iron do not appear to be important electron acceptors in this aquifer.
Dissolved oxygen was generally <1.0 mg/L in the ground water, indicating anaerobic conditions. Nitrate
plus nitrite were not detected in any of the impacted well locations, with the exception of RBDW09,
during round 3 (0.16 mg-N/L); iron was not detected above the QL in ground water collected from any
142
-------
Retrospective Case Study in the Raton Basin, Colorado
May 2015
Table 20. Annual (mean) methane, sulfate, sulfide and bicarbonate concentrations in ground water collected
from domestic wells within the Little Creek Field study area. Data are organized with respect to water
type, sodium-bicarbonate and sodium-sulfate; concentrations observed in domestic wells RBDW07
and RBDW14 are used as baseline (background) data, representative of an impact-free Poison
Canyon aquifer.
Sample ID
(sample size)
Methane
mg/L
Sulfate
mg/L
Bicarbonate
mg/L
ZHzS1
mg-S/L
Sod iu m-Bica rbonate
RBDW07
RBDW06
2011
2012
2013
RBDW08
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
(n=4)
(n=D
(n=2)
(n=D
(n=lf)
(n=lf)
(n=4tA)
(n=2)
(i=D
0.021
13.5
8.56
8.08
4.20
6.60
6.12
5.64
8.40
67.9
80.9
61.8
65.5
99.4
120
113
107
118
262
243
218
232
168
171
174
182
203
0.047
5.90
1.64
3.00
0.60
NA2
3.80
1.58
0.44
Sodium-Sulfate
RBDW14
RBDW09
2011
2012
2013
RBDW10
2010
2011
2012
2013
(n=4*B)
(n=2tA)
(n=2)
(i=D
(n=2f)
(n=4f)
(n=2)
(i=D
0.003
13.8
8.61
13.3
13.7
18.6
11.6
10.7
347
271
161
224
110
123
94.8
110
99.3
121
187
168
99
108
155
139
0.072
1.23
10.8
8.00
20.4tA
36.6
28.3
24.5
ZH2S = Mean dissolved sulfide results were calculated using only data collected during this case study.
2NA= Not available.
= Historical data, collected during Petroglyph's monitoring program (2007-2011; Petroglyph, 2013).
tA = Historical data; sulfide value is based on 1 sample (n = 1) for RBDW10 (Petroglyph, 2013).
A = Mean values were calculated using historical datat (Petroglyph) and data from round 1, this case study.
B = Mean values were calculated using historical datat (Petroglyph) and data from rounds 2-4, this case study.
143
-------
Retrospective Case Study in the Raton Basin, Colorado May 2015
domestic well. Dissolved sulfate concentrations ranged from 68 to 352 mg/L in the control wells
(RBDW07, RBDW14), and from 61 to 445 mg/L in the four impacted domestic wells. Sulfate is
apparently the most readily available electron acceptor in the aquifer; thus, the principal reaction
involved in CH4 oxidation appears to be SO42" reduction, shown in Eqn. 16, where the end product of this
bacterially mediated reaction is bisulfide:
SO42" + 4H2 + H+^> HS~ + 4H2O (16)
Dissolved sulfide concentrations within ground water collected from the impacted domestic wells (range
= 0.44-36.6 mg-S/L, J) were consistently several orders of magnitude higher than those obtained from
the control wells (mean <0.05 mg-S/L), indicating sulfide production. Further, dissolved sulfide
production was greatest in wells with sodium-sulfate water type (RBDW09, RBDW10), which is expected
given the presence of abundant sulfate (see Table 20).
Figures 46, 47, and 48 show the concentration of dissolved methane measured in ground water
collected from RBDW08, RBDW09, and RBDW10. At each of these locations, dissolved methane
concentrations slowly increased, peaked between late 2010 (RBDW09; see Figure 47) and early 2011
(RBDW08, see Figure 46; and RBDW10, see Figure 48), and then started decreasing. The decrease in
dissolved methane concentrations in late 2010/early 2011 was likely due to a combination of methane
removal via the remediation system and natural attenuation. Temporal trends observed in data
collected after September 2011, when the remediation program ended and shortly before sampling
began as part of this case study, are inferred to represent methane attenuation via biochemical
processes only. Dissolved methane concentrations obtained in October 2011 during round 1 of this
study were lower than the last measurement collected by Petroglyph in July 2011 (see Figures 46, 47,
and 48); however, over the course of the four sampling events, considerable fluctuation in methane
concentration was observed, especially in sodium-bicarbonate type ground water (i.e., RBDW06,
RBDW08), where sulfate is less abundant.
9.1.2. Loss of CH4, Coupled with Production of C2+ Gaseous Alkanes
Following the release of methane gas from the Vermejo Formation coalbed production zone into the
shallower Poison Canyon aquifer system in 2007, the concentration of methane gas dissolved in the
water samples began increasing, as the released gas equilibrated with the aqueous phase (e.g., Stolaroff
et al., 2012). The volume % methane measured in samples collected from RBDW08, RBDW10, and
RBDW14 by Petroglyph in 2009, was 38.0%, 33.7%, and 0.047%, respectively. Figure 49 (column A)
shows the temporal changes in the volume % methane measured in the headspace gas of ground water
collected from the impacted domestic well sites. Maximum methane gas concentrations were observed
in ground water collected from RBDW06 (67.4%), RBDW09 (57.9%), and RBDW10 (68.4%) during round
1 of this case study, and during round 2 at RBDW08 (49.3%). Concentrations decreased during
subsequent sampling rounds, and the % volume obtained during the last sampling event (round 4) was
less than the maximum concentration obtained at any given sample location. The reduction of CH4
measured in the headspace of ground water obtained from the impacted domestic well locations is
attributed to the microbial consumption of methane (Whiticar, 1999).
144
-------
Retrospective Case Study in the Raton Basin, Colorado
May 2015
12
9-
QUO
•*
-------
Retrospective Case Study in the Raton Basin, Colorado
May 2015
35
30-
25-
20-
ro
10 -J
0
Little Creek Field - RBDW09
-- n-- Petroglyph Energy, Inc.
0 This study (U.S. EPA)
i --•"
cr'
2007
2008
\
r,--'
2009 2010
i
<
„*•
..,--••"""
Free gas flow
ceased at well head
!
2011 2012
rH
O
s
v v L
~r
s
i
c
3
i
i
S
1 S
O ,''"
v^
2013 .
.
•
;
i -
i/r
(
/
t
a /
\ ° '
t
_
•
Jun Sep Dec Mar Jun Sep Dec Mar Jun Sep Dec Mar Jun Sep Dec Mar Jun Sep Dec Mar Jun Sep Dec Mar Jun
Date Collected
Figure 47. Temporal trends in dissolved methane concentration (mg/L) in ground water samples collected from RBDW09. Historical data, collected by
Petroglyph Energy, Inc., are shown in blue (Norwest Corporation, 2011a); data collected during this case study are green. The date where free gas flow ceased
at the well head is indicated with an arrow (Norwest Corporation, 2011b).
146
-------
Retrospective Case Study in the Raton Basin, Colorado
May 2015
35
30-
25-
"oo 20
E
oT
c
ro 15
i ' • | i i | i i | i • | i i | • i i • i ' i | i i | i i | i i T^ r-| i i | r-i | i i > i | • i | r ,
Jun Sep Dec Mar Jun Sep Dec Mar Jun Sep Dec Mar Jun Sep Dec Mar Jun Sep Dec Mar Jun Sep Dec Mar Jun
Date Collected
Figure 48. Temporal trends in dissolved methane concentration (mg/L) in ground water samples collected from RBDW10. Historical data, collected by
Petroglyph Energy, Inc., are shown in blue (Norwest Corporation, 2011a); data collected during this case study are green. The date where free gas flow
ceased at the well head is indicated with an arrow (Norwest Corporation, 2011b).
147
-------
Retrospective Case Study in the Raton Basin, Colorado
May 2015
80-
Methane (C,), Volume °
N) -P> CTl
3 O 0 0
Methane (C) ), Volume %
N> -to CTi DO
3 O 0 0 0
80
Methane (Cj, Vol
ro Ł1
D 0 0
SO-
•5
Methane (CJ, \
r-j Ł>
D 0 0
A)
r) Range of methane (c,, vol %), Little Creek Field
§ Vermejo Produced Gas NaHca- Water Tvpe
O RBDW06
0- .
x~ ~^-—— ___'; _ o
^ September 2011 -
Remediation system is shut down
Range of C,, RBDW07:
Unimpacted domestic well
CBM 1234
4 [ Range of methane (C , vol 54), Lltlle Cre5k f ield
§ 1 Vermejo Produced Gas NaHCO, Water J™*
RBDW08
September 2011 -
Remediation system is shut down
Range of C,, RBDW07:
Unimpacted domestic well
2009 1234
1 T Range of methane (c,, vol %), Little Creek Field
1 1 Vermejo Produced Gas NaSo. Water TWe
-O— RBDWU9
~L ^ — ------ -- '
^ September 2011 -
Remediation system is shut down
Range of C,, RBDW14:
Unimpacted domestic well
2009 1234
B 1 Range of methane (C^ vol %), Uttle Creek Field
1 1 Vermejo Produced Gas N ^°, Water Type
— O--RBDW10
-H^*
Q September 2011 -
Remediation system is shut down
Range of c,, RBDW14:
Unimpacted domestic well
0.04.
* 0.03
> 002
S
0.01.
004
65 0.03 .
V
_3
> 0,02
0.01.
0,04-
°^ 003
01
3
.0
> 0.02
0.01-
0,04.
01
1
a
.0
> 0.02
0.01
000
B)
-» RBDW06. IC^
^ September 2011 -
Remediation system is shut down
Jl Range of 1C^ (vol K],
|JJ Vermejo Produced Gas
CBM 1234
RBDW08, i.Ct
^ September 2011 -
Remediation system is shut down
o Range of 1C, vol%),
o Vermejo Produced Gas
2009 1234
—9- RBDW09, ZC,
•
September 2011 -
Remediation system is shut down
'-, Range of EC,, (vol %),
^ Vermejo Produced Gas
CBM 1234
-••-• RBDW10, IC2
September 2011 -
Remediation system is shut down
»- -=_, ^_ 9
y
ftl/_ Range of SC2t (vol %),
Vermejo Produced Gas
Sampling Round Sampling Round
Figure 49. Temporal trends in gas composition (C^ column A; ZC2+, column B) for selected locations within the
Little Creek Field study area (Huerfano County, CO). Additional data sources: Norwest Corporation, 2009; ESN
Rocky Mountain, 2003; Norwest Corporation, 2011c.
148
-------
Retrospective Case Study in the Raton Basin, Colorado May 2015
Gas and molecular composition analyses of ground water collected from domestic wells in the Little
Creek Field area during this case study indicated the presence of higher chained hydrocarbons (>C3),
which are uncharacteristic of Poison Canyon ground water (i.e., RBDW07, RBDW14), and Vermejo-
produced water (see "Dissolved Gases" section for more information). Further, these higher chain
hydrocarbons were detected only in wells impacted by the methane release; these data are shown in
Figure 49 (column B). The appearance of higher molecular-weight (C2+) gaseous alkanes suggests that
gaseous hydrocarbons are being produced via biologically mediated pathways (Hunt et al., 1980; Vogel
et al., 1982; Oremland et al., 1988; Hinrichs et al., 2006; Xie et al., 2013 and references therein).
Significant concentrations of dissolved ethane, propane, and butanes have been detected in a variety of
anaerobic aquatic environments that contain active methanogenic flora, and there is evidence that
bacterial production of C2+ alkanes accompanies methanogenic activity within these environments
(Oremland, 1988). Furthermore, the addition of alkanes (>Ci) stimulates sulfate reduction and rates of
C2-C4 consumption, for example, are comparable to methane consumption, though their stoichiometric
impacts on the sulfate pool vary (e.g., Kniemeyer et al., 2007; Adams et al., 2013; Bose et al., 2013).
9.1.3. Distinct Patterns of 613C in Dissolved Inorganic Carbon and Methane
The carbon and hydrogen isotopes of methane, in conjunction with coexisting isotope information for
CO2 and H2O, provide tracers of the processes of bacterial formation and consumption of methane
(Whiticar, 1999). Methane oxidation is associated with a carbon isotope effect that results in the
enrichment of 13C in the remaining methane (Whiticar and Faber, 1986): microorganisms preferentially
consume 12CH4, resulting in 13C depletion in the CO2 produced and 13C enrichment in the residual
methane (Grossman et al., 2002). The net reaction for the oxidation of methane to CO2 is shown in Eqn.
17, where:
CH4 + 2H2O^>CO2 + 4H2 (17)
Figure 50A shows a methane C and H diagram, with genetic zonation as indicated in Jackson et al.
(2013), for ground water collected from the four impacted domestic wells in the Little Creek Field study
area; ground water collected from domestic wells RBDW07 and RBDW14 did not contain a sufficient
concentration of methane to obtain C and H isotope ratios. The slope of the oxidation trend is 7.5,
indicating that every permil (l%o) change in the 613CCH4 results in a change of approximately 7.5%o in the
62HCH4 value (R2= 0.89).
The greatest change in 613CCH4 (i.e., 613CCH4, M - 613CCH4,fni), 4.8%o, occurred at well RBDW09, followed by
RBDW08 (4.6%o), and RBDW10 (1.4%o); these three wells were located within the hydraulic barrier
system. At location RBDW06, the carbon isotopic composition obtained during round 4 (-49%o) was
slightly depleted relative to the first isotope measurement obtained during round 1 of this case study
(-48.7%o). This well, located south of the hydraulic barrier, is also situated at a higher elevation than the
other wells in this area. Lower rates of methane oxidation at this location could be due to continuing,
low levels of methane migration, coupled with lower levels of available sulfate for sulfate-reduction; the
water type at this location is sodium-bicarbonate.
The stable carbon isotopic compositions of methane and DIG (ICO2) are determined by the various
environmental pathways of biogenic methane formation and consumption (Botz et al., 1996; Cheung et
al., 2010). Carbon isotopic compositions of DIG (613CD,C) in ground water collected from domestic and
monitoring wells in the Little Creek Field study area ranged from -40.9 to -12.0%o and had a mean value
149
-------
Retrospective Case Study in the Raton Basin, Colorado
May 2015
A)
0)
Q.
CM
CO
-LVJVJ ~
120-
140-
160-
180-
200-
220-
240-
260-
h 1 * 1 1 1 • \ ' \
Methane oxidation trend: Thermogenic
+7.5
1
Microbial
Gas Field
o
o
permil52HperS13C i Gas
.--''-' / J*
;'"
Mixe
t
/o
--- / @ /
» 4>®
(3)
d) X
>H
;u /
/ ®/
A
® Little Cr
•5 ^ n
6 w n
•'k
\ Raton Basin, Huerfano County ° R
O R
Vermeio Produced Gas
Field
-
-
-
,'-'
eek Field
3DW06
3DW08
3DW09
3DW10
-65 -60 -55 -50 -45 -40 -35
-30
B)
-10
-20-
•? -30-
Q.
•s
5
-40-
-50-
-60
Methane Oxidation
Region
Little Creek Field
O RBDW06
RBDW08
O RBDW09
O RBDW10
Methane Oxidation
Sulfate Reduction (Using S0t as an electron acceptor)
(Non-CH4 carbon substrate)
-60
-55
-50
-45
-40
-35
-30
613C
CH4
, permil
Figure 50. A) Characterization of dissolved methane sources in the Little Creek Field study area (Huerfano
County, CO), using stable C and H ratios of methane; historical isotope data were reported by ESN Rocky Mountain
(2003). Genetic zonation is after Jackson et al. (2013). B) Methane oxidation trends are shown using the
relationship between the stable carbon isotopes of methane (613CCH4) and dissolved inorganic carbon (613CD,C).
Lines represent calculated isotopic fractionation factors of 1.005,1.01, 1.02, and 1.03, which correspond to A13CD|C.
CH4 values of 5, 10, 20, and 30%o, respectively; values >1 indicate heavy isotope enrichment in the residual
methane. Numbers located inside of, or next to, symbols indicate the sampling round.
150
-------
Retrospective Case Study in the Raton Basin, Colorado May 2015
of -27.3 ± 10.3%o (n=25). The highest 613CD|C values were obtained from ground water collected at
domestic wells RBDW14 (mean = -12.3 ± 0.3%o) and RBDW07 (mean = -13.8 ± 0.2%o); these wells were
unaffected by the release of methane gas from the Vermejo Formation coalbed production zone into
the shallower Poison Canyon aquifer system. The lowest 613CD|C values were measured in ground water
collected from RBDW10 (mean = -40.3 ± 0.6%o); this is not surprising given the large enrichment in
613CCH4, relative to the other well locations, attributed to methane oxidation.
There is a distinct relationship between methane and the coexisting carbon dioxide in the biogenic
methane oxidation system: methane oxidation causes a clear, decrease in carbon isotope separation,
i.e., 613CC02 - 613CCH4 (Whiticar, 1999). Fractionation factors are usually compared between CO2 and CH4,
and written as a13Cc02-cH4 = (613CC02 + 1000)/(613CCH4 + 1000). The carbon isotope fractionation factors
(a13Cc02-cH4) associated with methane oxidation range from 1.0052 to 1.0313 (Whiticar and Faber, 1986),
where values >1 indicate heavy isotope enrichment in the residual methane. A carbon isotope plot of
613CCH4 versus 513CD,C for ground water collected from impacted domestic wells is shown in Figure SOB.
This figure includes lines representing calculated isotopic fractionation factors of 1.005, 1.01, 1.02, and
1.03, which correspond to A13C(DIC-CH4) values of 5, 10, 20, and 30%o, respectively. Calculated
fractionation factors (a13CD|C-CH4) for the impacted domestic well locations ranged from 0.997 to 1.03.
The mean fractionation factor values for RBDW06 (mean = 1.025 ± 0.003), RBDW08 (mean = 1.006 ±
0.003), and RBDW09 (mean = 1.014 ± 0.004) fell within the range associated with methane oxidation
(Whiticar and Faber, 1986); however, the fractionation factor calculated for RBDW10 did not (mean =
0.998 ± 0.0008). The low a13CD|C-CH4 result and depleted 513CD,c values (mean = -40.3%o, n = 4) measured
in ground water sampled at RBDW10 are likely due to sulfate reduction coupled with methane
oxidation. Sulfate reduction will decrease the 513CD|C without affecting the 613CCH4, whereas methane
oxidation will decrease the 513CD|C and increase the 613CCH4 (Schlegel et al., 2011; Coleman et al., 1981).
While hydrogen isotope compositions of the H2O-CH4 system provide a constraint on methane
production, independent of the carbon isotope system (Schoell, 1980; Whiticar et al., 1986; Martini et
al., 1998), few studies have examined hydrogen isotope fractionation during methane oxidation. As
with carbon, methane-oxidizing bacteria preferentially consume the lighter isotope (1H), resulting in 2H
enrichment in the residual methane; further, the change in 62HCH4 that has been oxidized by bacteria is
three to 14 times greater than the change observed in the 613CCH4 value (Liptay et al., 1998).
Fractionation factors between 62HCH4 and 62HH20, where ct2HH20-cH4 = (62HH20 + 1000)/(62HCH4 + 1000),
were determined for impacted domestic well locations sampled during this case study; mean values
ranged from 1.055 to 1.138, which fell within the range of experimentally determined results
(experimental range = 1.050 to 1.325; Coleman et al., 1981; Happell et al., 1994). Hydrogen isotope
fractionation was greatest in water collected from domestic well RBDW06 (ct2HH20-cH4 av§ = 1.138), with
little variability between sampling events (range = 0.030). The mean calculated hydrogen fractionation
factors (a2HH20-cH4 avg) for RBDW08, RBDW09, and RBDW10 were 1.060, 1.091, and 1.055, respectively.
There was little variability in the hydrogen isotope composition of water and methane during rounds 1
through 4 at RBDW10 (range = 0.010); however, a2HH20-cH4 increased from 1.041 (round 1) to 1.086
(round 4) at RBDW08, and decreased from 1.131 (round 1) to 1.064 (round 4) at RBDW09. Fluctuations
in a2HH20-cH4 at RBDW08 and RBDW09 mimic temporal trends observed for a13CD|C.CH4 and may indicate
changes in the pathway of methane oxidation, possibly caused by the accumulation or depletion of
some other component in the system (Coleman et al., 1981; Bose et al., 2013).
151
-------
Retrospective Case Study in the Raton Basin, Colorado May 2015
9.1.4. Systematic Shift in Sulfur and Oxygen Isotope Ratios of SO4-Microbial Sulfate
Reduction
As noted previously in this report, sulfate isotope data for dissolved sulfate in ground water from the
Little Creek Field study area showed a wide range of 534S values, from -2.2 to 39.5%o. In addition, the
positive correlation of 534SS04 and 518OS04, enrichment of 34S in sulfate, the ratio of 18O to 34S of ~1:5, and
the presence of dissolved sulfide in ground water of this area are all evidence of microbial sulfate
reduction. The sulfur isotopic composition of dissolved sulfide ranged from -17.2 to -6.0%o, and the 534S
of coexisting dissolved sulfate ranged from -3.4 to ll.l%o. The isotopic separation between coexisting
sulfate and sulfide, 534Ss04-534SH2s, ranged from 11.9 to 48.5%o and shows a marked trend with the
concentration of sulfate (see Figure 51A). Assuming a closed system with uniform concentration and
isotopic composition, the isotopic separation between dissolved sulfide and dissolved sulfate can be
modeled using the Rayleigh isotope fractionation equation:
534SSo4-534SH2s = Łln(C/Co) (18)
where e is the instantaneous fractionation factor, C0 is the initial sulfate concentration, and C is the
residual sulfate concentration. Fractionation factors ranging from -20 to -40%o are plotted in Figure
51A. An initial concentration value (C0) of 350 mg/L, the sulfate concentration at location RBDW14, is
assumed to represent unimpacted ground water containing no methane or dissolved sulfide. This
observed range of isotopic separation is indicative of microbial sulfate reduction and/or possibly of
bacterial disproportionation of intermediate sulfur compounds such as elemental sulfur and thiosulfate
(e.g., Habicht et al., 1998; Canfield, 2001; S0rensen and Canfield, 2004). Recent work indicates that
zero-valent sulfur is an important intermediate in anaerobic methane oxidation in marine systems
(Miluckaetal., 2012).
Dissolved sulfide concentrations were elevated at locations RBDW06, RBDW08, RBDW09, and RBDW10,
and were as high as 36.6 mg/L (J) at location RBDW10 during round 1 (approximately 1 millimole [mM]
sulfide). Dissolved sulfide often does not persist in systems with active sulfate reduction because it
tends to react with iron minerals and precipitate as iron sulfide (FeS, e.g., Spence et al. 2005; Van
Stempvoort et al., 2005). The build-up of significant dissolved sulfide concentrations at some locations
of this study suggests a deficiency of reactive iron in the aquifer solids and/or elevated rates of sulfide
production that exceed the intrinsic capacity of the system to remove sulfide via mineral precipitation.
Precipitation of FeS is not expected to produce an isotope effect of fractionation, so the dissolved sulfide
isotopic composition should be a reliable indicator of the instantaneous isotope fractionation associated
with the microbially mediated reduction of sulfate to sulfide.
Further evidence that bacterial sulfate reduction is occurring within a region of the Little Creek Field
aquifer is linked to oxidation of organic carbon, as revealed by carbon isotope data. Figure 51B shows
that well waters that contained dissolved sulfate also had 13C-depleted DIG (613CD,C). Similar to the
findings of Van Stempvoort et al. (2005; see also Grossman et al., 2002), this correlation suggests a
direct link between bacterial reduction of sulfate and the production of DIG by the oxidation of
13C-depleted organic carbon. Note that the ground water compositions that showed the most significant
depletion of 13CD,C were sodium-sulfate type, which had 513CD,C values that were up to 30%o more
negative than the 513CD|C value at location RBDW14, a location that displayed sodium-sulfate type
composition but no significant methane or dissolved sulfide (see Figure 51B). In contrast, location
152
-------
Retrospective Case Study in the Raton Basin, Colorado
May 2015
A)
Q
U
>
E
.
1_
(U
Q.
•i
5
U
3
CO
-15-
-20-
-25-
-30-
-35 -
-40-
No sulfide/methane No sulfide/methane <^
^Na-HC03type Na-S04type DW14
c>/S^
Q) -c^/*®
DW06 ^xJ
0 ^
o
DW08 0* DW09 °
*
DW1000°
v^
~
Na-HCO3 water type
O
RBDW06
RBDW08
Na-S04 water type
O
O
RBDW09
RBDW10
-
-
-
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Sulfate, mg/L
400
Figure 51. A) Sulfate-sulfide fractionation (834SSo4-834SH2s) versus sulfate concentration (mg/L). Lines represent
modeled (Eqn. 18) fractionation factor values, ranging from -20 to -40%o, where Ł is the fractionation factor
between dissolved sulfate (834SS04) and dissolved sulfide (834SH2s)- B) The isotopic composition of DIG (613CD|C)
versus sulfate concentration. Background values for RBDW07 (sodium-bicarbonate type) and RBDW14 (sodium-
sulfate type), representative of an impact-free Poison Canyon aquifer, are provided for comparative purposes.
153
-------
Retrospective Case Study in the Raton Basin, Colorado May 2015
RBDW06 showed consistent sodium-bicarbonate type composition, and 513CD,C values that were
consistently less 13C-depleted compared to locations with sodium-sulfate type compositions (i.e.,
RBDW09 and RBDW10). Therefore, the addition of mineralized carbon at location RBDW06 has not
reduced the 513CD,c value to the same extent observed at locations RBDW08, RBDW09, and RBDW10.
Location RBDW08 has likely transitioned to sodium-bicarbonate from sodium-sulfate type composition
due to consumption of sulfate and production of bicarbonate.
9.1.5. Little Creek Field: Impacts
It was expected that this case study would provide a context for other regions that have experienced gas
migration and provide new information about the processes and rates of methane attenuation in a
drinking water aquifer after remediation and abatement of the source of methane. These results are
unique in showing system behavior after a methane release and provide information about a
biogeochemical response to methane intrusion.
Geochemical and isotopic compositional trends reflect sulfate-dependent anaerobic methane oxidation
processes, resulting in the consumption of dissolved methane and sulfate and production of dissolved
sulfide and bicarbonate. The appearance of higher molecular-weight gaseous alkanes (C2+), enrichment
of 613CD|C coupled with 613CCH4 depletion, and systematic shifts in the sulfur and oxygen isotope ratios of
sulfate are consistent with anaerobic methane oxidation via sulfate reduction. Furthermore, temporal
trends in these data show that oxidation rates and mechanisms differ by location. The high 634S of
sulfate, and low(er) sulfate concentrations in domestic wells RBDW06 and RBDW08 are consistent with
microbial sulfate reduction; however, the large carbon and hydrogen fractionation factors (a13Cc02-cH4
and a2HH2o-cH4, respectively) suggest that methane oxidation rates are low and/or a continuous supply of
methane has overwhelmed methane-oxidizing bacteria. There was little variability in the 613CCH4 at
RBDW06 (mean = -48.4 ± 1.07%o, n = 4), and this isotopic composition is similar to the isotopic
composition of Vermejo produced gas (range = -51.0 to -48.2%o, n = 6; Norwest Questa, 2007b; Norwest
Corporation, 2011a). The 613CCH4 of ground water collected from RBDW08 is becoming depleted over
time (-38.75 to -43.39%o, round Ito round 4, respectively) approaching the 613CCH4 of Vermejo CBM,
while 613CD|C is becoming enriched (-34.05 to -33.33%o, round 1 to round 4, respectively) relative to the
measured 613CCH4 values for this location. The strong correlation between 613CCH4 and sulfate
concentration (R2 = 0.91), large 634SS04 values, and small carbon and hydrogen fractionation factors in
ground water collected from RBDW10 demonstrate that significant methane oxidation via sulfate
reduction has occurred at this location. The occurrence of a higher sulfate concentration, lower 634SS04,
and enriched 613CCH4 value at RBDW09 may indicate that sulfate reducers are not dominant at this
location, and that methane may be oxidized by additional pathways. Additionally, the extent to which
simultaneous production and anaerobic oxidation of longer chain alkanes (C2+) affects sulfate reduction
rates may have significant, localized (i.e., site-specific) impacts; however, more data are needed to
evaluate this relationship (Adams et al., 2013; Bose et al., 2013 and references therein). It is possible
that alkane degradation is a significant process that co-occurs with AOM, and may compete for a
common oxidant, such as sulfate.
The purpose of the recovery wells was to create a hydraulic gradient for the flow of ground water and
associated methane toward the pumping wells (Norwest Applied Hydrology, 2008), and this differential
could account for the immediate decrease in free-flowing gas. However, the elimination of free-flowing
methane at the well head is not a successful indicator of subsurface conditions: at two domestic well
154
-------
Retrospective Case Study in the Raton Basin, Colorado May 2015
locations (RBDW09, RBDW10), although methane was no longer measurably venting from the well head
(gas flow = 0 Mcfd, early 2008), dissolved methane concentrations increased to potentially harmful
levels (i.e., 1.1 mg/L). Increasing levels of dissolved methane during the period when methane was
being removed from the system suggests that methane continued to migrate along pathways from the
lower Vermejo Formation into the Poison Canyon Formation. The initial, explosive gas venting incident
occurred south of the mitigation area, at domestic well RBDW06, and subsequent incidents of venting
methane trended northward, from this location, which is in the same direction as the hydraulic gradient
from the Spanish Peaks. Still, the well head at this location (RBDW06) and at the location where the
second incident was reported ("Well C," not sampled as part of this study and located 2,000 feet to the
north of location RBDW06) continued to vent methane (into late 2010), long after gas flow had ceased
at wells located within the hydraulic barrier (see Figure 52). Cumulative gas production of up to 5,000
Mcfd was reported in several domestic water and CBM wells located east of RBDW06 (Norwest Questa,
2007b) and southeast of the hydraulic barrier location—further evidence that methane migration was
occurring on a regional level, instead of locally.
The decrease in dissolved methane concentrations in late 2010/early 2011 was likely due to a
combination of methane removal via the remediation system and natural attenuation. Temporal trends
observed in data collected after September 2011, when the Petroglyph remediation program ended and
shortly before sampling began as part of this case study, are inferred to represent methane attenuation
via biochemical processes. While these results are unique in showing system behavior after a methane
release—and provide information about biogeochemical response to methane intrusion, attenuation
rates, and capacity—the persistence of AOM within this area is questionable in the long term due to a
potential "exhaustion" of terminal electron acceptor(s) and a lack of electron acceptor "replenishment"
given the slow rates of ground water movement and recharge within the study area. Ongoing reducing
conditions, coupled with decreasing concentrations of inorganic electron acceptors often linked to AMO
and little geochemical and atmospheric input, may impose thermodynamic constraints on methane
oxidation rates that could significantly impact the long-term sustainability of natural attenuation within
the Little Creek Field area (Smemo and Yavitt, 2007).
155
-------
Retrospective Case Study in the Raton Basin, Colorado
May 2015
A)
.
15-
"D
^ 12-
oT
s 9-
OC
1 6-
LL.
i 3-
0-
Little Creek Field, RBDW06
--Q-- Dissolved Methane
2008 2009
--2007
An
w L^— ^_
2010 2011
I
i
i
3
•1
J
^
!
\
V
\
\
1 (
\ 1
1 1
1
2012
i
c
J
i
C
\i '
5 '
\'
5
2(
M
^
r
\ ,
^ C
xc
. . | ,
)13
T
-t
3
•w
*
f
)
-15
-12 _i
QO
-9 1
(0
-6 5
-3
-0
Jul OctJanApr Jul OctJanApr Jul OctJanApr Jul OctJanApr Jul OctJanApr Jul OctJanApr Jul
B)
150
125-
100 -i
Little Creek Field, Well "C"
Gas flow rate, mcfd
OJ
4-1
(0
ec
o
to
5
0
i ' ' i ' ' i ' • i p ' i • ' i ' ' i ' • i' • i ' ' i ' • i • ' i' • i • ' i • ' i • • i' • i ' • i • • i
FebMayAug Nov FebMayAug Nov FebMayAug Nov FebMayAug Nov FebMayAug Nov
0
Date Collected
Figure 52. Temporal trends in gas flow measurements and dissolved methane concentrations (mg/L) at domestic
well locations A) RBDW06 and B) Well "C", located within the Little Creek Field study area (Huerfano County, CO).
Historical dissolved methane data, collected by Petroglyph Energy, Inc., are shown in blue (Norwest Corporation,
2011b); data collected during this case study are green.
156
-------
Retrospective Case Study in the Raton Basin, Colorado May 2015
10. Summary of Case Study Results
The Colorado portion of the Raton Basin was selected for a retrospective case study to address reported
instances of decreased water quality in domestic wells related to issues such as high dissolved methane
and dissolved sulfide concentrations, appearance, odor, and taste. CBM development and production in
the Raton Basin, located in southern Colorado and northern New Mexico, has increased over the past
decade. Annual production of methane from coal beds in Las Animas and Huerfano counties averaged
about 103 Bcf during 2007-2013, or about 20% of Colorado's total natural gas production. Coal beds in
the Raton Formation (Late Cretaceous to Tertiary) and the Vermejo Formation (Cretaceous) are the
primary sources of methane in the Raton Basin. Gas production from these coal beds depends upon
hydraulic fracturing technologies to enhance and create fracture porosity, permeability, and gas flow.
This study was prompted by concerns about potential impacts on drinking water resources, such as: (i)
potential interactions between CBM-produced water and shallow ground water via fluid migration,
spills, and/or infiltration; (ii) potential for migration of chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing
formulations into shallow ground water; (iii) potential gas migration from hydraulically fractured zones
in the gas-producing coal beds into shallow ground water aquifers; and (iv) secondary biogeochemical
affects related to the migration and reaction of methane in shallow aquifers used for drinking water.
The sampling locations selected by EPA for this case study focused on three areas: the Little Creek Field
area in south-central Huerfano County, the North Fork Ranch area in western Las Animas County, and
the Arrowhead Ranchettes area, also located in western Las Animas County. Water quality samples
were collected from a maximum of 14 domestic wells, five monitoring wells, three surface water
locations, and three production wells in Las Animas and Huerfano counties during four rounds in
October 2011, May 2012, November 2012, and April/May 2013. The water samples collected were
analyzed for geochemical parameters (temperature, pH, SPC, ORP, dissolved oxygen, and turbidity),
major cations and anions, nutrients, trace metals, VOCs, SVOCs, DRO, GRO, glycol ethers, low-molecular-
weight acids, strontium isotope ratios, and selected stable isotopes (618OH20, 62HH20, 613CD,C, 613CCH4,
62HCH4, 618OS04, 634SS04, and 634SH2s)- The data collected for this case study include a range of compounds
and chemical indicators that are potentially linked to hydraulic fracturing activities and aid in providing a
conceptual framework for evaluating potential impacts. In order to help determine whether hydraulic
fracturing or processes related to hydraulic fracturing caused or contributed to alleged impacts on water
quality, environmental record searches were conducted to identify other potential contaminant sources.
Candidate causes of water quality impairment included potential sources that could contribute to any
detected levels of surface and/or ground water contamination. For this case study, candidate causes
were categorized as follows: industrial/commercial land use, historical land use (e.g., farming and
mining), current drilling processes/practices, historical drilling practices, and naturally occurring sources.
Table 21 summarizes the potential ground water and surface water impacts identified during this study.
In contrast to shale gas and most conventional oil and gas development, recovery of CBM typically
occurs at relatively shallow depths, sometimes within or in close proximity to drinking water aquifers
(Watts, 2006b). Within the areas examined for this case study, the vertical separation between the gas-
producing zones and the domestic wells sampled ranged from about 1,250 to 2,360 feet. The evaluation
of potential impacts from unconventional CBM gas development included an analysis of CBM water
geochemistry in relation to shallow ground water geochemistry, analysis of historical ground water
quality in Las Animas and Huerfano counties, consideration of the chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing,
157
-------
Retrospective Case Study in the Raton Basin, Colorado
May 2015
and analysis of dissolved gases and their isotopic compositions. Historical water quality data were
obtained from literature sources and state and federal water quality databases. In some cases, these
historical data were used to examine water quality trends in the Raton Basin aquifers before CBM
development. Water co-produced with natural gas in the Raton Basin has a distinct geochemical
signature: sodium-bicarbonate type water with moderate concentrations of IDS; low sulfate, calcium,
and magnesium concentrations; variable chloride concentration; enriched 13CD|C values; low ORP values;
and elevated concentrations of dissolved methane and ferrous iron. This geochemical pattern is
generally considered to be the result of biochemical sulfate reduction, consequent enrichment of
bicarbonate, and precipitation of calcium carbonate, magnesium carbonate, and/or gypsum. The gas
composition is also characteristically dry, with a molar [CH4/C2H6] ratio >300. Constituents and
parameters in CBM water that sometimes exceed standards for drinking, livestock, and irrigation water
applications include TDS, SAR, pH, iron, and fluoride. The production wells sampled in this study had
TDS values generally >500 mg/L; mean fluoride concentrations that ranged from 2.6 to 3.6 mg/L; pH that
ranged from 8.0 to 8.5; and SAR values that ranged from 33 to 66 (mequiv/L) \ High SAR values are a
potential concern for water discharged at the surface because Na+-enriched water in soil can cause
cation exchange by replacing Ca2+ with Na+, which impacts properties of clay minerals in soil. Surface-
discharged CBM water could potentially infiltrate and impact ground water quality, particularly in areas
where flowing streams lose water to ground water. The possibility exists that wells used for drinking
water could be impacted in such hydrologically vulnerable settings, although no direct evidence of this
process was documented in this study.
Table 21. Potential ground water and surface water impacts identified during the Raton Basin, CO, retrospective
case study.
Impacted
Parameters
Dissolved
Methane
Tert-Butyl Alcohol
Volatile Organic
Compounds
Study Area
North Fork
Ranch
Arrowhead
Ranchettes
Little Creek
Field
North Fork
Ranch
Arrowhead
Ranchettes
Little Creek
Field
North Fork
Ranch
Arrowhead
Ranchettes
Little Creek
Field
Locations
All
All
All
RBDW03 RBMW02
RBMW03 RBPW01
RBDW11
RBDW15
RBDW02 RBDW03
RBDW05 RBMW02
RBMW03 RBPW01
RBPW02 RBPW03
RBSW01 RBSW03
RBDW11
RBDW06 RBDW08
RBDW09 RBDW10
RBDW14 RBDW15
Sample
Type
Ground
water
and
surface
water
Ground
water
Ground
water
and
surface
water
Description
0.003 to 20.9 mg/L,
including all well
types and surface
water. Widely
distributed;
multiple isotopic
signatures
6.9 to 1,310 ug/L;
detected in
domestic wells,
monitoring wells,
and a production
well
BTEX compounds,
chloroform,
petroleum
hydrocarbons; low
concentration
levels, below MCLs
Potential Sources
Thermogenicand
biogenic processes;
gas migration from
coal beds
Microbial;
anthropogenic
Coal-water
interactions; well
disinfection;
surface discharge;
well components
158
-------
Retrospective Case Study in the Raton Basin, Colorado
May 2015
Table 21. Potential ground water and surface water impacts identified during the Raton Basin, CO, retrospective
case study.
Impacted
Parameters
Semivolatile
Organic
Compounds
Fluoride
Sulfate
Iron and
Manganese
pH
Sodium
Adsorption Ratio
Study Area
North Fork
Ranch
Arrowhead
Ranchettes
Little Creek
Field
North Fork
Ranch
Arrowhead
Ranchettes
Little Creek
Field
North Fork
Ranch
Arrowhead
Ranchettes
Little Creek
Field
North Fork
Ranch
Arrowhead
Ranchettes
Little Creek
Field
North Fork
Ranch
Arrowhead
Ranchettes
Little Creek
Field
North Fork
Ranch
Arrowhead
Ranchettes
Little Creek
Field
Locations
RBDW01 RBDW02
RBDW04 RBDW05
RBDW13 RBMW01
RBMW03 RBPW01
RBPW03 RBSW01
All
All
RBMW03 RBPW01
RBSW03
none
RBDW08 RBDW09
RBDW10 RBMW04
RBMW05
none
none
RBDW14
RBDW02 RBDW13
RBMW01 RBPW03
RBSW02
RBDW11
RBDW09
RBDW05 RBSW01
RBDW12
RBDW07 RBDW08
RBDW10 RBDW14
RBMW04 RBMW05
RBSW01 RBSW02
RBSW03
--
--
Sample
Type
Ground
water
and
surface
water
Ground
water
and
surface
water
Ground
water
and
surface
water
Ground
water
and
surface
water
Ground
water
and
surface
water
Surface
water
Description
Phthalates,
adipates, phenol,
squalene; MCL
exceedances for
bis-(2-ethylhexyl)
phthalate
Widely distributed;
locations noted
with fluoride levels
exceeding the
primary MCL (4
mg/L)
Widely distributed;
one location
exceeded the
secondary MCL
(250 mg/L)
Regionally variable;
linked to moderate
and low oxidation-
reduction potential
environments
Some locations
exceeded the
secondary MCLpH
range (6.5-8.5)
Mean SAR values in
surface waters
ranged from 14 to
56 (mequiv/L)/2
Potential Sources
Coal-water
interactions; well
components; lab
contamination
Dissolution of
aquifer solids
(fluorite)
Dissolution of
sulfates and/or
sulfides
Dissolution of
aquifer solids
(carbonates,
sulfides)
Natural buffering of
pH; gas exsolution
causing pH to
increase
Permitted
discharge of Na-
HCO3 type CBM
water
159
-------
Retrospective Case Study in the Raton Basin, Colorado May 2015
Previous studies of ground water chemistry and hydrology in the Raton Basin, including assessments
conducted prior to CBM development, revealed variable water quality characteristics throughout the
basin that appear to be broadly related to geology and hydrologic setting (e.g., Powell, 1952;
Mclaughlin, 1966; Howard, 1982; COGCC, 2003a). Specific ground water constituents that sometimes
exceed established primary and secondary standards for drinking water use include IDS, pH, fluoride,
nitrate, iron, manganese, and sulfate. Similar trends in water quality characteristics (e.g., elevated pH,
fluoride, iron, manganese, and sulfate) were detected at some of the locations examined in this study.
Compared to CBM water, the geochemical signature in shallower aquifers used for drinking water,
including the Poison Canyon Formation and alluvial fill deposits, includes more variable major ion
compositions (calcium-bicarbonate, sodium-bicarbonate, and sodium-sulfate), lower IDS, generally
lower chloride and lithium, higher sulfate, depleted 13CD|C, and variable redox conditions. The contrast in
geochemistry between producing formations and shallower aquifers used for domestic water can be
used to assess potential fluid mixing. Water quality data collected in the Raton Basin from drinking
water aquifers prior to CBM development show similar ranges in specific conductance when compared
to more recent data, and no discernible shifts in major ion chemistry are apparent. Furthermore, the
sampling locations selected for this study showed consistent major ion patterns over the one-and-a-half-
year period of this study. These time-independent trends in major ions provide no evidence of water
quality impairment due to ground water migration at the selected sampling locations of this study.
Water isotope studies show that the ground water in alluvial deposits is sourced from local precipitation
and precipitation in high-altitude areas. Deeper ground water in the Cuchara-Poison Canyon aquifer and
the Raton-Vermejo aquifer is enriched in 18O and 2H compared to shallower ground water present in the
alluvium, suggesting a source of meteoric water sourced under warmer climatic conditions. Surface
water within the sampled tributaries is composed predominantly of production water discharged at the
surface, with relatively minor contributions from local precipitation. Differences in the isotopic
composition of strontium in ground water appear be constrained with respect to the geologic formation.
Despite similar strontium concentrations, produced waters from the Vermejo and Raton formations in
the North Fork Ranch study area are easily distinguished from ground water collected from the alluvial
and Poison Canyon aquifers by using the 87Sr/86Sr ratio. The strontium isotope composition of ground
water within the Little Creek Field has probably been modified from water-interactions with igneous
bodies emplaced during the Tertiary period. In this area, ground water was collected only from the
Poison Canyon Formation; without strontium isotope data from deeper producing formations, it is
unclear as to whether strontium isotopes can be used to trace mixing of water from different geologic
units within this area.
The purpose of the extensive analysis of organic chemicals was to evaluate the potential occurrence in
ground water and surface water of chemicals generally documented as components of hydraulic
fracturing fluids. In summary, bis-(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate was detected in some ground water wells at
levels that exceeded EPA's drinking water standards (MCL=6 u.g/L). TBA, DRO, and GRO were
consistently detected at levels above limits of quantitation at some locations; detections varied by study
site. BTEX compounds were detected at some locations on an inconsistent basis. There were no
detections of glycol ethers in samples from domestic wells; diethylene glycol and triethylene glycol were
detected in one sample collected from a production well in the last sampling round. The detection of
low-level concentrations of glycols in the production well is possibly related to the presence of residual
chemicals used as foaming agents during hydraulic fracturing. Almost half of the detected compounds
160
-------
Retrospective Case Study in the Raton Basin, Colorado May 2015
(46%) were hydrocarbons commonly associated with petroleum fuel releases. Detection of these
compounds at low levels, coupled with the lack of documentation of any fuel releases or their use in
hydraulic fracturing fluids within the vicinity of the study areas, suggests that these compounds are
sourced from the organic-rich deposits they are screened in. Furthermore, the presence of BTEX
compounds and benzene derivatives is consistent with results reported for other areas developing CBM
resources and may reflect solubilization of coal material, as a by-product of natural water-rock
interactions or enhanced solubilization due to injecting fluid with solvent-like properties into coal seams.
While experimental research demonstrates the effects of solvents on the coal matrix, very little research
has been reported regarding compound-specific products generated during solvent-coal interactions,
and additional experimental work is needed. Nonetheless, these findings have important implications
for areas undergoing extensive CBM development where, due to the lack of baseline data, water quality
conditions often must be estimated after hydraulic fracturing has already begun.
In this study, TBA was detected in ground water samples collected from domestic, monitoring, and
production wells at concentrations ranging from 6.9 to 1,310 u.g/L. When detected in ground water, the
usual source of TBA is as a degradation product of fuel oxygenate compounds, such as MTBE and/or
ETBE. However, several non-gasoline-related sources of TBA are also possible, such as TBA production
via chemical decomposition of TBHP orTBAc, microbial production of TBA by isobutane oxidation,
and/or generation via the reaction of isobutylene and water in the presence of a catalyst. The formation
pathway of TBA is unresolved, and both anthropogenic and natural sources are possible for the
occurrence of TBA documented in this study. There are no documented gasoline spills that occurred
within these areas and MTBE was banned in the state of Colorado in 2002, suggesting that MTBE/ETBE
degradation would not be able to account for the TBA detections present within ground water in two
areas examined during this case study. Available data indicate that TBHP, a chemical sometimes used in
hydraulic fracturing formulations as a gel breaker, was not used in nearby hydraulic fracturing
applications to develop CBM. It is possible that the TBA present within the study areas is from TBA
production via microbially mediated processes; however, due to limited experimental and field data, the
pathway has yet to be determined.
Dissolved methane was detected in all of the ground water samples collected from domestic wells;
mean concentrations ranged widely, from about 0.003 to 12.4 mg/L. The high frequency of methane
detections points to the widespread occurrence of methane in ground water of the Raton Basin. A
variety of stable isotope patterns and potential sources of methane were identified in this study,
including microbially sourced methane that is distinctive from thermogenic methane present in the
deeper coal beds, mixed thermogenic/biogenic sources, and thermogenic methane undergoing
oxidation. One of the key findings of the study is evidence that sulfate-reducing processes control the
natural attenuation of methane, which was previously released into, and impacted, a drinking water
aquifer in Huerfano County, Colorado. Multiple lines of evidence indicate that anaerobic oxidation of
methane is occurring; these include consumption of dissolved methane and sulfate and production of
dissolved sulfide and bicarbonate, methane loss coupled to production of higher-molecular-weight (C2+)
gaseous hydrocarbons, a distinct pattern of 613C in DIG, and a systematic shift in sulfur and oxygen
isotope ratios of SO4, indicative of microbial sulfate reduction. Time-trends of methane concentrations,
however, suggest that the overall process of methane attenuation is slow, and available data trends
provide no indication of the necessary timeframe required to reduce dissolved methane concentrations
to low levels. The persistence of anaerobic methane oxidation within this area is questionable in the
161
-------
Retrospective Case Study in the Raton Basin, Colorado May 2015
long term due to the potential exhaustion of terminal electron acceptor(s) and a lack of electron
acceptor replenishment, given the inferred slow rates of ground water movement and recharge within
the study area.
Data collected over the 19-month sampling period of this study provide insight into temporal and spatial
variations in water quality within a structurally complex region experiencing CBM development. Few
geochemical parameters can unambiguously distinguish between all possible contaminant sources, and
previous studies of ground water chemistry and hydrology in the Raton Basin, including assessments
conducted prior to CBM development, have revealed variable water quality characteristics throughout
the basin that appear to be broadly related to geology and hydrologic setting. It is important to
acknowledge that the rate of development and production of unconventional energy resources, such as
CBM, outpaces the time frame in which ecosystems respond and the rate that geological processes
occur; cause-effect relationships therefore may not be immediate and evidence of water quality
impairment may not occur until much later.
Key observations/findings from this study are summarized below.
• Recovery of CBM in the Raton Basin occurs within or in close proximity to resources classified as
Underground Sources of Drinking Water. Within the Raton Basin, the estimated vertical
separation between CBM production intervals and water-supply wells ranges from <100 feet to
more than 2,000 feet.
• The sampling locations examined in this study showed consistent major ion patterns over the
one-and-a-half-year period of the project. Time-independent trends in major ions suggest that
significant water migration from gas-producing zones to shallower aquifers used for drinking
water has not occurred.
• Previous studies of ground water chemistry and hydrology in the Raton Basin, including
assessments conducted before CBM development, have revealed variable water quality
characteristics throughout the basin that appear to be related to geology and hydrologic setting.
Specific constituents that sometimes exceed established primary and secondary standards for
drinking water use include TDS, pH, fluoride, nitrate, iron, manganese, and sulfate. Similar
water quality characteristics were detected at locations examined in this study.
• Streams sampled in this study received permitted discharges of produced water. When
compared to the composition of produced water, surface water showed consistent sodium-
bicarbonate type composition, organic compound detections, and isotopic patterns for inorganic
carbon, strontium, and water.
• Glycol ethers were not detected in samples from domestic wells, monitoring wells, or surface
water. Low levels of diethylene glycol and triethylene glycol were estimated in one of the
production wells during the last sampling event. No clear evidence of impacts to homeowner
wells from injected hydraulic fracturing fluids was indicated in this study.
• Concentrations of BTEX compounds were 0.7 to 5.1 orders of magnitude below EPA's drinking
water standards. The presence of BTEX compounds and benzene derivatives in ground water
from the Raton Basin is consistent with results reported for other areas developing CBM
resources and may reflect water-rock interactions and solubilization of coal material.
162
-------
Retrospective Case Study in the Raton Basin, Colorado May 2015
• TBA was detected in ground water samples collected from three domestic wells, two monitoring
wells, and one production well at concentrations ranging from 6.9 to 1,310 u.g/L. The formation
pathway of TBA is unresolved; both anthropogenic and natural sources are possible for the
occurrence of TBA documented in this study.
• Methane was ubiquitous in ground water samples collected in this study. In domestic wells,
mean concentrations varied widely from about 0.003 to 12.4 mg/L Methane isotope data
collected from domestic wells and monitoring wells in the North Fork Ranch study area indicate
that the methane is microbially sourced and distinctive from the thermogenic gas present in the
underlying CBM-producing coal beds.
• Approximately two years after the Little Creek Field had been hydraulically fractured, a
documented gas migration event occurred in this area and resulted in thermogenic gas from the
Vermejo Formation moving upward into the shallower Poison Canyon Formation. Analysis
indicates that sulfate-dependent anaerobic oxidation of methane was occurring, and elevated
dissolved sulfide concentrations in ground water reflected secondary biogeochemical changes
related to the migration and reaction of methane within a shallow aquifer used for drinking
water.
163
-------
Retrospective Case Study in the Raton Basin, Colorado May 2015
References
Abbott, P.O., Geldon, A.L, Cain, D., Hall, A.P., and Edelmann, P. (1983). Hydrology of Area 61, Northern
Great Plains and Rocky Mountain Coal Provinces, Colorado and New Mexico. U.S. Geological Survey
Water Resources Investigations Open-File Report 83-132, 105 pp.
Abbott, P.O. (1985). Description of water-systems operations in the Arkansas River Basin, Colorado.
U.S. Geological Survey Water Resources Investigation Report 85-4092, 79 pp.
Adams, M.M., Hoarfrost, A.L, Bose, A., Joye, S.B., and Girguis, P.R. (2013). Anaerobic oxidation of
short-chain alkanes in hydrothermal sediments: Potential influences on sulfur cycling and microbial
diversity. Frontiers in Microbiology, v. 4, Article 110, 11 pp.
Alperin, M.J., Blair, N.E., Albert, D.B., Hoehler, T.M., and Martens, C.S. (1992). Factors that control the
stable carbon isotopic composition of methane produced in an anoxic marine sediment. Global
Biogeochemical Cycles, v. 6, p. 271-291.
Alperin, M.J., Albert, D.B., and Martens, C.S. (1994). Seasonal variations in production and consumption
rates of dissolved organic carbon in an organic-rich coastal sediment. Geochimica et Cosmochimica
Acta, v. 58, p. 4909-4930.
Atlas, R.M. (1981). Microbial degradation of petroleum hydrocarbons—An environmental perspective.
Microbiological Reviews, v. 45, p. 180-209.
Bartos, T.T. and Ogle, K.M. (2002). Water quality and environmental isotopic analyses of ground-water
samples collected from the Wasatch and Fort Union Formations in areas of coalbed methane
development—Implications to recharge and ground-water flow, Eastern Powder River Basin, Wyoming.
U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 02-4045, 96 pp.
Batley, G.E. and Kookana, R.S. (2012). Environmental issues associated with coal seam gas recovery:
managing the frack boom. Environmental Chemistry, v. 9, p. 425-428.
Beal, E.J., House, C.H., and Orphan, V.J. (2009). Manganese- and iron-dependent marine methane
oxidation. Science, v. 325(5937), p. 184-187.
Bernard, B.B., Brooks, J.M., and Sackett, W.M. (1978). Light hydrocarbons in recent Texas continental
shelf and slope sediments. Journal of Geophysical Research: Oceans, v. 83, p. 4053-4061.
Bethke, C.M. (1996). Geochemical Reaction Modeling. Oxford University Press, New York.
Boetius, A., Ravenschlag, K., Schubert, C. J., Rickert, D., Widdel, F., Gieseke, A., Amann, R., J0rgensen,
B.B., Witte, U., and Pfannkuche, O. (2000). A marine microbial consortium apparently mediating
anaerobic oxidation of methane. Nature, v. 407(6804), p. 623-626.
Boreck, D.L and Murray, O.K. (1979). Colorado coal reserve depletion data and coal mine summaries.
Colorado Geological Survey Open-File Report 79-1, 65 pp.
Bose, A., Rogers, D.R., Adams, M.M., Joye, S.B., and Girguis, P.R. (2013). Geomicrobiological linkages
between short-chain alkane consumption and sulfate reduction rates in seep sediments. Frontiers in
Microbiology, v. 4, Article 386, 13 pp.
164
-------
Retrospective Case Study in the Raton Basin, Colorado May 2015
Botz, R., Pokojski, H.D., Schmitt, M., and Thomm, M. (1996). Carbon isotope fractionation during
bacterial methanogenesis by CO2 reduction. Organic Geochemistry, v. 25, p. 255-262.
Bowen, G.J. and Wilkinson, B. (2002). Spatial distribution of delta O-18 in meteoric precipitation.
Geology, v. 30, p. 315-318.
Bowen, G.J. and Revenaugh, J. (2003). Interpolating the isotopic composition of modern meteoric
precipitation. Water Resources Research, v. 39, Issue 10, 13 pp.
Bowen, G.J., Wassenaar, L.I., and Hobson, K.A. (2005). Global application of stable hydrogen and
oxygen isotopes to wildlife forensics. Oecologia, v. 143, p. 337-348.
Bowen, Z.H., Oelsner, G.P., Cade, B.S., Gallegos, T.J., Farag, A.M., Mott, D.N., Potter, C.J., Cinotto, P.J.,
Clark, M.L., Kappel, W.M., Kresse, T.M., Melcher, C.P., Paschke, S.S., Susong, D.D., and Varela, B.A.
(2015). Assessment of surface water chloride and conductivity trends in areas of unconventional oil and
gas development-Why existing national data sets cannot tell us what we would like to know. Water
Resources Research, v. 51, p. 704-715.
Bradley, P.M., Chapelle, F.H., and Landmeyer, J.E. (2001). Effect of redox conditions on MTBE
biodegradation in surface water sediments. Environmental Science and Technology, v. 35, p. 4643-4647.
Bradley, P.M., Landmeyer, J.E., and Chapelle, F.H. (2002). TBA biodegradation in surface-water
sediments under aerobic and anaerobic conditions. Environmental Science and Technology, v. 36, p.
4087-4090.
CA-OEHHA (1999). Expedited evaluation of risk assessment for tertiary butyl alcohol in drinking water.
California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, Sacramento, CA. Available at:
a^^ Accessed on December 15, 2013.
Caldwell, S.L, Laidler, J.R., Brewer, E.A., Eberly, J.O., Sandborgh, S.C., and Colwell, F.S. (2008).
Anaerobic oxidation of methane: Mechanisms, bioenergetics, and the ecology of associated
microorganisms. Environmental Science and Technology, v. 42, p. 6791-6799.
Canfield, D.E. (2001). Biogeochemistry of sulfur isotopes. In Stable Isotope Geochemistry, Reviews in
Mineralogy and Geochemistry, edited by J.W. Valley and D.R. Cole. Mineralogical Society of America,
Washington DC, p. 607-636.
Capo, R.C., Stewart, B.W., and Chadwick, O.A. (1998). Strontium isotopes as tracers of ecosystem
processes: Theory and methods. Geoderma, v. 82, p. 197-225.
Cavness, C.L. III. (2009). Spatial Dynamics of Tertiary Igneous Intrusion in Raton Basin, southern
Colorado. Thesis, Middlebury College, Middlebury, Vermont, 77 pp.
Chan, C.C.H., Mundle, S.O.C., Eckert, T., Liang, X., Tang, S., Lacrampe-Couloume, G., Edwards, E.A., and
Lollar, B.S. (2012). Large carbon isotope fractionation during biodegradation of chloroform by
Dehalobacter cultures. Environmental Science and Technology, v. 46, p. 10154-10160.
Chanton, J., Chaser, L., Glasser, P., and Siegel, D. (2005). Carbon and hydrogen isotopic effects in
microbial, methane from terrestrial environments In Stable Isotopes and Biosphere Atmosphere
Interactions, edited by L.B Flanagan, J.R. Ehleringer, and D.E. Pataki. Elsevier Academic Press, p. 85-105.
165
-------
Retrospective Case Study in the Raton Basin, Colorado May 2015
Chapelle, F.H., McMahon, P.B., Dubrovsky, N.M., Fujii, R.F., Oaksford, E.T., and Vroblesky, D.A. (1995).
Deducing the distribution of terminal electron accepting processes in hydrologically diverse ground-
water systems. Water Resources Research, v. 31, p. 359-371.
Chapman, B.C., Capo, R.C., Stewart, B.W., Kirby, C.S., Hammack, R.W., Schroeder, KT., and Edenborn,
H.M. (2012). Geochemical and strontium isotope characterization of produced waters from Marcellus
Shale natural gas extraction. Environmental Science and Technology, v. 46, p. 3545-3553.
Charlesworth, J.M. (1987). A review of sample preparation methods, and analysis of coal derived
materials by gas chromatography. Fuel Processing Technology, v. 16, p. 99-162.
Chawla, B. and Davis, B.H. (1989). Effect of temperature and solvent on coal extraction under mild
conditions. Fuel Processing Technology, v. 23, p. 133-148.
Cheung, K., Klassen, P., Mayer, B., Goodarzi, F., and Aravena, R. (2010). Major ion and isotope
geochemistry of fluids and gases from coalbed methane and shallow groundwater wells in Alberta,
Canada. Applied Geochemistry, v. 25, p. 1307-1329.
Choi, C.Y., Bloomquist, C.A.A., and Dyrkacz, G.R. (1989). Adsorption of surfactants on coals and
macerals. Energy and Fuels, v. 3, p. 38-42.
Cirvello, J.D., Radovsky, A., Heath, J.E., Farnell, D.R., and Lindamood, C. (1995). Toxicity and
carcinogenicity of t-butyl alcohol in rats and mice following chronic exposure in drinking water.
Toxicology and Industrial Health, v. 11, p. 151-165.
Clark J.J.J. (2002). Tert-butyl alcohol: Chemical properties, production and use, fate and transport,
toxicology, and detection in groundwater and regulatory standards oxygenates in gasoline. In
Oxygenates in Gasoline, ACS Symposium Series, vol. 799, ch. 7, p. 92-106.
Claypool, G.E., Holser, W.T., Kaplan, I.R., Sakai, H., and Zak, I. (1980). The age curves of sulfur and
oxygen isotopes in marine sulfate and their mutual interpretation. Chemical Geology, v. 28, p. 199-260.
Clayton, J.L. (1998). Geochemistry of coalbed gas—A review. International Journal of Coal Geology, v.
35, p.159-173.
COGA [Colorado Oil and Gas Association] (2013). Hydraulic fracturing and disclosure in Colorado.
Available at: http://www.coga.org/pdfs facts/Hydraulic Fracturing Disclosure.pdf. Accessed on
December 15, 2013.
COGCC [Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission] (2003a). Water quality data collected from
water wells in the Raton Basin, Colorado. Prepared for the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation
Commission by The SeaCrest Group (dated January 19, 2003). Available at:
http://cogcc.state.co.us/Library/RatonBasin/Seacrest Final Report.pdf . Accessed on November 13,
2013.
COGCC [Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission] (2003b). COGCC Raton Basin Study Staff
Report. Available at:
http://cogcc.state.co.us/Librarv/Waterlnfo/RatonBasinBaselineStudyConclusions.pdf. Accessed on
November 13, 2013.
166
-------
Retrospective Case Study in the Raton Basin, Colorado May 2015
COGCC [Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission] (2007a). Report of the Commission, Cause No.
IE, Order No. 1E-6. Available at: http://cogcc.state.co.us/orders/orders/lE/6.html. Accessed on
November 20, 2013.
COGCC [Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission] (2007b). Petroglyph Hearing Staff
Presentation, December 12, 2007. Available at:
http://cogcc.state.co.us/Librarv/RatonBasin/Petroglyph 0711-GA-02 Engineering.pdf. Accessed on
March 27, 2014.
COGCC [Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission] (2008). Methane Investigation, Mitigation, and
Monitoring Plan; Petroglyph Energy, Inc., Huerfano County; Cause No.l, Order No. 1-C6. COGCC Public
Information Presentation, November 15, 2008. Available at:
http://cogcc.state.co.us/Library/RatonBasin/15Nov2008.pdf. Accessed on December 18, 2013.
COGCC [Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission] (2010). In the matter of the alleged violations
of the rules and regulations of the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission by Pioneer Natural
Resources USA, Inc., Las Animas County, CO; Case No. IV; Order No. 1V-345. Denver, CO: Colorado Oil
and Gas Conservation Commission. Available at: https://cogcc.state.co.us/orders/orders/lv/345.html.
COGCC [Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission] (2011). Order No. 1R-114: Final fracing
disclosure rule. Available at: http://cogcc.state.co.us/RR HF2011/OrderlR-
114FinalFracingDisclosureRule.pdf. Accessed on December 14, 2013.
COGCC [Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission] (2013a). Frequently Asked Questions About
Hydraulic Fracturing. Available at:
http://cogcc.state.co.us/Announcements/Hot Topics/Hydraulic Fracturing/Frequent Questions about
Hydraulic Fracturing.pdf. Accessed on October 30, 2013.
COGCC [Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission] (2013b). COGIS-Environmental sample site
information, Facility ID #705740. Available at: http://cogcc.state.co.us/COGIS/LiveQuery.html.
Accessed on December 7, 2013.
COGCC [Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission] (2014a). Monthly Coalbed Methane Produced
by County. COGCC Reports Portal. Available at: http://cogcc.state.co.us/COGCCReports. Accessed on
June 23, 2014.
COGCC [Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission] (2014b). COGIS-Environmental sample site
information, Las Animas County. Available at: http://cogcc.state.co.us/COGIS/LiveQuery.html.
Accessed on August 28, 2014.
COGCC [Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission] (2015). Investigation of occurrences of tert-
butyl alcohol in Raton Basin groundwater, Huerfano and Las Animas counties, Colorado. Available at:
http://cogcc.state.co.us/Library/RatonBasin/Proiect 2130 Raton Basin TBA summary report Jan201
5.pdf. Accessed on February 7, 2015.
Coleman, D.D., Risatti, J.B., and Schoell, M. (1981). Fractionation of carbon and hydrogen isotopes by
methane-oxidizing bacteria. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, v. 45, p. 1033-1037.
167
-------
Retrospective Case Study in the Raton Basin, Colorado May 2015
Colorado Climate Center (2014a). Water Year Data—Colorado, 2000—2013. [Data files: Trinidad, CO
(#58429)]. Available at: http://climate.atmos.colostate.edu/coloradowater.php. Accessed on August 8,
2014.
Colorado Climate Center (2014b). Water Year Data—Colorado, 2000—2013. [Data files: Walsenburg, CO
(#58781)]. Available at: http://climate.atmos.colostate.edu/coloradowater.php. Accessed on August 8,
2014.
Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (2012). Colorado's Section 303(D) list of
impaired water and monitoring and evaluation list, 97 pp.
Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (2013). Oil and Gas Industry Environmental
Requirement. Available at: http://www.colorado.gov/cs/Satellite/CDPHE-AP/CBON/1251596441882.
Accessed on November 12, 2013.
Colorado Geological Survey (2000). Coalbed Methane— Colorado's World Class Commodity. Rock Talk,
Vol.3, No. 3, July, 2000.
Cooper, J.R., Crelling, J.C., Rimmer, S.M., and Whittington, A.G. (2007). Coal metamorphism by igneous
intrusion in the Raton Basin, CO and NM: Implications for generation of volatiles. International Journal
of Coal Geology, v. 71, p. 15-27.
Cozzarelli, I.M., Baedecker, M.J., Eganhouse, R.P., and Goerlitz, D.F. (1994). The geochemical evolution
of low-molecular-weight organic acids derived from the degradation of petroleum contaminants in
groundwater. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, v. 58, p. 863-877.
Cozzarelli, I.M., Bekins, B.A., Eganhouse, R.P., Warren, E., and Essaid, H.I. (2010). In situ measurements
of volatile aromatic hydrocarbon biodegradation rates in groundwater. Journal of Contaminant
Hydrology, v. Ill, p. 48-64.
Craig, H. (1961). Standard for reporting concentrations of deuterium and oxygen-18 in natural waters.
Science, v. 133, p. 1833-1834.
Dahm, K.G., Guerra, K.L., Xu, P., and Drewes, J.E. (2011). Composite geochemical database for coalbed
methane produced water quality in the Rocky Mountain region. Environmental Science and Technology,
v. 45, p. 7655-7663.
Dahm, K.G., Van Straaten, CM., Munakata-Marr, J., and Drewes, J.E. (2012). Identifying well
contamination through the use of 3-D fluorescence spectroscopy to classify coalbed methane produced
water. Environmental Science and Technology, v. 47, p. 649-656.
Danilchik, W. (1979). Content of adsorbed methane in coal from four core holes in the Raton and
Vermejo Formations, Las Animas County, Colorado. U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 79-762, 21
pp.
Deines, P., Langmuir, D., and Harmon, R.S. (1974). Stable carbon isotope ratios and the existence of a
gas phase in the evolution of carbonate ground waters. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, v. 38, p.
1147-1164.
168
-------
Retrospective Case Study in the Raton Basin, Colorado May 2015
Delany J.M. and Lundeen S.R. (1990). The LLNLthermochemical database. Lawrence Livermore
National Laboratory Report, UCRL-21658. Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory.
Delion, A., Torck, B., and Hellin, M. (1986). Equilibrium constant for the liquid-phase hydration of
isobutylene over ion-exchange resin. Industrial and Engineering Chemistry Process Design and
Development, v. 25, p. 889-893.
Denney, D.B. and Rosen, J.D. (1964). Concerning the mechanism of the induced decompositions of t-
alkyl and aralkyl hydroperoxides. Tetrahedron, v. 20, p. 271-279.
Dieter, M.P. (1993). NTP technical report on toxicity studies of ethylene glycol ethers: 2-
methoxyethanol, 2-ethoxyethanol, 2-butoxyethanol. National Toxicology Program Toxicity Report Series
Number 26. National Institutes of Health: Research Triangle Park, NC, 222 pp.
Dolly, E.D. and Meissner, F.F. (1977). Geology and gas exploration potential, Upper Cretaceous and
Lower Tertiary Strata, Northern Raton Basin, Colorado. In Exploration Frontiers of the Central and
Southern Rockies, edited by H.K. Veal. Rocky Mountain Association of Geologists Guidebook, p. 247-270.
Dwyer, D.F. and Tiedje, J.M. (1983). Degradation of ethylene glycol and polyethylene glycols by
methanogenic consortia. Applied and Environmental Microbiology, v. 46, p. 185-190.
Edwards, J.S. (1991). Potential hazards resulting from the presence of methane dissolved in
groundwater. Paper presented at the 4th International Mine Water Congress, Ljubljana, Slovenia,
Yugoslavia.
Eltschlager, K.K., Hawkins, J.W., Ehler, W.C., and Baldassare, F.J. (2001). Technical measures for the
investigation and mitigation of fugitive methane hazards in areas of coal mining. Office of Surface
Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, Pittsburgh, PA, 129 pp.
Ely, J.W. (1989). Fracturing fluids and additives. In Recent Advances in Hydraulic Fracturing, edited by
J.L. Gidley, S.A. Holditch, D.E. Nierode, and R.W. Veatch. Society of Petroleum Engineers, Monograph
Volume 12, Richardson, TX, p. 131-146.
Engle, M.A., Bern, C.R., Healy, R.W., Sams, J.I., Zupancic, J.W., and Schroeder, K.T. (2011). Tracking
solutes and water from subsurface drip irrigation application of coalbed methane-produced waters,
Powder River Basin, Wyoming. Environmental Geosciences, v. 18, p. 169-187.
ESN Rocky Mountain (2003). Produced gas and water testing of CBM gas wells in the Raton Basin,
Huerfano and Las Animas Counties, Colorado. Prepared for Colorado Oil and gas Conservation
Commission, Golden, CO, 42 pp.
Ettwig, K.F., Butler, M.K., Le Paslier, D., Pelletier, E., Mangenot, S., Kuypers, M.M.M., Schreiber, F.,
Dutilh, B.E., Zedelius, J., de Beer, D., Gloerich, J., Wessels, H.J.C.T., van Alen, T., Luesken, F., Wu, M.L,
van de Pas-Schoonen, K.T., Op den Camp, H.J.M., Janssen-Mergens, E.M., Francoijs, K., Stunnenberg, H.,
Weissenbach, J., Jetten, M.S.M., and Strous, M. (2010). Nitrite-driven anaerobic methane oxidation by
oxygenic bacteria. Nature, v. 464(7288), p. 543-548.
Finneran, K.T. and Lovley, D.R. (2001). Anaerobic degradation of methyl tert-butyl ether (MTBE) and
tert-butyl alcohol (TBA). Environmental Science and Technology, v. 35, p. 1785-1790.
169
-------
Retrospective Case Study in the Raton Basin, Colorado May 2015
Fipps, G. (2003). Irrigation water quality standards and salinity management strategies. Texas A&M
University, College Station, TX.
Fischer, A. and Hahn, C. (2005). Biotic and abiotic degradation behaviour of ethylene glycol
monomethyl ether (EGME). Water Research, v. 39, p. 2002-2007.
Flores, R.M. (1993). Geologic and geomorphic controls of coal developments in some Tertiary Rocky
Mountain Basins, USA. International Journal of Coal Geology, v. 23, p. 43-73.
Flores, R.M. and Bader, LR. (1999). A summary of Tertiary coal resources of the Raton Basin, Colorado
and New Mexico. Chapter SR of USGS Professional Paper 1625-A.
FracFocus (2013). Chemical Disclosure Registry. Available at: Accessed on
October 30, 2013.
Fritz, P., Basharmal, G.M., Drimmie, R.J., Ibsen, J., and Qureshi, R.M. (1989). Oxygen isotope exchange
between sulphate and water during bacterial reduction of sulphate. Chemical Geology, v. 79, p. 99-105.
Frost, C.D., Pearson, B.N., Ogle, K.M., Heffern, E.L., and Lyman, R.M. (2002). Sr isotope tracing of
aquifer interactions in an area of accelerating coal-bed methane production, Powder River Basin,
Wyoming. Geology, v. 30, p. 923-926.
Frost, C.D. and Toner, R.N. (2004). Strontium isotopic identification of water-rock interaction and
ground water mixing. Ground Water, v. 42, p. 418-432.
Gat, J.R. (1971). Comments on the stable isotope method in regional groundwater investigations.
Water Resources Research, v. 7, p. 980-993.
Geldon, A.L. and Abbott, P.O. (1985). Selected Climatological and Hydrologic Data, Raton Basin,
Huerfano and Las Animas Counties, Colorado, and Colfax County, New Mexico. U.S. Geological Survey
Open- File Report 84-138, 273 pp.
Geldon, A.L. (1989). Ground-water hydrology of the Central Raton Basin, Colorado and New Mexico.
U.S. Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 2288, 81 pp.
Glibota Environmental (2013). Summary of t-butyl alcohol detections (u.g/L): Dolores Well, using 524.2
Test America Savannah, GA. Personal communication.
Golding, S.D., Boreham, C.J., and Esterle, J.S. (2013). Stable isotope geochemistry of coal bed and shale
gas and related production waters: A review. International Journal of Coal Geology, v. 120, p. 24-40.
Gonfiantini, R. (1978). Standards for stable isotope measurements in natural compounds. Nature, v.
271, p. 534-536.
Goody, D.C. and Darling, W.G. (2005). The potential for methane emissions from groundwaters of the
UK. Science of the Total Environment, v. 339, p. 117-126.
Gordalla, B., Ewers, U., and Frimmel, F. (2013). Hydraulic fracturing: A toxicological threat for
groundwater and drinking-water? Environmental Earth Sciences, v. 70, p. 3875-3893.
170
-------
Retrospective Case Study in the Raton Basin, Colorado May 2015
Gosselin, D.C., Edwin, H.F., Frost, C, Stotler, R., and Macfarlane, P.A. (2004). Strontium isotope
geochemistry of groundwater in the central part of the Dakota (Great Plains) aquifer, USA. Applied
Geochemistry, v. 19, p. 359-377.
Graustein, W.C. (1990). 87Sr/86Sr ratios measure the sources and flow of strontium in terrestrial
ecosystems. In Stable Isotopes in Ecological Research, edited by P.W. Rundel, J.R. Ehleringer, and K.A.
Nagy. Springer-Verlag, p. 491-512.
Green, T., Kovac, J., Brenner, D., and Larsen, J.W. (1982). The macromolecular structure of coals. In
Coal Structure, edited by R.A. Meyers. Academic Press, Inc., New York, p. 199-280.
Grossi, V., Massias, D., Stora, G., and Bertrand, J.-C. (2002). Burial, exportation and degradation of
acyclic petroleum hydrocarbons following a simulated oil spill in bioturbated Mediterranean coastal
sediments. Chemosphere, v. 48, p. 947-954.
Grossman, E.L., Cifuentes, LA., and Cozzarelli, I.M. (2002). Anaerobic methane oxidation in a landfill-
leachate plume. Environmental Science and Technology, v. 36, p. 2436-2442.
Groth, G. and Freundt, K.J. (1994). Inhaled tert-butyl acetate and its metabolite tert-butyl alcohol
accumulate in the blood during exposure. Human and Experimental Toxicology, v. 13, p. 478-480.
Gurevich, A.E., Endres, B.L, Robertson Jr, J.O., and Chilingar, G.V. (1993). Gas migration from oil and
gas fields and associated hazards. Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering, v. 9, p. 223-238.
Habicht, K.S., Canfield, D.E., and Rethmeier, J. (1998). Sulfur isotope fractionation during bacterial
sulfate reduction and disproportionation of thiosulfate and sulfite. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta,
v. 62, p. 2585-2595.
Haggstrom, L (1985). Aceone-butanol fermentation and its variants. Biotechnology Advances, v. 3, p.
13-28.
Happell, J.D., Chanton, J.P., and Showers, W.S. (1994). The influence of methane oxidation on the
stable isotopic composition of methane emitted from Florida swamp forests. Geochimica et
Cosmochimica Acta, v. 58, p. 4377-4388.
Harrison, A.G. and Thode, H.G. (1957). The kinetic isotope effect in the chemical reduction of sulphate.
Transactions of the Faraday Society, v. 54, p. 84-92.
Hathaway, D. and Grigsby, B. (2008). Raton Basin coalbed methane stream depletion assessment.
Presentation dated: January 4, 2008 for work conducted by Colorado Division of Water Resources,
Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, Colorado Geological Survey, and S.S. Papadopulos &
Associates, Inc.
Hem, J.D. (1985). Study and interpretation of the chemical characteristics of natural waters. U.S.
Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 2254, 263 pp.
Hemborg, H.T. (1998). Spanish Peak field, Las Animas County, Colorado: Geologic setting and early
development of a coalbed methane reservoir in the central Raton Basin. Colorado Geological Survey,
Resource Series 33, 34 pp.
171
-------
Retrospective Case Study in the Raton Basin, Colorado May 2015
Hiatt, R., Clipsham, J., and Visser, T. (1964). The induced decomposition of tert-butyl hydroperoxide.
Canadian Journal of Chemistry, v. 42, p. 2754-2757.
Hinrichs, K.U., Hayes, J.M., Sylva, S.P., Brewer, P.G., and DeLong, E.F. (1999). Methane-consuming
archaebacteria in marine sediments. Nature, v. 398(6730), p. 802-805.
Hinrichs, K.U., Hayes, J.M., Bach, W., Spivak, A.J., Hmelo, L.R., Holm, N.G., Johnson, C.G., and Sylva, S.P.
(2006). Biological formation of ethane and propane in the deep marine subsurface. Proceedings of the
National Academy of Science, v. 103, p. 14684-14689.
Hoehler, T.M., Alperin, M.J., Albert, D.B., and Martens, C.S. (1994). Field and laboratory studies of
methane oxidation in an anoxic marine sediment: Evidence for a methanogen-sulfate reducer
consortium. Global Biogeochemical Cycles, v. 8, p. 451-463.
Hombach, H.P. (1980). General aspects of coal solubility. Fuel, v. 59, p. 465-470.
Howard, W.B. (1982). The hydrogeology of the Raton Basin, southcentral Colorado. Masters Thesis,
Indiana University.
Howard, P.H., Boethling, R.S., Jarvis, W.F., Meylan, W.M., and Michalenko, E.M. (1991). Handbook of
Environmental Degradation Rates. Lewis Publishers, Chelsea, Ml.
Huerfano County Government (2011). 2010 Huerfano County comprehensive plan. Available at:
http://www.huerfano.us/uploads/Final 2010 Comp Plan.pdf. Accessed on November 19, 2013.
Hunt, J.M., Miller, R.J., and Whelan, J.K. (1980). Formation of C4-C7 hydrocarbons from bacterial
degradation of naturally occurring terpenoids. Nature, v. 288(5791), p. 577-578.
Hyman, M. (2012). Microbial production and consumption of tertiary butyl alcohol. Webinar,
Advanced Tools for In-Situ Remediation. Available at:
http://www.advancedtools.us/resources/webinars/TBA Webinar l.pdf. Accessed on December 14,
2013.
IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) (1983). Isotope techniques in the hydrological assessment of
potential sites for the disposal of high-level radioactive wastes: Technical Reports Series No. 228.
Austria, International Atomic Energy Agency.
lino, M. and Matsuda, M. (1984). Synergistic effect of alcohol-benzene mixtures for coal extraction.
Bulletin of the Chemical Society of Japan, v. 57, p. 3290-3294.
lino, M., Takanohashi, T., Shishido, T., Saito, I., and Kumagai, H. (2007). Increase in extraction yields of
coals by water treatment: Beulah-Zap lignite. Energy and Fuels, v. 21, p. 205-208.
Jackson, R.B., Vengosh, A., Darrah, T.H., Warner, N.R., Down, A., Poreda, R.J., Osborn, S.G., Kaiguang, Z.,
and Karr, J.D. (2013). Increased stray gas abundance in a subset of drinking water wells near Marcellus
shale gas extraction. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America,
v. 110, p. 11250-11255.
Jakobsen, R. and Cold, L (2007). Geochemistry at the sulfate reduction-methanogenesis transition zone
in an anoxic aquifer—A partial equilibrium interpretation using 2D reactive transport modeling.
Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, v. 71, p. 1949-1966.
172
-------
Retrospective Case Study in the Raton Basin, Colorado May 2015
James, AT. and Burns, B.J. (1984). Microbial alteration of subsurface natural gas accumulations. AAPG
Bulletin, v. 68, p. 957-960.
Johnson, R.B., Dixon, G.H., and Wanek, A.A. (1956). Late Cretaceous and Tertiary stratigraphy of the
Raton Basin of New Mexico and Colorado. In: New Mexico Geological Society Fall Field Conference
Guidebook—No. 7, Southeastern Sangre de Cristo Mountains (19—21 October, 1956), edited by A.
Rosenweig. Socorro, NM: New Mexico Geological Society, p. 122-133. Available at:
https://nmgs.nmt.edu/publications/guidebooks/downloads/7/7 p0122 p0133.pdf.
Johnson, R.B. (1960). Brief description of the igneous bodies of the Raton Mesa Region, south-central
Colorado. In: Guide to the Geology of Colorado, edited by R.J. Weimer, and J.D. Haun. Geological
Society of America, Rocky Mountain Association of Geologists and Colorado Scientific Society, p. 117-
120.
Johnson, R.B. (1961). Coal Resources of the Trinidad Coal Field in Huerfano and Las Animas Counties.
U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin 1112-E, p. 129-180. Available at:
http://pubs.usgs.gov/bul/1112e/report.pdf.
Johnson, R.C. and Finn, T.M. (2001). Potential for a basin-centered gas accumulation in the Raton Basin,
Colorado and New Mexico. U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin 2184-B, 18 pp.
Johnson, R.C. and Flores, R.M. (1998). Developmental geology of coalbed methane from shallow to
deep in Rocky Mountain basins and in Cook inlet Matanuska basin, Alaska, USA and Canada.
International Journal of Coal Geology, v. 35, p. 241-282.
Jones, D.T. and Woods, D.R. (1986). Acetone-butanol fermentation revisited. Microbiological Reviews,
v. 50, p. 484-524.
Jones, D.M., Head, I.M., Gray, N.D., Adams, J.J., Rowan, A.K., Aitken, C.M., Bennet, B., Huang, H., Brown,
A., Bowler, B.F.J., Oldenburg, T., Erdmann, M., and Larter, S.R. (2008). Crude-oil biodegradation via
methanogenesis in subsurface petroleum reservoirs. Nature, v. 451, p. 176-180.
Jurich, A. and Adams, M.A. (1984). Geologic overview, coal, and coalbed methane resources of Raton
Mesa Region—Colorado and New Mexico. In: Coalbed Methane Resources of the United States, edited
by C.T. Rightmire, G.E. Eddy, and J.N. Kirr. American Association of Petroleum Geologists Studies in
Geology Series 17, p. 163-184.
Kamieriski, B., Pruski, M., Gerstein, B.C., and Given, P.H. (1987). Mobilities of hydrogen in solvent-
swollen coals. A study by pulsed NMR. Energy and Fuels, v. 1, p. 45-50.
Kampbell, D.H. and Vandegrift, S.A. (1998). Analysis of dissolved methane, ethane, and ethylene in
ground water by a standard gas chromatographic technique. Journal of Chromatographic Science, v. 36,
p. 253-256.
Kane, S.R., Beller, H.R., Legler, T.C., Koester, C.J., Pinkart, H.C., Halden, R.U., and Happel, A.M. (2001).
Aerobic biodegradation of methyltert-butyl ether by aquifer bacteria from leaking underground storage
tank sites. Applied and Environmental Microbiology, v. 67, p. 5824-5829.
Kawashima, H. and Saito, I. (2004). Interactions of organic liquids with coals: Analysis by solid-state C-
13 nuclear magnetic resonance. Energy and Fuels, v. 18, p. 1723-1731.
173
-------
Retrospective Case Study in the Raton Basin, Colorado May 2015
Kendall, C. and Coplen, T.B. (2001). Distribution of oxygen-18 and deuterium in river waters across the
United States. Hydrological Processes, v. 15, p. 1363-1393.
Keranen, K.M., Savage, H.M., Abers, G.A., and Cochran, E.S. (2013). Potentially induced earthquakes in
Oklahoma, USA: Links between wastewater injection and the 2001 Mw 5.7 earthquake sequence.
Geology, v. 41, p. 699-702.
Kharaka, Y.K. and Thordsen, J.J. (1992). Stable isotope geochemistry and origin of waters in
sedimentary basins. In Isotopic Signatures and Sedimentary Records, edited by N. Clauer and S.
Chaudhuri, Vol. 43. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, p. 411-466.
Kim, A.G. (1973). The composition of coalbed gas. U.S. Bureau of Mines, Report of Investigations 7762,
9pp.
Kniemeyer, O., Musat, F., Sievert, S.M., Knittel, K., Wilkes, H., Blumenberg, M., Michaelis, W., Classen,
A., Bolm, C., Joye, S.B., and Widdel, F. (2007). Anaerobic oxidation of short-chain hydrocarbons by
marine sulphate-reducing bacteria. Nature, v. 449(7164), p. 898-901.
Koenig, R.A. (1989). Hydrologic characterization of coal seams for optimum dewatering and methane
drainage. Quarterly Review of Methane from Coal Seams Technology, v. 7, p. 30-33.
Kolhatkar, R., Kuder, T., Philp, P., Allen, J., and Wilson, J.T. (2002). Use of compound-specific stable
carbon isotope analyses to demonstrate anaerobic biodegradation of MTBE in groundwater at a gasoline
release site. Environmental Science and Technology, v. 36, p. 5139-5146.
Krzesiriska, M. (2001). Effect of the solvents treatment on the elastic properties of the bituminous coal.
Energy and Fuels, v. 15, p. 324-330.
Langmuir, D. (1997). Aqueous Environmental Geochemistry. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Larsen, J.W., Green, T.K., Choudhury, P., and Kuemmerle, E.W. (1981). The effect of reagent access on
the reactivity of coals. In Coal Structure, edited by M.L. Gorbaty and K. Ouchi. American Chemical
Society, p. 279-291.
Larsen, J.W., Jones, J., Brons, G.B., Isaacs, J.J., and Liotta, R. (2001). Rates of reaction of Wyodak
Rawhide coal hydroxyl groups with tetra-alkylammonium hydroxides and rates of the concomitant
swelling. Energy and Fuels, v. 15, p. 769-775.
Las Animas County Government (2013). Welcome page. Available at: httE^wwwJajajTimajcoujTtyjTet.
Accessed on November 19, 2013.
Lee, M., Low, A., Zemb, O., Koenig, J., Michaelsen, A., and Manefield, M. (2012). Complete chloroform
dechlorination by organochlorine respiration and fermentation. Environmental Microbiology, v. 14, p.
883-894.
Lewicki, G. (2001). Raton Basin coal mine feature inventory, Greg Lewicki & Associates, Highlands
Ranch, CO.
Lin, Z., Wilson, J.T., and Fine, D.D. (2003). Avoiding hydrolysis of fuel ether oxygenates during static
headspace analysis. Environmental Science and Technology, v. 37, p. 4994-5000.
174
-------
Retrospective Case Study in the Raton Basin, Colorado May 2015
Liptay, K., Chanton, J., Czepiel, P., and Mosher, B. (1998). Use of stable isotopes to determine methane
oxidation in landfill cover soils. Journal of Geophysical Research, v. 103, p. 8243-8250.
Lopes, T.J. and Dionne, S.G. (1998). A review of semivolatile and volatile organic compounds in highway
runoff and urban stormwater. U.S. Geological Survey Open File Report 98-409, 73 pp.
LT Environmental, Inc. (2007). Phase II Raton Basin gas seep investigation: Las Animas and Huerfano
Counties, Colorado. COGCC Project #1925. Prepared for the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation
Commission. Available at: http://cogcc.state.co.us/Library/RatonBasin/Phase II Seep Investigation Final
Report.pdf. Accessed on December 11, 2013.
Lyondell Chemical Co. (2006). Technical data, TBAc™ solvent (tertiary butyl acetate), environmental
aspects. Houston, TX, Lyondell Chemical Company. Available at:
http://www.lyondellbasell.com/techlit/techlit/2685.pdf. Accessed on January 7, 2014.
Makitra, R.G. and Bryk, D.V. (2008). Swelling of lignites in organic solvents. Solid Fuel Chemistry, v. 42,
p. 278-283.
Martini, A.M., Walter, L.M., Budai, J.M., Ku, T.C.W., Kaiser, C.J., and Schoell, M. (1998). Genetic and
temporal relations between formation waters and biogenic methane: Upper Devonian Antrim Shale,
Michigan Basin, USA. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, v. 62, p. 1699-1720.
Marzec, A., Juzwa, M., Betlej, K., and Sobkowiak, M. (1979). Bituminous coal extraction in terms of
electron-donor and -acceptor interactions in the solvent/coal system. Fuel Processing Technology, v. 2,
p. 35-44.
Marzec, A. and Kisielow, W. (1983). Mechanism of swelling and extraction and coal structure. Fuel, v.
62, p. 977-979.
Marzec, A. (1986). Macromolecular and molecular model of coal structure. Fuel Processing
Technology, v. 14, p. 39-46.
Marzec, A. (2002). Towards an understanding of the coal structure: A review. Fuel Processing
Technology, v. 77, p. 25-32.
Mason, H.S. (1957). Mechanisms of oxygen metabolism. Science, v. 125, p. 1185-1188.
Mayo, A.L., Davey, A., and Christiansen, D. (2007). Groundwater flow patterns in the San Luis Valley,
Colorado, USA revisited: An evaluation of solute and isotopic data. Hydrogeology Journal, v. 15, p. 383-
408.
McBeth, I.H., Reddy, K.J., and Skinner, Q.D. (2003). Coalbed methane product water chemistry in three
Wyoming watersheds. Journal of the American Water Resources Association, v. 39, p. 575-585.
Mclntosh, J., Martini, A., Petsch, S., Huang, R., and Nuesslein, K. (2008). Biogeochemistry of the Forest
City Basin coalbed methane play. International Journal of Coal Geology, v. 76, p. 111-118.
McLaughlin, T.G., Burtis, V.M., and Wilson, W.W. (1961). Records and logs of selected wells and test
holes, and chemical analyses of ground water from wells and mines, Huerfano County, Colorado.
Colorado Water Conservation Board Ground-Water Series Basic-data Report No. 4.
175
-------
Retrospective Case Study in the Raton Basin, Colorado May 2015
Mclaughlin, T.G. (1966). Ground water in Huerfano County, Colorado. U.S. Geological Survey Water-
Supply Paper 1805, 91 pp.
Microbial Insights (2013). Environmental remediation, molecular biological tools: CENSUS-Gasoline-
MTBE and TBA Table. Available at: http://www.microbe.com/index.php/CENSUS/census-gasoline-mtbe-
tba-table.html. Accessed on December 8, 2013.
Miggins, D.P. (2002). Chronologic, Geochemical, and Isotopic Framework of Igneous Rocks within the
Raton Basin and Adjacent Rio Grande Rift, South-Central Colorado and Northern New Mexico. Masters
Thesis, University of Colorado at Boulder, Boulder, CO, 438 pp.
Milkov, A. (2011). Worldwide distribution and significance of secondary microbial methane formed
during petroleum biodegradation in conventional reservoirs. Organic Geochemistry, v. 42, p. 184-207.
Milucka, J., Ferdelman, T.G., Polerecky, L, Franzke, D., Wegener, G., Schmid, M., Lieberwirth, I., Wagner,
M., Widdel, F., and Kuypers, M.M.M. (2012). Zero-valent sulphur is a key intermediate in marine
methane oxidation. Nature, v. 491, p. 541-546.
Mohler, R.E., O'Reilly, K.T., Zemo, D.A., Tiwary, A.K., Magaw, R.I., and Synowiec, K.A. (2013). Non-
targeted analysis of petroleum metabolites in groundwater using GCxGC-TOFMS. Environmental
Science and Technology, v. 47, p. 10471-10476.
Mrklas, O., Chu, A., Lunn, S., and Bentley, L.R. (2004). Biodegradation of monoethanolamine, ethylene
glycol and triethylene glycol in laboratory bioreactors. Water, Air, and Soil Pollution, v. 159, p. 249-263.
Multi-Resolution Land Characteristics Consortium (2013). Frequently Asked Questions. Available at:
http://www.mrlc.gov/faq Ic.php. Accessed on October 25, 2013.
Murray, R.A. (1978). Las Animas, Huerfano and Custer: Three Colorado counties on a cultural frontier—
A history of the Raton Basin. Available at:
http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/wo/Planning and Renewable Resources/coop agencie
s/new documents/co3.Par. 19710.File.dat/Murray.pdf. Accessed on November 19, 2013.
Nava, V., Morales, M., and Revah, S. (2007). Cometabolism of methyl tert-butyl ether (MTBE) with
alkanes. Reviews in Environmental Science and Bio/Technology, v. 6, p. 339-352.
NEIWPCC [New England Interstate Water Pollution Control Commission] (2006). Final Report: 2006
Survey of State Experiences with Petroleum and Hazardous Substance Releases at LUST Sites, Heating
Oil Tanks, and Out of Service Tanks. Lowell, MA: New England Interstate Water Pollution Control
Commission. Available at:
http://www.neiwpcc.org/neiwpcc docs/2006%20NEI%20Survev%20Report%207 31.pdf.
North, K.P., Mackay, D.M., Annable, M.D., Sublette, K.L, Davis, G., Holland, R.B., Petersen, D., and Scow,
K.M. (2012). An ex situ evaluation of TBA-and MTBE-baited bio-traps. Water Research, v. 46, p. 3879-
3888.
Norwest Applied Hydrology (2006). Site Investigation and Remediation Plan, In Response to Notice of
Alleged Violation #1393099 and #1393100. Submitted to Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation
Commission. Available at:
176
-------
Retrospective Case Study in the Raton Basin, Colorado May 2015
http://ogccweblink.state.co.us/DownloadDocument.aspx?Documentld=1447383. Accessed on 7 August
2014.
Norwest Applied Hydrology (2008). Methane mitigation well aquifer testing report. Submitted to
Petroglyph Energy, Inc. (Dated September 24, 2008). Available at:
http://cogcc.state.co.us/Librarv/RatonBasin/MitigationWellTestingv3.l-FINAL.pdf. Accessed on
December 18, 2013.
Norwest Questa Engineering Corporation (2007a). Methane investigation, monitoring, and mitigation
program report (Report Number: QE-24420071206). Submitted to Petroglyph Energy, Inc. (Report
dated December 7, 2007). Available at:
https://cogcc.state.co.us/Librarv/RatonBasin/COGCC%20%20Petroglvph%20Phased%20Report%20Final.
pdf. Accessed on December 18, 2013.
Norwest Questa Engineering Corporation (2007b). Methane investigation, monitoring, and mitigation
program (Petroglyph Energy, Inc.): Little Creek and Bear Creek, Huerfano County (Presentation).
Available at: http://cogcc.state.co.us/Librarv/RatonBasin/PetroglyphNQE.pdf. Accessed on December
18, 2013.
Norwest Corporation (2009). Monitoring Update—Charts and Spreadsheets (07/15/2009-08/14/2009);
(Isotech) Combined reports isotopic analyses [Data file]. Available at:
http://cogcc.state.co.us/Librarv/RatonBasin/MIMMP Data Report 8-25-09.zip. Accessed on December
18, 2013.
Norwest Corporation (2011a). Monitoring Update—Charts and Spreadsheets (06/24/2011-
08/16/2011); Dissolved gas results 8-2-11 [Data file]. Available at:
http://cogcc.state.co.us/Library/RatonBasin/MIMMPDataReport2011-08-16.zip. Accessed on December
18, 2013.
Norwest Corporation (2011b). Monitoring Update—Charts and Spreadsheets (06/24/2011-
08/16/2011); WW and MIMMP Gas Flows [Data file]. Available at:
http://cogcc.state.co.us/Library/RatonBasin/MIMMPDataReport2011-08-16.zip. Accessed on December
18, 2013.
Norwest Corporation (2011c). Petroglyph Operating Company, August 2011 Monthly Report. Prepared
for the Colorado Oil & Gas Commission. Dated August 26, 2011. Available at:
http://cogcc.state.co.us/Library/RatonBasin/MIMMPDataReport2011-08-16.zip. Accessed on December
18, 2013.
Oldaker, P. (1988). Hydrogeologic Data Compilation and Analysis, Poison Canyon, Raton, Vermejo &
Trinidad Formations, Raton Basin, Colorado, New Mexico. Prepared for Amoco Production Company,
Denver, CO, 176 pp.
O'Reilly, K.T., Moir, M.E., Taylor, CD., Smith, C.A., and Hyman, M.R. (2001). Hydrolysis of tert-butyl
methyl ether (MTBE) in dilute aqueous acid. Environmental Science and Technology, v. 35, p. 3954-
3961.
177
-------
Retrospective Case Study in the Raton Basin, Colorado May 2015
Orem, W.H., Feder, G.L, and Finkelman, R.B. (1999). A possible link between Balkan endemic
nephropathy and the leaching of toxic organic compounds from Pliocene lignite by groundwater:
Preliminary investigation. International Journal of Coal Geology, v. 40, p. 237-252.
Orem, W.H., Tatu, C.A., Lerch, H.E., Rice, C.A., Bartos, T.T., Bates, A.L, Tewalt, S., and Corum, M.D.
(2007). Organic compounds in produced waters from coalbed natural gas wells in the Powder River
Basin, Wyoming, USA. Applied Geochemistry, v. 22, p. 2240-2256.
Orem, W., Tatu, C, Varonka, M., Lerch, H., Bates, A., Engle, M., Crosby, L, and Mclntosh, J. (2014).
Organic substances in produced and formation water from unconventional natural gas extraction in coal
and shale. International Journal of Coal Geology, v. 126, p. 20-31.
Oremland, R.S. (1988). Biogeochemistry of methanogenic bacteria. \r\BiologyofAnaerobic
Microorganisms, edited by A.J.B. Zehnder. John Wiley and Sons, p. 641-705.
Oremland, R.S., Whiticar, M.J., Strohmaier, F.E., and Kiene, R.P. (1988). Bacterial ethane formation
from reduced, ethylated sulfur compounds in anoxic sediments. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, v.
52, p. 1895-1904.
Osborn, S.G. and Mclntosh, J.C. (2010). Chemical and isotopic tracers of the contribution of microbial
gas in Devonian organic-rich shales and reservoir sandstones, northern Appalachian Basin. Applied
Geochemistry, v. 25, p. 456-471.
Pallasser, R.J. (2000). Recognising biodegradation in gas/oil accumulations through the delta C-13
compositions of gas components. Organic Geochemistry, v. 31, p. 1363-1373.
Parekh, V.R., Traxler, R.W., and Sobek, J.M. (1977). n-alkane oxidation enzymes of a pseudomonad.
Applied and Environmental Microbiology, v. 33, p. 881-884.
Pellicori, D.A., Gammons, C.H., and Poulson, S.R. (2005). Geochemistry and stable isotope composition
of the Berkeley pit lake and surrounding mine waters, Butte, Montana. Applied Geochemistry, v. 20, p.
2116-2137.
Peterman, Z., Thamke, J., Futa, K., and Preston, T. (2012). Strontium isotope systematics of mixing
groundwater and oil-field brine at Goose Lake in northeastern Montana, USA. Applied Geochemistry, v.
27, p. 2403-2408.
Peters, K.E., Walters, C.C., and Moldowan, J.M. (2005). The Biomarker Guide: I. Biomarkers and
Isotopes in the Environment and Human History. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
Petroglyph Energy, Inc. (2009). Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission MIMMP Update.
Presentation dated August 18, 2009. Available at:
http://cogcc.state.co.us/Library/Presentations/Trinidad HearingAug 2009/MIMMP Update COGCC-
Petroglyph.pdf. Accessed on December 18, 2013.
Petroglyph Energy, Inc. (2012). Chart of Daily Gas Volume (Mcf) for 31 wells (1999-2007), Huerfano
County, CO. Petroglyph Energy, Inc., Personal Communication.
Petroglyph Energy, Inc. (2013). Water Analyses—MIMMP Monitoring Update, 2007-2011. [Data files].
Available at: http://cogcc.state.co.us/Library/RatonBasinReports.htm. Accessed on December 17, 2013.
178
-------
Retrospective Case Study in the Raton Basin, Colorado May 2015
Pinto, F., Gulyurtlu, I., Lobo, L.S., and Cabrita, I. (1999). Effect of coal pre-treatment with swelling
solvents on coal liquefaction. Fuel, v. 78, p. 629-634.
Pohlman, J.W., Riedel, M., Bauer, J.E., Canuel, E.A., Paull, C.K., Lapham, L, Grabowski, K.S., Coffin, R.B.,
and Spence, G.D. (2013). Anaerobic methane oxidation in low-organic content methane seep
sediments. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, v. 108, p. 184-201.
Powell, W.J. (1952). Ground water in the vicinity of Trinidad, Colorado. Colorado Water Conservation
Board Ground-Water Series Circular 3.
Quistad, S.D. and Valentine, D.L (2011). Anaerobic propane oxidation in marine hydrocarbon seep
sediments. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, v. 75, p. 2159-2169.
Reeburgh, W.S. (1977). Methane consumption in Cariaco trench waters and sediments. Earth and
Planetary Science Letters, v. 28, p. 337-344.
Restek Corporation (1994). Guide for the Analysis of Petroleum Hydrocarbon in Soil and Water. Restek
Corporation, Bellefonte, PA, 15 pp.
Rice, C.A., Flores, R.M., Strieker, G.D., and Ellis, M.S. (2008). Chemical and stable isotope evidence for
water/rock interaction and biogenic origin of coalbed methane, Fort Union Formation, Powder River
Basin, Wyoming and Montana U.S.A. International Journal of Coal Geology, v. 76, p. 76-85.
Rice, D.D. (1993). Composition and origins of coalbed gas. In Hydrocarbons from Coal, edited by B.E.
Law and D.D. Rice. Studies in Geology No. 38: American Association of Petroleum Geologists.
Riedinger, N., Formolo, M.J., Lyons, T.W., Henkel, S., Beck, A., and Kasten, S. (2014). An inorganic
geochemical argument for coupled anaerobic oxidation of methane and iron reduction in marine
sediments. Geobiology, v. 12, p. 172-181.
Rivolta, M. (2012). Solvent Extraction of Coal: Influence of solvent chemical structure on extraction
yield and product composition. Masters Thesis, University of Alberta, Edmonton, 108 pp.
Rosewarne, C.P., Greenfield, P., Li, D., Tran-Dinh, N., Bradbury, M.I., Midgley, D.J., and Hendry, P.
(2013). Draft genome sequence of Clostridium sp. Maddingley, Isolated from coal-seam gas formation
water. Genome Announcements, v. 1, p. 1.
Sakanishi, K., Saito, I., Ishom, F., Watanabe, I., Mochida, I., Okuyama, N., Deguchi, T., and Simazaki, K.
(2002). Characterization and elution behaviors of organically associated minerals in coals during acid
treatment and solvent extraction. Fuel, v. 81, p. 1471-1475.
Schlegel, M.E., Mclntosh, J.C., Bates, B.L., Kirk, M.F., and Martini, A.M. (2011). Comparison of fluid
geochemistry and microbiology of multiple organic-rich reservoirs in the Illinois Basin, USA: Evidence for
controls on methanogenesis and microbial transport. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, v. 75, p. 1903-
1919.
Schlegel, M.E., Mclntosh, J.C., Petsch, ST., Orem, W.H., Jones, E.J.P., and Martini, A.M. (2013). Extent
and limits of biodegradation by in situ methanogenic consortia in shale and formation fluids. Applied
Geochemistry, v. 28, p. 172-184.
179
-------
Retrospective Case Study in the Raton Basin, Colorado May 2015
Schmidt, T.C. (2003). Analysis of methyl tert-butyl ether (MTBE) and tert-butyl alcohol (TBA) in ground
and surface water. Trends in Analytical Chemistry, v. 22, p. 776-784.
Schmidt, T.C, Schirmer, M., Weiss, H., and Haderlein, S.B. (2004). Microbial degradation of methyl tert-
butyl ether and tert-butyl alcohol in the subsurface. Journal of Contaminant Hydrology, v. 70, p. 173-
203.
Schoell, M. (1980). The hydrogen and carbon isotopic composition of methane from natural gases of
various origins. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, v. 44, p. 649-661.
Schoell, M. (1984). Recent advances in petroleum isotope geochemistry. Organic Geochemistry, v. 6, p.
645-663.
Schumacher, B.A. and Zintek, L (2014). The verification of a method for detecting and quantifying
diethylene glycol, triethylene glycol, tetraethylene glycol, 2-butoxyethanol and 2-methoxyethanol in
ground and surface waters. EPA Report, EPA/600/R-14.
Scott, A.R., Kaiser, W.R., and Ayers, W.B. (1994). Thermogenic and secondary biogenic gases, San Juan
Basin, Colorado and New Mexico—Implications for coalbed gas producibility. AAPG Bulletin, v. 78, p.
1186-1209.
Scott, A.C., Whittal, R.M., and Fedorak, P.M. (2009). Coal is a potential source of naphthenic acids in
groundwater. Science of the Total Environment, v. 407, p. 2451-2459.
Sgambato, A., Lavicoli, I., De Paola, B., Bianchino, G., Boninsegna, A., Bergamaschi, A., and Cittadini, A.
(2009). Differential toxic effects of methyl tertiary butyl ether and tert-butanol on rat fibroblasts in
vitro. Toxicology and Industrial Health, v. 25, p. 141-151.
Shand, P., Darbyshire, D.P.F., Love, A.J., and Edmunds, W.M. (2009). Sr isotopes in natural waters:
Applications to source characterisation and water-rock interaction in contrasting landscapes. Applied
Geochemistry, v. 24, p. 574-586.
Sharma, S. and Frost, C.D. (2008). Tracing coalbed natural gas-produced water using stable isotopes of
carbon. Ground Water, v. 46, p. 329-334.
Shennan, J.L (2006). Utilisation of C2-C4 gaseous hydrocarbons and isoprene by microorganisms.
Journal of Chemical Technology and Biotechnology, v. 81, p. 237-256.
Sklash, M.G., Farvolden, R.N., and Fritz, P. (1976). A conceptual model of watershed response to
rainfall, developed through the use of oxygen-18 as a natural tracer. Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences,
v. 13, p. 271-283.
Smemo, K.A. and Yavitt, J.B. (2007). Evidence for anaerobic CH4 oxidation in freshwater peatlands.
Geomicrobiology Journal, v. 24, p. 583-597.
Smith, J.A., Witkowski, P.J., and Fussilo, T.V. (1988). Manmade organic compounds in the surface
waters of the United States—A review of current understanding. United States Geological Survey
Circular 1007, 104 pp.
180
-------
Retrospective Case Study in the Raton Basin, Colorado May 2015
Smith, J.W., Pallasser, R.J., and Rigby, D. (1993). Mechanisms for coalbed methane formation. Paper
presented at the Symposium on Coalbed Methane Research and Development in Australia, Townsville,
Australia.
Somsamak, P., Richnow, H.H., and Haggblom, M.M. (2005). Carbon isotopicfractionation during
anaerobic biotransformation of methyl tert-butyl ether and tert-amyl methyl ether. Environmental
Science and Technology, v. 39, p. 103-109.
S0rensen, K.B. and Canfield, D.E. (2004). Annual fluctuations in sulfur isotope fractionation in the water
column of a euxinic marine basin. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, v. 68, p. 503-515.
Spears, D.R., Sady, W., and Kispert, L.D. (1993). Low-temperature swelling of Argonne Premium Coal
Samples: 2. Micropore wall chemistry during swelling. Fuel, v. 72, p. 1225-1233.
Spence, M.J., Bottrell, S.H., Thornton, S.F., Richnow, H.H., and Spence, K.H. (2005). Hydrochemical and
isotopic effects associated with petroleum fuel biodegradation pathways in a chalk aquifer. Journal of
Contaminant Hydrology, v. 79, p. 67-88.
Stahl, W.J. (1977). Carbon and nitrogen isotopes in hydrocarbon research and exploration. Chemical
Geology, v. 20, p. 121-149.
Stahl, D.C. and Tilotta, D.C. (1999). Partition infrared method for total gasoline range organics in water
based on solid phase microextraction. Environmental Science and Technology, v. 33, p. 814-819.
Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater (2012). Checking Analyses'
Correctness, Section 1030E, 22nd Edition, American Public Health Association, Washington, DC, p. 1-23
to 1-24.
Stepovik, L.P. and Potkina, A.Yu. (2013). Oxidation of alkylarene C-H Bonds by tert-butyl hydroperoxide
in the presence of cobalt, chromium, and vanadium acetylacetonates. Russian Journal of General
Chemistry, v. 83, p. 1047-1059.
Stolaroff, J.K., Bhattacharyya, S., Smith, C.A., Bourcier, W.L., Cameron-Smith, P.J., and Aines, R.D.
(2012). Review of methane mitigation technologies with application to rapid release of methane from
the Arctic. Environmental Science and Technology, v. 46, p. 6455-6469.
Strqpoc, D., Mastalerz, M., Eble, C., and Schimmelmann, A. (2007). Characterization of the origin of
coalbed gases in southeastern Illinois Basin by compound-specific carbon and hydrogen stable isotope
ratios. Organic Geochemistry, v. 38, p. 267-287.
Strqpoc, D., Mastalerz, M., Dawson, K., Macalady, J., Callaghan, A.V., Wawrik, B., Turich, C., and Ashby,
M. (2011). Biogeochemistry of microbial coal-bed methane. Annual Reviews of Earth and Planetary
Sciences, v. 39, p. 617-656.
Strauss, H. (1997). The isotopic composition of sedimentary sulfur through time. Palaeogeography,
Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology, v. 132, p. 97-118.
Stuermer, D.H., Ng, D.J., and Morris, C.J. (1982). Organic contaminants in groundwater near an
underground coal gasification site in northeastern Wyoming. Environmental Science and Technology, v.
16, p. 582-587.
181
-------
Retrospective Case Study in the Raton Basin, Colorado May 2015
Stumm, W. and Morgan, J.J. (1996). Aquatic Chemistry: Chemical Equilibria and Rates in Natural
Waters, 3rd Edition. John Wiley & Sons, New York, New York.
Szeliga, J. and Marzec, A. (1983). Swelling of coal in relation to solvent electron-donor numbers. Fuel,
v. 62, p. 1229-1231.
Takarada, T., Goto, K., Ookawa, M., Wang, J., and Morishita, K. (2003). Novel coal cleaning with
pretreatment in methanol. Abstracts of Papers of the American Chemical Society, v. 225, p. U876-U876.
Taulis, M. and Milke, M. (2013). Chemical variability of groundwater samples collected from a coal
seam gas exploration well, Maramarua, New Zealand. Water Research, v. 47, p. 1021-1034.
Topper, R., Scott, K. and Watterson, N. (2011). Geologic model of the Purgatoire River watershed
within the Raton Basin, Colorado. Colorado Geological Survey.
U.S. Energy Information Administration (2007). US Coalbed Methane: Past, Present, and Future (Panel 2
of 2). Available at http://www.eia.gov/oil gas/rpd/cbmusa2.pdf. Accessed on March 25, 2014.
U.S. Energy Information Administration (2013). Colorado Coalbed Methane Production. Available at
http://www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/hist/rngr52sco la.htm. Accessed on November 11, 2013.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) (2000a). Stressor Identification Guidance Document,
EPA/822/BOO/025. Available at:
http://water.epa.gov/scitech/swguidance/standards/criteria/aqlife/biocriteria/upload/stressorid.pdf.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2000b). Assigning Values to Non-Detected/Non-Quantified
Pesticide Residues in Human Health Food Exposure Assessments. Office of Pesticide Programs.
Available at: http://www.epa.gov/oppfeadl/trac/science/trac3b012.pdf.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2000c). Monitoring and reporting of MTBE and other oxygenates
at UST release sites, memorandum from Director Office of Underground Storage Tanks to Regional UST
Program Mangers and State UST Program Managers. Dated January 18, 2000. Available at:
http://www.epa.gov/oust/mtbe/ianl800.pdf. Accessed on December 15, 2013.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2004). Evaluation of impacts to underground sources of drinking
water by hydraulic fracturing of coalbed methane reservoirs, EPA/816/R-04/003. Available at:
http://water.epa.gov/type/groundwater/uic/class2/hvdraulicfracturing/wells coalbedmethanestudy.cf
rn. Accessed on October 30, 2013.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2008). Chapter 13: MTBE, In: Regulatory Determinations
Support Document for Selected Contaminants from the Second Drinking Water Contaminant Candidate
List (CCL 2), EPA Report 815/R-08/012. Washington, DC: Office of Water. Available at:
http://www.epa.gov/safewater/ccl/pdfs/reg determine2/report cc!2-
reg2 supportdocument ch!4 mtbe.pdf.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2010a). Science Advisory Board Staff Office; Notification of a
public meeting of the Science Advisory Board; Environmental Engineering Committee augmented for the
evaluation and comment on EPA's Proposed Research Approach for Studying the Potential Relationships
Between Hydraulic Fracturing and Drinking Water Resources. In Federal Register 75, No. 052, p. 13125.
March 18, 2010. Available at: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsvs/pkg/FR-2010-03-18/pdf/2010-5956.pdf.
182
-------
Retrospective Case Study in the Raton Basin, Colorado May 2015
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2010b). Coalbed Methane Extraction: Detailed Study Report,
EPA-820/R-10/022. Available at:
http://water.epa.gov/scitech/wastetech/guide/304m/upload/cbm report 2011.pdf.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2010c). ProUCL version 4.1 user guide: Statistical software for
environmental applications for data sets with and without nondetect observations, EPA/600/R-07/041.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2011a). Draft Plan to Study the Potential Impacts of Hydraulic
Fracturing on Drinking Water Resources, EPA/600/D-11/001. February 2011. Available at:
http://www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/documents/HFStudyPlanDraft SAB 020711.pdf.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2011b). Plan to Study the Potential Impacts of Hydraulic
Fracturing on Drinking Water Resources, EPA/600/R-11/122. November 2011. Available at:
http://water.epa.gov/type/groundwater/uic/class2/hvdraulicfracturing/upload/hf study plan 110211
final 508.pdf.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2012). Study of the Potential Impacts of Hydraulic Fracturing on
Drinking Water Resources. Progress Report. EPA/601/R-12/011. December 2012. Available at:
http://www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/documents/hf-report20121214.pdf.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2013a). Summary of the technical workshop on case studies to
assess potential impacts of hydraulic fracturing on drinking water resources, Workshop held July 30,
2013. Available at: http://www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2013-ll/documents/summarv-case-
studies-technical-workshop-20130730.pdf.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2013b). Basic information about Di(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate in
Drinking Water. Available at: http://water.epa.gov/drink/contaminants/basicinformation/di 2-
ethylhexyl phthalate.cfm. Accessed on November 24, 2013.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2013c). Isophorone (CAS#: 78-59-1). Available at:
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/hlthef/isophoro.html. Accessed on November 24, 2013.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2013d). Consumer factsheet on: Adipate, (2 -Diethylhexyl).
Available at: http://www.epa.gov/ogwdwOOO/pdfs/factsheets/soc/adipate.pdf. Accessed on November
24, 2013.
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)(2000). Coal-bed methane: Potential and concerns. USGS Fact Sheet FS-
123.
U.S. Geological Survey (2012). The National Land Cover Database. Available at:
http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2012/3020/fs2012-3020.pdf. Accessed on October 25, 2013.
U.S. Geological Survey (2013a). National Water Information System. Available at:
http://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis. Accessed on August 1, 2013.
U.S. Geological Survey (2013b). National Uranium Resource Evaluation. Available at:
http://mrdata.usgs.gov/nure/water. Accessed on August 1, 2013.
U.S. House of Representatives (2009). Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies
Appropriation Bill, 2010 (Report 111-180). United States House of Representatives Committee on
183
-------
Retrospective Case Study in the Raton Basin, Colorado May 2015
Appropriations: Washington, DC. Available at: https://beta.congress.gov/lll/crpt/hrptl80/CRPT-
Illhrptl80.pdf.
U.S. House of Representatives (2011). Chemicals Used in Hydraulic Fracturing. United States House of
Representatives Committee on Energy and Commerce, Prepared by Committee Staff for: Henry A
Waxman, Edward J. Markey, and Diana DeGette. Available at:
http://democrats.energvcommerce.house.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Hydraulic-Fracturing-
Chemicals-2011-4-18.pdf. Accessed on September, 2013.
Van der Elst, N.J., Savage, H.M., Keranen, K.M., and Abers, G.A. (2013). Enhanced remote earthquake
triggering at fluid-injection sites in the midwestern United States. Science, v. 341, p. 164-167.
Van Niekerk, D., Halleck, P.M., and Mathews, J.P. (2010). Solvent swelling behavior of Permian-aged
South African vitrinite-rich and inertinite-rich coals. Fuel, v. 89, p. 19-25.
Van Stempvoort, D., Maathius, H., Jaworski, E., Mayer, B., and Rich, K. (2005). Oxidation of fugitive
methane in ground water linked to bacterial sulfate reduction. Ground Water, v. 43, p. 187-199.
Van Voast, W.A. (2003). Geochemical signature of formation waters associated with coalbed methane.
AAPG Bulletin, v. 87, p. 667-676.
Veatch, R.W., Moschovidis, Z.A., and Fast, C.R. (1989). An overview of hydraulic fracturing. In Recent
Advances in Hydraulic Fracturing, edited byJ.L Gidley, S.A. Holditch, D.E. Nierode, and R.W. Veatch.
Society of Petroleum Engineers, Monograph Volume 12, Richardson, TX, p. 1-38.
Vidic, R.D., Brantley, S.L., Vandenbossche, J.M., Yoxtheimer, D., and Abad, J.D. (2013). Impact of shale
gas development on regional water quality. Science, v. 340(6134): 1235009.
Vogel, T.M., Oremland, R.S., and Kvenvolden, K.A. (1982). Low-temperature formation of hydrocarbon
gases in San Francisco Bay sediment (California, U.S.A.). Chemical Geology, v. 37, p. 289-298.
Wang, Z. and Fingas, M. (1997). Developments in the analysis of petroleum hydrocarbons in oils,
petroleum products and oil-spill-related environmental samples by gas chromatography. Journal of
Chromatography A, v. 774, p. 51-78.
Wang, Z., Fingas, M., Blenkinsopp, S., Landriault, M., Sigouin, L, Foght, J., Semple, K., and Westlake,
D.W.S. (1998). Comparison of oil composition changes due to biodegradation and physical weathering
in different oils. Journal of Chromatography A, v. 809, p. 89-107.
Wang, Y.W., Duh, Y.S., and Shu, C.M. (2007). Characterization of the self-reactive decomposition of
tert-butyl hydroperoxide in three different diluents. Process Safety Progress, v. 26, p. 299-303.
Watts, K.R. (2006a). Hydrostratigraphic framework of the Raton, Vermejo, and Trinidad aquifers in the
Raton Basin, Las Animas County, Colorado. U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2006-
5129,37pp.
Watts, K.R. (2006b). A preliminary evaluation of vertical separation between production intervals of
coalbed-methane wells and water-supply wells in the Raton Basin, Huerfano and Las Animas Counties,
Colorado, 1999-2004. USGS Scientific Investigations Report 2006-5109, 9 pp.
184
-------
Retrospective Case Study in the Raton Basin, Colorado May 2015
Wei, N. and Finneran, K.T. (2011). Microbial community composition during anaerobic mineralization of
tert-Butyl Alcohol (TBA) in fuel-contaminated aquifer material. Environmental Science and Technology,
v. 45, p. 3012-3018.
Westermann, P., Ahring, B.K., and Mah, R.A. (1989). Acetate production by methanogenic bacteria.
Applied and Environmental Microbiology, v. 55, p. 2257-2261.
Whiticar, M.J. and Faber, E. (1986). Methane oxidation in sediment and water column environments-
isotope evidence. Organic Geochemistry, v. 10, p. 759-768.
Whiticar, M.J., Faber, E., and Schoell, M. (1986). Biogenic methane formation in marine and freshwater
environments: CO2 reduction vs. acetate fermentation-Isotope evidence. Geochimica et Cosmochimica
Acta, v. 50, p. 693-709.
Whiticar, M.J. (1996). Stable isotope geochemistry of coals, humic kerogens and related natural gases.
International Journal of Coal Geology, v. 32, p. 191-215.
Whiticar, M.J. (1999). Carbon and hydrogen isotope systematics of bacterial formation and oxidation of
methane. Chemical Geology, v. 161, p. 291-314.
Wl DNR [Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources] (2011). Drinking water and groundwater quality
standards/advisory levels. Available at: http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/drinkingwater/documents/haltable.pdf.
Accessed on December 15, 2013.
Wilkin, R.T. (2013). Hydraulic Fracturing Case Study, Raton Basin, CO, version 3. Quality Assurance
Project Plan (dated November 5, 2013). Available at:
http://www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/documents/qapp-retrospective-case-study-raton-
basin.pdf.
Wilson, J.T., Kaiser, P.M., and Adair, C. (2005). Monitored Natural Attenuation of MTBE as a Risk
Management Option at Leaking Underground Storage Tank Sites, EPA/600/R-04/179. Available at:
http://nepis.epa.gov/Adobe/PDF/20017l6R.pdf.
Wilson, J.T. and Adair, C. (2007). Monitored Natural Attenuation of Tertiary Butyl Alcohol (TBA) in
Ground Water at Gasoline Spill Sites, EPA/600/R-07/100. Available at:
http://nepis.epa.gov/Adobe/PDF/60000K3R.pdf.
Worrall, J. (2003). Preliminary geology of Oakdale Field, northwest Raton Basin, Huerfano County,
Colorado. Available at:
http://www.searchanddiscoverv.com/documents/2004/worrall/images/worrall.pdf. Accessed on
November 18, 2013.
Xie, S., Lazar, C.S., Lin, Y.S., Teske, A., and Hinrichs, K.U. (2013). Ethane- and propane-producing
potential and molecular characterization of an ethanogenic enrichment in an anoxic estuarine sediment.
Organic Geochemistry, v. 59, p. 37-48.
Yeskis, D. and Zavala, B. (2002). Ground-water sampling guidelines for Superfund and RCRA project
managers. Ground Water Issue Paper, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste and
Emergency Response, EPA 542/S-O2/001.
185
-------
Retrospective Case Study in the Raton Basin, Colorado May 2015
Zhang, S., Huang, H., Feng, Z., and Shuai, Y. (2011). Geochemical characterization of secondary
microbial gas occurrence in the Songliao Basin, NE China. Organic Geochemistry, v. 42, p. 781-790.
Ziegler, W. (2010). Demonstration/validation of tertiary butyl acetate (TBAC) for hand wipe cleaning
applications, ESTCP Project WP-200616. Adelphi, MD, Army Research Laboratory, 407 pp.
Zogorski, J.S., Carter, J.M., Ivahnenko, T., Lapham, W.W., Moran, M.J., Rowe, B.L, Squillace, P.J., and
Toccalino, P.L. (2006). Volatile organic compounds in the nation's ground water and drinking-water
supply wells. United States Geological Survey National Water-Quality Assessment Program Circular
1292, 112 pp.
Zou, Y.-R., Cai, Y., Zhang, C., Zhang, X., and Peng, P. (2007). Variations of natural gas carbon isotope-
type curves and their interpretation—A case study. Organic Geochemistry, v. 38, p. 1398-1415.
186
-------
Appendix A QA/QC Summary, Retrospective Case Study in the Raton Basin, Colorado May 2015
Appendix A
QA/QC Summary
Retrospective Case Study in the Raton Basin, Colorado
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Research and Development
Washington, DC
May 2015
EPA/600/R-14/091
A-l
-------
Appendix A QA/QC Summary, Retrospective Case Study in the Raton Basin, Colorado May 2015
Table of Contents
Table of Contents A-2
List of Tables A-4
List of Figures A-6
A.I. Introduction A-7
A.I.I. October 2011 Sampling Event A-7
A.I.2. May 2012 Sampling Event A-7
A.I.3. November 2012 Sampling Event A-7
A.I.4. April/May 2013 Sampling Event A-8
A.2. Chain of Custody A-8
A.2.1. October 2011 Sampling A-8
A.2.2. May 2012 Sampling A-9
A.2.3. November 2012 Sampling A-9
A.2.4. April/May 2013 Sampling A-9
A.3. Holding Times A-9
A.3.1. October 2011 Sampling A-10
A.3.2. May 2012 Sampling A-10
A.3.3. November 2012 Sampling A-10
A.3.4. April/May 2013 Sampling A-10
A.4. Blank Samples Collected During Sampling A-10
A.4.1. October 2011 A-ll
A.4.2. May 2012 A-ll
A.4.3. November 2012 A-12
A.4.4. April/May 2013 A-12
A.5. Field Duplicate Samples A-12
A.5.1. All Sampling Events A-13
A.6. Laboratory QA/QC Results and Data Usability Summary A-13
A.7. Double-lab Comparisons A-14
A.8. Performance Evaluation Samples A-14
A.9. QAPP Additions and Deviations A-15
A.10. Field QA/QC A-15
A-2
-------
Appendix A QA/QC Summary, Retrospective Case Study in the Raton Basin, Colorado May 2015
A.ll. Data Qualifiers A-16
A. 12. Tentatively Identified Compounds A-17
A.13. Audits of Data Quality A-17
A.M. Laboratory Technical System Audits A-18
A.15. Field Technical System Audits A-18
A-3
-------
Appendix A QA/QC Summary, Retrospective Case Study in the Raton Basin, Colorado May 2015
List of Tables
Table Al. Laboratories performing the analyses, per sampling round: Raton Basin, CO A-20
Table A2. Sample containers, preservation, and holding times for ground water and surface
water samples from the Raton Basin, CO A-21
Table A3. Field QC samples, and acceptance criteria, for ground water analysis A-25
Table A4. Anions, DIG, DOC, and nutrient blanks: Raton Basin, CO A-26
Table A5. Dissolved metals blanks: Raton Basin, CO A-30
Table A6. Total metals blanks: Raton Basin, CO A-46
Table A7. Volatile organic compound (VOC) blanks: Raton Basin, CO A-62
Table A8. Low-molecular-weight acid blanks: Raton Basin, CO A-82
Table A9. Dissolved gas blanks: Raton Basin, CO A-86
Table A10. Glycol blanks: Raton Basin, CO A-90
Table All. Semivolatile organic compound (SVOC) blanks: Raton Basin, CO A-94
Table A12. Diesel Range Organics (DRO) and Gasoline Range Organics (GRO) blanks: Raton
Basin, CO A-126
Table A13. DOC, DIG, nutrients, and anion field duplicates: Raton Basin, CO A-128
Table A14. Dissolved metal field duplicates: Raton Basin, CO A-130
Table A15. Total metal field duplicates: Raton Basin, CO A-139
Table A16. Volatile organic compound (VOC) field duplicates: Raton Basin, CO A-148
Table A17. Low-molecular-weight acid field duplicates: Raton Basin, CO A-168
Table A18. Dissolved gas field duplicates: Raton Basin, CO A-172
Table A19. Glycol field duplicates: Raton Basin, CO A-174
Table A20. Semivolatile organic compound (SVOC) field duplicates: Raton Basin, CO A-176
Table A21, Diesel range organic (DRO) and Gasoline range organic (GRO) field duplicates: Raton
Basin, CO A-208
Table A22. Oxygen and hydrogen stable isotopes of water - field duplicates: Raton Basin, CO A-210
Table A23. Strontium isotope field duplicates: Raton Basin, CO A-211
Table A24. Isotech gas field duplicates: Raton Basin, CO A-213
A-4
-------
Appendix A QA/QC Summary, Retrospective Case Study in the Raton Basin, Colorado May 2015
Table A25. Data Usability Summary A-222
Table A26. Results of double-lab VOC analyses for November 2012 sampling event A-245
Table A27. Field QC Data for YSI Electrode Measurements A-246
Table A28. Data Qualifiers and Data Descriptors A-260
Table A29. Tentatively Identified Compounds (TICs) for SVOCs A-261
A-5
-------
Appendix A QA/QC Summary, Retrospective Case Study in the Raton Basin, Colorado May 2015
List of Figures
Figure Al. Cumulative % diagram showing the percent agreement of duplicate field samples
collected during the four rounds of sampling A-13
A-6
-------
Appendix A QA/QC Summary, Retrospective Case Study in the Raton Basin, Colorado May 2015
A.I. Introduction
This appendix describes general Quality Assurance (QA) and the results of Quality Control (QC) samples,
including discussion of chain of custody, holding times, blank results, field duplicate results, laboratory
QA/QC results, data usability, double lab comparisons, performance evaluation samples, Quality
Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) additions and deviations, field QA/QC, application of data qualifiers,
tentatively identified compounds (TICs), Audits of Data Quality (ADQ), and field and laboratory Technical
System Audits (TSAs). All reported data for the Raton Basin Retrospective Case Study met project
requirements unless otherwise indicated by the application of data qualifiers in the final data summaries
(see Appendix B). In rare cases, data were rejected as unusable and not reported.
A.I.I. October 2011 Sampling Event
The sampling and analytical activities for the October 2011 sampling event were conducted under a
QAPP titled "Hydraulic Fracturing Retrospective Case Study, Raton Basin, CO," version 0, approved on
September 20, 2011. Any deviations from this QAPP are described in Section A9. Twelve domestic
wells, five monitoring wells, two production wells, and one surface water location were sampled during
this event. A total of 468 samples were collected and delivered to six laboratories for analysis: Shaw
Environmental, Ada, OK; EPA ORD/NRMRL, Ada, OK; EPA Region 8, Golden, CO; EPA Region 3, Fort
Meade, MD; Isotech Laboratories, Inc., Champaigne, IL; and USGS Laboratory, Denver, CO (see Table
Al). Measurements were made for over 240 analytes per sample location. Of the 468 samples, 128
samples (27%) were QC samples, including blanks, field duplicates, matrix spikes, and matrix spike
duplicates.
A.I.2. May 2012 Sampling Event
The sampling and analytical activities for the May 2012 sampling event were conducted under a QAPP
titled "Hydraulic Fracturing Retrospective Case Study, Raton Basin, CO," version 1, approved on April 30,
2012. Specific changes made to the QA documentation are described in the revised QAPP. An
Addendum to version 1 (approved on December 12, 2012) was prepared to document QC acceptance
criteria for the reanalysis of samples for metals collected during the May 2012 sampling event. Any
deviations from this QAPP are described in Section A9. Twelve domestic wells, three monitoring wells,
two production wells, and three surface water locations were sampled during this event. A total of 508
samples were collected and delivered to six laboratories for analysis: Shaw Environmental, Ada, OK; EPA
ORD/NRMRL, Ada, OK; EPA Region 8, Golden, CO; EPA Region 3, Fort Meade, MD; Isotech Laboratories,
Inc., Champaigne, IL; and USGS Laboratory, Denver, CO (see Table Al). Metals samples were
subsequently resubmitted to an EPA Contract Laboratory Program (CLP) lab (Chemtech; Mountain, NJ)
for analysis of trace metals by inductively coupled plasma-mass spectrometry (ICP-MS). Measurements
were made for over 245 analytes per sample location. Of the 508 samples, 128 samples (25%) were QC
samples, including blanks, field duplicates, matrix spikes, and matrix spike duplicates.
A.I.3. November 2012 Sampling Event
The sampling and analytical activities for the November 2012 sampling event were conducted under a
QAPP titled "Hydraulic Fracturing Retrospective Case Study, Raton Basin, CO," version 1, approved on
April 30, 2012. Any deviations from this QAPP are described in Section A9. Addendum No. 2 to version
A-7
-------
Appendix A QA/QC Summary, Retrospective Case Study in the Raton Basin, Colorado May 2015
1 (approved on February 25, 2013) was prepared to document QC acceptance criteria for the analysis of
samples for metals and Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) by an EPA Region 7 contract laboratory for
samples collected during the November 2012 event. Thirteen domestic wells, three monitoring wells,
two production wells, and three surface water locations were sampled during this event. A total of 606
samples were collected and delivered to seven laboratories for analysis: Shaw Environmental, Ada, OK;
EPA ORD/NRMRL, Ada, OK; SWRI, San Antonio, TX; EPA Region 8, Golden, CO; EPA ORD/NERL, Las Vegas,
NV; Isotech Laboratories, Inc., Champaigne, IL; and USGS Laboratory, Denver, CO (see Table Al).
Measurements were made for over 245 analytes per sample location. Of the 606 samples, 180 samples
(30%) were QC samples, including blanks, field duplicates, matrix spikes, and matrix spike duplicates.
A.I.4. April/May 2013 Sampling Event
The sampling and analytical activities for the April/May 2013 sampling event were conducted under an
approved QAPP titled "Hydraulic Fracturing Retrospective Case Study, Raton Basin, CO," version 2,
approved on April 12, 2013. Any deviations from this QAPP are described in Section A9. Twelve
domestic wells, three monitoring wells, two production wells, and three surface water locations were
sampled during this event. A total of 573 samples were collected and delivered to seven laboratories for
analysis: CB&I, Ada, OK; EPA ORD/NRMRL, Ada, OK; SWRI, San Antonio, TX; EPA Region 8, Golden, CO;
EPA Region 3, Fort Meade, MD; Isotech Laboratories, Inc., Champaigne, IL; and USGS Laboratory,
Denver, CO (see Table Al). Measurements were made for over 235 analytes per sample location. Of
the 573 samples, 185 samples (32%) were QC samples, including blanks, field duplicates, matrix spikes,
and matrix spike duplicates.
A final version of the QAPP titled "Hydraulic Fracturing Retrospective Case Study, Raton Basin, CO,"
version 3, was approved on November 5, 2013. The QAPP is available at:
http://www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/documents/qapp-retrospective-case-study-raton-
basin.pdf.
A.2. Chain of Custody
Sample types, bottle types, sample preservation methods, analyte holding times, analysis methods, and
laboratories receiving samples for analysis are listed in Tables Al and A2. Samples collected in the field
were packed on ice into coolers for shipment by overnight delivery along with completed chain-of-
custody (COC) documents and temperature blank containers. In general, all samples collected in the
field were successfully delivered to the laboratories responsible for conducting the analyses. The
following sections describe any noted issues related to the sample shipments and potential impacts on
data quality.
A.2.1. October 2011 Sampling
One cooler sent to the EPA Region 3 Laboratory for glycol analysis of samples RBMW02, RBDW02,
RBDW04, RBMW03, RBEqBlk02, RBDW05, RBDWOSd, RBSW01, RBFBIk02, RBMW04, RBDW08,
RBMW05, RBDW09, RBEqBlk03, RBDW10, RBDWIOd, and RBSW01 arrived at the laboratory at a
temperature of 15°C due to a delay in shipment. Glycols were not detected in any of the samples, but
these samples were qualified with the "J-" qualifier as estimated with a potential low bias. All samples
A-8
-------
Appendix A QA/QC Summary, Retrospective Case Study in the Raton Basin, Colorado May 2015
sent to the EPA Region 8 Laboratory for diesel-range organics (DRO) analysis were checked in at a pH of
less than 2, with the exception of samples RBFBIkOl, RBMW03, and RBFBIR03; these samples arrived
with a pH of 3 and were then reduced to pH less than 2 prior to laboratory preparation. There was no
suspected impact on data quality for these samples.
A.2.2. May 2012 Sampling
One cooler of samples collected on May 14, 2012 was received at the Robert S. Kerr Environmental
Research Center in Ada, Oklahoma with the custody seals broken; the shipping company apparently cut
the seals. The analytical suites included: metals, dissolved gases, VOCs, low-molecular-weight acids,
anions, nutrients, dissolved inorganic carbon (DIG), dissolved organic carbon (DOC), and water isotopes;
however, all sample containers were intact within sealed bags and there was no expected impact on
data quality for these parameters and samples. A sample for gas isotopes (RBSW03) was received at
Isotech Laboratories with the cap broken off the bottle; thus, analysis of this sample was not possible.
A.2.3. November 2012 Sampling
One cooler sent to the EPA ORD/NERL Laboratory for glycol analysis of samples BFBIk04, RBEqBlk04,
RBDW14, RBDW10, RBDWIOd, RBDW06, RBDW06, RBDW15, RBMW04, and RBDW09 arrived at the
laboratory at a temperature of 19°C due to a delay in shipment. Glycols were not detected in any of the
samples, but these samples were qualified with the "J-" qualifier as estimated with a potential low bias.
One cooler containing VOC samples was received at 15°C at SWRI. Samples affected were RDW06,
RDW09, RDW10, RDWIOdup, RDW14, RDW15, RDWFBIk04, RDWEqBlk04, and RDWTripBlk04. These
samples were qualified in the final summary spreadsheet with a "}-".
A.2.4. April/May 2013 Sampling
One cooler sent to the EPA Region 8 Laboratory was misdelivered to Test America Laboratories. Test
America broke the custody seals and opened the cooler. The shipping company subsequently delivered
the cooler to the EPA Region 8 Laboratory; temperature blanks were within acceptance criteria. The
cooler contained some of the samples collected on May 1, 2013, and there was no expected impact on
data quality for these samples. Two coolers sent to the Robert S. Kerr Environmental Research Center in
Ada, Oklahoma, on May 1, 2013, were received at 8.0 and 6.8°C, respectively. These coolers contained
samples RBFBIkOl, RBEqBlkOl, RBTripBlkOl, RBPW03, RBPW01, RBMW01, RBMWOld, RBDW11,
RBDW02, RBDW02d, and RBDW05, which were analyzed for low-molecular-weight acids, dissolved
gases, anions, nutrients, DIG, DOC, and water isotopes. The temperature of the received samples was
well below the average ambient temperature of the sampling points (12°C), and most of the sample
types contained a preservative. There was no expected impact on data quality for these samples.
A.3. Holding Times
Holding times are the length of time a sample can be stored after collection and prior to analysis without
significantly affecting the analytical results. Holding times vary with the analyte, sample matrix, and
analytical methodology. Sample holding times for the analyses conducted in this investigation are listed
in Table A2; holding times range from 7 days to 6 months. Generally, estimated analyte concentrations
for samples with holding time exceedances are considered to be biased low.
A-9
-------
Appendix A QA/QC Summary, Retrospective Case Study in the Raton Basin, Colorado May 2015
A.3.1. October 2011 Sampling
All samples met holding times.
A.3.2. May 2012 Sampling
During analytical preparations at the EPA Region 8 Laboratory, sample RBMW03 foamed during the
laboratory extraction procedure and was lost. The sample was re-extracted one day past its holding
time. Semivolatile organic compounds (SVOCs) reported for this sample were estimated and given the
"H" qualifier. Impact on data quality is considered minimal.
A.3.3. November 2012 Sampling
All samples met holding times.
A.3.4. April/May 2013 Sampling
Sample RBMW03 had a tert-butyl alcohol concentration that exceeded the calibration range. Reanalysis
of this sample after a 20x dilution was completed after the holding time expired. Therefore, the tert-
butyl alcohol result for this sample was estimated and given the "H" qualifier, although there is no
suspected impact on data quality. The concentration of tert-butyl alcohol after dilution was in
reasonable agreement with the concentration determined within the specified holding time by
extrapolation outside of the calibration range.
A.4. Blank Samples Collected During Sampling
An extensive series of blank samples were collected during all sampling events, including field blanks,
equipment blanks, and trip blanks (see Table A3). These QC samples were intended to test for possible
bias from potential sources of contamination during field sample collection, equipment cleaning, sample
bottle transportation to and from the field, and laboratory procedures. The same water source was
used for the preparation of all blank samples (Barnstead NANOpure Diamond UV water). Field blanks
were collected to evaluate potential contamination from sample bottles and environmental sources.
Equipment blanks were collected to determine whether cleaning procedures or sampling equipment
(filters, fittings, tubing) potentially contributed to analyte detections. Trip blanks consisted of serum
bottles and VOA vials filled with NANOpure water and sealed in the laboratory. Trip blanks were used to
evaluate whether VOA vials and dissolved gas serum bottles were contaminated during sample storage,
sampling, or shipment to and from the field. All analyses have associated field and equipment blanks,
except for isotope ratio analyses, for which no blank sampling schemes are appropriate. Sample bottle
types, preservation, and holding times were applied to blank samples in the same way as they were
applied to field samples (see Table A2).
The following criteria were used for qualifying samples with potential blank contamination. Sample
contamination was considered significant if analyte concentrations in blanks were above the method
Quantitation Limit (QL) and if the analyte was present in an associated field sample at a level <10x the
concentration in the blank. In cases where both the sample and its associated laboratory, equipment,
field, or trip blank were between the Method Detection Limit (MDL) and the QL, the sample data were
reported as less than the QL with a "U" qualifier. Blank samples (i.e., field, equipment, and trip) were
A-10
-------
Appendix A QA/QC Summary, Retrospective Case Study in the Raton Basin, Colorado May 2015
associated to field samples by dates of collection; for example, most sample shipments included both
field samples and blank samples that were used for blank assessments. Results of blanks analyses are
reported in Tables A4-A12. In general, field blank samples were free from detections of a vast majority
of analytes. The following sections describe instances where blank detections were noted and there
were potential impacts on data quality and usability. Refer to Table A25 for more detail on impacts to
data usability from detections in blank samples. As previously stated, a majority of these blanks were
free from detections or were less than the QL and, in these cases, the sample data are not affected and
are not discussed in the following sections.
A.4.1. October 2011
Nitrate+nitrite, ammonia, and DOC were reported in several blank samples at low levels, which resulted
in "B" qualifiers being applied to the results for several samples (see Table A4).
Toluene was detected at low levels in one field blank, one equipment blank, and two trip blanks. As a
result of these detections, the "B" qualifier was applied to the results for sample RBDW06 (see Table
A7).
For the low-molecular-weight acids, acetate was consistently detected in all blanks and all samples at
similar levels; consequently, the acetate data were rejected (see Table A8). The source for acetate
contamination was later determined to be the preservative.
Methane, ethane, propane, and butane were detected in two trip blanks above the QL, which resulted
in the application of several "B" qualifiers. The detections of these gases were likely related to
laboratory contamination because all four gases were detected in the blanks (see Table A9).
For SVOC analyses, bis-(2-ethylhexyl) adipate was detected in several lab blanks and was likely related to
laboratory contamination. The compound bis-(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate was detected in one equipment
blank; however, this detection did not impact any sample results (see Table All). Gasoline-range
organics (GRO) were detected in an equipment blank and a field blank, resulting in the application of the
"B" qualifier to the results for sample RBMW03 (see Table A12).
A.4.2. May 2012
Field and equipment blank samples contained levels of nitrate+nitrite that resulted in the application of
the "B" qualifier to the results for several samples (see Table A4). All sample results for nitrate+nitrite
were low, less than about 0.5 mg/L.
Field and/or equipment blanks had detectable levels of total copper (Cu). Consequently, "B" qualifiers
were added to the total Cu results for several of the field samples. Lab blanks had levels of total and
dissolved antimony (Sb) that resulted in the application of the "B" qualifier to the results for sample
RBMW03.
For low-molecular-weight acids, there were detectable concentrations of formate and propionate in one
or more of the blanks. In the case of formate, all blanks collected had detectable concentrations;
consequently, the formate data were rejected (see Table A8). Follow-up studies indicated that the likely
A-ll
-------
Appendix A QA/QC Summary, Retrospective Case Study in the Raton Basin, Colorado May 2015
source of formate contamination was the sample containers. For this reason, formate was not reported
in subsequent sampling rounds. Propionate was not detected in samples, therefore there was no
impact on data usability.
A.4.3. November 2012
DOC was detected in an equipment blank above the QL, which resulted in the application of several "B"
qualifiers (see Table A4). Nitrate+nitrite were also detected in several field and equipment blanks,
resulting in the application of "B" qualifiers. Concentrations of nitrate+nitrite were generally quite low
in the field samples, less than <1.2 mg/L The results for chloride, sulfate, bromide, and fluoride were
rejected for sample RBFBIkOS; this sample was mistakenly acidified with sulfuric acid in the field.
For metals analyses, blank detections resulted in the application of "B" qualifiers for total aluminum (Al),
Cu, iron (Fe), molybdenum (Mo), nickel (Ni), and zinc (Zn), and for dissolved Cu, Mo, and Ni (see Tables
A5 and A6).
Several low-level detections of methane in blanks resulted in the application of the "B" qualifier to the
results for sample RBSW01 (see Table A9).
For SVOCs, bis-(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate was detected in an equipment blank and a field blank above the
QL; these detections resulted in the application of several "B" qualifiers (see Table All). In addition,
squalene was detected in one of the field blanks, but this compound was not detected in any of the field
samples. DRO were detected above the QL in one equipment blank collected on November 7, 2012; this
resulted in the application of "B" qualifiers to the results for samples collected on that day, RBDW08 and
RBSW01 (see Table A12).
A.4.4. April/May 2013
For metals analyses, blank detections resulted in the application of "B" qualifiers for total Al, arsenic
(As), chromium (Cr), Cu, thorium (Th), vanadium (V), and Zn, and for dissolved Al, Cu, Ni, and Th. These
detections were likely related to laboratory contamination (see Table A5 and A6).
Propionate was detected above the QL in several blank samples; however, because propionate was not
detected in any of the field samples, there was no impact on data quality (see Table A8).
For SVOC analytes, there was a single detection of squalene above the QL in a field blank collected on
April 29, 2013. This detection resulted in the "B" qualifier being applied to the results for samples
RBDW11 and RBMWOld (see Table All). DRO were detected above the QL in one equipment blank
collected on May 1, 2013; this resulted in the "B" qualifier being applied to the results for samples
collected on that day, RBDW08, RBDW09, and RBDW14 (see Table A12).
A.5. Field Duplicate Samples
Field duplicate samples were collected to measure the reproducibility and precision of field sampling
and analytical procedures. The relative percent difference (RPD) was calculated to compare
concentration differences between the primary (sample 1) and duplicate sample (sample 2) using the
following equation:
A-12
-------
Appendix A QA/QC Summary, Retrospective Case Study in the Raton Basin, Colorado
May 2015
RPD
= ABS
2 x (sample 1 - sample 2)
(sample 1 + sample 2)
x 100
RPDs were calculated when the constituents in both the primary sample and duplicate sample were >5x
the method QLs. Sample results were qualified if RPDs were >30% for duplicate field samples. The
results of field duplicate analyses are provided in Tables A13-A24. Note that different RPD criteria apply
to laboratory duplicate and matrix spike duplicate samples; these QC criteria are described in the QAPP.
A.5.1. All Sampling Events
Parameters that required qualification based on RPDs not meeting applicable criteria for field duplicates
were: total Ni and dissolved methane (Round 3, November 2012); and, total manganese (Mn) and
dissolved methane (Round 4, April/May 2013). These RPD exceedances have to do with reproducibility
of trace metal and dissolved gas concentrations. Overall, reproducibility of the multiple field duplicates
was very good, as shown on the cumulative percent diagram below (see Figure Al). RPD values of field
duplicates from all of the rounds of sampling followed a similar pattern, with generally >90% of
duplicate samples agreeing to within 10%.
120
100
•Round 4
•Round 3
Round 2
•Round 1
Figure Al. Cumulative % diagram showing the percent agreement of duplicate field samples collected during
the four rounds of sampling.
A.6. Laboratory QA/QC Results and Data Usability Summary
The QA/QC requirements for laboratory analyses conducted as part of this case study are provided in
the QAPPs. Table A25 summarizes laboratory QA/QC results identified during sample analysis, such as
laboratory duplicate analysis, laboratory blank analysis, matrix spike results, calibration and continuing
A-13
-------
Appendix A QA/QC Summary, Retrospective Case Study in the Raton Basin, Colorado May 2015
calibration checks, and field QC. Impacts on data quality related to issues noted in the QA/QC results
are also presented in Table A25. Data qualifiers and data descriptors are listed in Table A28. Many of
the specific QA/QC observations noted in the Audit of Data Quality are summarized in Table A25.
A majority of the reported data met project requirements. Data that did not meet QA/QC requirements
specified in the QAPP are indicated by the application of data qualifiers in the final data summaries (see
Appendix B). Data determined to be unusable were rejected and qualified with an "R." Depending on
the data qualifier, data usability is affected to varying degrees. For example, data qualified with a "B"
would not be appropriate to use when the sample concentration is below the blank concentration. But
as the sample data increase in concentration and approach lOx the blank concentration, they may be
more appropriate to use. Data with a "J" flag are usable with the understanding that the concentration
is approximate, but the analyte is positively identified. A "J+" or "J-" qualifier indicates a potential
positive or negative bias, respectively. An "H" qualifier, for exceeding sample holding time, is
considered a negative bias. An "*" indicates that the data are less precise than project requirements.
Each case is evaluated to determine the extent that data are usable or not (see Table A25).
A.7. Double-lab Comparisons
Shaw Environmental and SWRI analyzed samples for VOCs using standard EPA methods in the third
round of sampling (November 2012; see Table A26). Shaw Environmental used EPA Method 5021A plus
8260C (gas chromatography-mass spectrometry [GC-MS], equilibrium headspace analysis). SWRI used
EPA Method 5035 plus 8260B (GC-MS, closed-system purge-and-trap). The primary dataset used for the
data analysis was the set of results from SWRI. The results were compared for common detections of
chloroform, tert-butyl alcohol, methylene chloride, benzene, and toluene in Table A26. Overall, the
concentration data for these chemicals were highly comparable between the two labs. RPDs range
between 4.3 and 134%. The highest RPD values were noted for low-level detections of toluene, and
these differences were not considered to be significant because of the low concentrations detected.
RPD values for the majority of the constituents were below or equal to 40% (83% of comparisons). The
compounds 1,2-dichlorobenzene, 1,2,3-trimethylbenzene, acetone, carbon disulfide, and naphthalene
were detected in some samples at low levels by SWRI, but these compounds were not reported by
Shaw. In addition, o-xylene was detected by Shaw in sample RBSW03, but it was not detected by SWRI.
Overall, these results show reasonable agreement and demonstrate accurate identification and
quantitation of VOCs that were present above method QLs. In particular, the double-lab comparison
verified the occurrence of tert-butyl alcohol that was detected at some of the sampling locations
included in this case study during every event.
A.8. Performance Evaluation Samples
A series of performance evaluation (PE) samples were analyzed by the laboratories conducting critical
analyses to support the HF Retrospective Case Studies. The PE samples were analyzed as part of the
normal QA/QC standard operating procedures, and in the case of certified labs, as part of the
certification process to maintain certification for that laboratory. The results of the PE tests are
presented in tabular form in the Wise County, Texas, Retrospective Case Study QA/QA Appendix and are
not repeated here. These tables show the results of 1,354 tests; 98.6% of the reported values fell within
A-14
-------
Appendix A QA/QC Summary, Retrospective Case Study in the Raton Basin, Colorado May 2015
the acceptance range. For the ORD/NRMRL Laboratory, a total of 95 tests were performed, with 96.9%
of the reported values falling within the acceptable range. Similarly, for the Shaw Environmental
Laboratory, a total of 835 tests were performed, with 98.7% of the reported values falling within the
acceptable range. The EPA Region 8 Laboratory had a total of 424 tests performed, with 98.8% of the
reported values falling within the acceptable range. These PE sample results demonstrate the high
quality of the analytical data reported here. Analytes not falling within the acceptable range were
examined, and corrective action was undertaken to ensure data quality in future analysis.
A.9. QAPP Additions and Deviations
A deviation from the QAPP occurred during the October 2011 sampling event. The ICP-MS metals data
were not reported from the first sampling event because of concerns about the data quality, and
because the samples could not be re-analyzed within the specified sample holding time. Instead, ICP-
OES data were reported for the ICP-MS metals As, Cd, Cr, Cu, Ni, Pb, and Se. ICP-MS data were collected
for the following three sampling events. In general, the ICP-OES trace metal data from the first round of
sampling cannot be compared with the subsequent ICP-MS data due to the large differences in QLs and
MDLs for the ICP-OES and ICP-MS methods; therefore, trace metal evaluations only consider data
collected during the later three sampling events. Information about the concentrations of As, cadmium
(Cd), Cr, Cu, Ni, Pb, and selenium (Se) from the first round was considered to be for screening-level
evaluation.
Analysis of the original ICP-MS results for the second sampling event in May 2012 indicated that the
laboratory did not analyze interference check solutions (ICSs) as described in EPA Method 6020A. These
ICSs would have enabled the laboratory to evaluate the analytical method's ability to appropriately
handle known potential interferences and other matrix effects. In ICP-MS analysis, the ICSs are used to
verify that interference levels are corrected by the data system within quality control limits. Because of
the importance of this missing QC check, it was deemed necessary to reject the data from the original
analysis. Because samples were within the method holding time, reanalysis was conducted by the EPA
Superfund Analytical Services Contract Laboratory Program (EPA CLP) for Al, As, Cd, Cr, Cu, Ni, Pb, Sb, Se,
Th, thallium (Tl), and uranium (U) by ICP-MS. This additional work was completed under an Addendum
to revision 1 of the QAPP. The CLP ICP-MS data were reported for both dissolved and total metals for
the metals listed above for the May 2012 sampling event.
A.10. Field QA/QC
A YSI Model 556 electrode and flow-cell assembly was used to measure temperature, specific
conductance, pH, oxidation-reduction potential (ORP), and dissolved oxygen. YSI electrodes were
calibrated in the morning of each sampling day. In general, performance checks were conducted after
initial calibration, at midday and at the end of each day. NIST-traceable buffer solutions (4.00, 7.00,
and/or 10.01) were used for pH calibration and for continuing checks. Orion ORP standard was used for
calibration of redox potential measurements. Oakton conductivity standard was used for calibration of
specific conductance measurements. Dissolved oxygen sensors were calibrated with air and checked
with zero-oxygen solutions to ensure good performance at low oxygen levels. Table A27 provides the
results of initial, midday, and end-of-the-day performance checks. Prior to field deployment, the
A-15
-------
Appendix A QA/QC Summary, Retrospective Case Study in the Raton Basin, Colorado May 2015
electrode assembly and meter were checked to confirm good working order. Performance checks for
pH were outside of control limits in a few instances during the October 2011 and April/May sampling
events, which resulted in the application of "J" qualifiers to some of the pH data. In several cases,
performance checks of specific conductance were outside of control limits, but data useability is not
considered to be impacted. Also, zero-oxygen solution checks were occasionally above the optimal
<0.25 mg/Lcriterion; however, in all cases the performance check results were <1 mg/L for dissolved
oxygen and confirmed electrode performance at low oxygen levels. Finally, in some cases performance
check measurements for ORP were not recorded. These instances are noted in Table A27; data usability
is not considered to be impacted.
Field parameters at this case study location consisted of turbidity, alkalinity, total dissolved sulfide
species (IH2S), and ferrous iron. Because field measurements of ferrous iron and dissolved sulfide
sometimes required dilution and all sample preparations and measurements were made in an
uncontrolled environment (i.e., the field), concentration data for these parameters were qualified in all
cases as estimated. The turbidity was measured using a Hach 2100Q Portable Turbimeter and was
calibrated using a Hach 2100QStablCal Calibration Set. The Hach 2100QStablCal Calibration Set
consists of the 20 nephelometric turbidity unit (NTU), 100 NTU, and 800 NTU standards, with a 10 NTU
calibration verification standard. For alkalinity measurements, a Hach Model AL-DT Digital Titrator was
used. The total dissolved sulfide and ferrous iron measurements were collected using Hach DR2700 and
DR890 spectrometers, respectively. The equipment used for measuring alkalinity, total dissolved
sulfide, and ferrous iron was tested in the lab prior to field deployment using known standards. In the
field, a blank sample was measured to confirm that no cross contamination occurred between the
different sampling locations. This was also the case for turbidity; however, a 10 NTU standard was also
used to verify the calibration.
A.ll. Data Qualifiers
Data qualifiers and their definitions are listed in Table A28. Many factors can impact the quality of data
reported for environmental samples, including factors related to sample collection in the field, transport
of samples to laboratories, and the analyses conducted by the various laboratories. The list of qualifiers
in Table A28 is based on the Data Qualifier Definitions presented in the EPA CLP National Functional
Guidelines for Superfund Organic Methods Data Review (USEPA/540/R-01, 2008), and the EPA CLP
National Functional Guidelines for Superfund Inorganic Methods Data Review (USEPA/540/R/10/011,
2010), with the addition of data qualifiers "H" and "B", which are necessary for communicating issues
that occur during analysis in laboratories not bound by the CLP statement of work. The "R" qualifier was
used in cases where it was determined that data needed to be rejected. Data rejection can occur for
many reasons, which must be explained in QA/QC narratives. Conditions regarding the application of
qualifiers include:
• If the analyte was not detected, then it was reported as
-------
Appendix A QA/QC Summary, Retrospective Case Study in the Raton Basin, Colorado May 2015
• If both an analyte and an associated blank concentration were between the MDL and QL, then
the sample results were reported as QL).
A.12. Tentatively Identified Compounds
The EPA Region 8 Laboratory reported tentatively identified compounds (TICs) from SVOC analyses.
Several SVOC TICs were identified in samples and blanks (see Table A29). To be identified as a TIC, a
peak had to have an area at least 10% as large as the area of the nearest internal standard and a match
quality greater than 80. The TIC match quality is based on the number and ratio of the major
fragmentation ions. A perfect match has a value of 99. Although the TIC report is essentially a
qualitative report, an estimated concentration was calculated based on a response factor of 1.00 and
the area of the nearest internal standard. The search for TICs included the whole chromatogram from
approximately 3.0 to 41.0 minutes for SVOCs. TICs are compounds that can be detected, but, without
the analysis of standards, cannot be confirmed or reliably quantified. Oftentimes, TICs are
representative of a class of compounds rather than indicating a specific compound. Only the top TIC
was reported for each peak.
A.13. Audits of Data Quality
An Audit of Data Quality (ADQ) was performed for each sampling event per EPA's NRMRL standard
operating procedure (SOP), "Performing Audits of Data Quality (ADQs)," to verify that the requirements
of the QAPP were properly implemented for the analysis of critical analytes for samples submitted to
laboratories identified in the QAPP associated with this project. The ADQs were performed by a QA
support contractor, Neptune and Company, Inc., and reviewed by NRMRL QA staff. NRMRL QA staff
provided the ADQ results to the project Principal Investigator for response and assisted in the
implementation of corrective actions. The ADQ process is an important element of Category I (highest
of four levels in EPA ORD) Quality Assurance Projects, which this study operated under for all aspects of
ground water sample collection and analysis.
Complete data packages were provided to the auditors for the October 2011, May 2012, November
2012, and April/May 2013 sampling events. A complete data package consisted of the following: sample
information; method information; data summary; laboratory reports; raw data, including QC results; and
data qualifiers. The QAPP was used to identify data quality indicator requirements and goals, and a
checklist was prepared based on the types of data collected. The data packages were reviewed against
the checklist by tracing a representative set of the data in detail from raw data and instrument readouts
through data transcription or transference through data manipulation (either manually or electronically
by commercial or customized software), and through data reduction to summary data, data calculations,
and final reported data. All calibration and QA/QC data were reviewed for all available data packages.
Data summary spreadsheets prepared by the Principal Investigator were also reviewed to determine
A-17
-------
Appendix A QA/QC Summary, Retrospective Case Study in the Raton Basin, Colorado May 2015
whether data had been accurately transcribed from lab summary reports and appropriately qualified
based on lab and field QC results.
The critical analytes, as identified in version 3 of the QAPP, are GRO; DRO; VOCs, including alcohols
(ethanol, isopropyl alcohol, tert butyl alcohol, naphthalene, benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and
xylenes); dissolved gases (methane and ethane); trace elements (As, Se, Sr, Ba); major cations (Ca, Mg,
Na, K); and major anions (Cl, SO4).AIso included in the ADQs were the following analytes: sVOCs, all
metals analyzed, pH in the October 2011 sampling event, and glycols. The non-conformances identified
in an ADQ may consist of the following categories: finding (a deficiency that has or may have a
significant effect on the quality of the reported results; a corrective action response is required), or
observation (a deficiency that does not have a significant effect on the quality of the reported results; a
corrective action response is required). The ADQ (three reports) for the October 2011 sampling event
noted a series of eleven observations and two findings; the May 2012 sampling event had six
observations and two findings; the November 2013 event had 25 observations and one finding; and the
April/May 2013 sampling event had 18 observations. In most cases, the ADQ findings and observations
are found in Table A25 along with the corrective actions taken and data qualifications. All findings and
observations were resolved through corrective actions.
A.14. Laboratory Technical System Audits
Laboratory Technical Systems Audits (TSAs) were conducted early in the project to allow for
identification and correction of any issues that may affect data quality. Laboratory TSAs focused on the
critical target analytes. Laboratory TSAs were conducted on-site at the ORD/NRMRL Laboratory and
Shaw Environmental [both laboratories are located at the Robert S. Kerr Research Center, Ada, OK] and
at the EPA Region 8 Laboratory (Golden, CO) which analyzed for SVOCs, DRO and GRO. Detailed
checklists, based on the procedures and requirements specified in the QAPP, related SOPs, and EPA
Methods, were prepared and used during the TSAs. These audits were conducted with contract support
from Neptune and Co., with oversight by NRMRL QA Staff. The QA Manager tracked implementation
and completion of any necessary corrective actions. The TSAs took place in July 2011. The TSAs found
good QA practices in place at each laboratory. There were no findings and six observations across the
three laboratories audited.All observations were resolved through corrective actions. The observations
had no impact on the sample data quality.
A.15. Field Technical System Audits
For Category 1 QA projects, TSAs are conducted on both field and laboratory activities. Detailed
checklists, based on the procedures and requirements specified in the QAPP, SOPs, and EPA Methods,
were prepared and used during the TSAs. The field TSA took place during the first sampling event in
October 2011 (audit date: October 4, 2011). The sample collection, documentation, field measurements
(and calibration), and sample handling were performed according to the QAPP. No findings and four
observations were noted in the field TSA related to analysis of samples in the field, notebook error
corrections, YSI calibrations, and a revision to the QAPP regarding dissolved gas sample collection. All
observations were resolved through corrective actions. There was no impact on the sample data
quality.
A-18
-------
Appendix A QA/QC Summary, Retrospective Case Study in the Raton Basin, Colorado May 2015
Appendix A Tables
A-19
-------
A-20
Table Al. Laboratories performing the analyses, per sampling round: Raton Basin, CO.
Measurement
Anions
Diesel Range Organics (DRO)
Dissolved gases
Gasoline Range Organics (GRO)
Low-Molecular-Weight Acids
Glycols
Metals
(filtered and unfiltered)
Microbial1
Semivolatile Organic Compounds
(SVOC)
Strontium Isotopes, S7Sr/S6Sr
Volatile Organic Compounds
(VOC)
Water Isotopes
jl3,. c.2.. j34.-. alS_
6 C,o H,o S,o 0
Round 1, Oct. 2011 Round 2, May 2012 Round 3, Nov. 2012
RSKERC General Parameters Lab
EPA Region VIII Laboratory
Shaw Environmental
EPA Region VIII Laboratory
Shaw Environmental
EPA Region III Laboratory
Shaw Environmental
ORD-Cincinnati Laboratory
EPA Region VIII Laboratory
USGS
Shaw Environmental
Shaw Environmental
Isotech Laboratories
RSKERC General Parameters Lab
EPA Region VIII Laboratory
Shaw Environmental
EPA Region VIII Laboratory
Shaw Environmental
EPA Region III Laboratory
Shaw Environmental & EPA CLP
Lab
ORD-Cincinnati Laboratory
EPA Region VIII Laboratory
USGS
Shaw Environmental
Shaw Environmental
Isotech Laboratories
RSKERC General Parameters Lab
EPA Region VIII Laboratory
Shaw Environmental
EPA Region VIII Laboratory
Shaw Environmental
EPA NERL, Las Vegas
Region VII Contract Lab (SwRI)
NR
EPA Region VIII Laboratory
USGS
Shaw Environmental/Region VII
Contract Lab (SwRI)
Shaw Environmental
Isotech Laboratories
Round 4, April/May 201 3
RSKERC General Parameters Lab
EPA Region VIII Laboratory
CB&I (name changed from Shaw
due to change in ownership)
EPA Region VIII Laboratory
CB&I
EPA Region III Laboratory
Region VII Contract Lab (SwRI)
NR
EPA Region VIII Laboratory
USGS
Region VII Contract Lab (SwRI)
CB&I
Isotech Laboratories
1 Data collected from the microbial samples are not presented in this report.
-------
A-21
Table A2. Sample containers, preservation, and holding times for ground water and surface water samples from the Raton
Basin, CO.
Sample Type
Anions-
Br, a, S042", F-
Metals, Dissolved
(filtered)
Metals, Total
(unfiltered)
iiiiii
EPA Method 6500
(RSKSOP-276, v3,4)
EPA Methods 200.7 and
6020A
(RSKSOP-213, v4;
RSKSOP-257, v3 or -332, vO)
Method ISM01.3
EPA Methods 200.7 and
6020A
Hg: EPA Method 7470A
EPA Methods 200.7 and
6020A;
Digestion: EPA Method
3015A
(RSKSOP-179, v2; -213, v4;
RSKSOP-257, v3 or -332, vO)
Method ISM01.3
EPA Methods 200.7 and
6020A; Digestion: EPA
Method 3015A;
Hg: EPA Method 7470A
30 ml, plastic bottle (1)
125 ml, plastic
bottle ( '
125 ml, plastic
bottle ( '
1 L, plastic bottle (1)
125 ml, plastic
bottle ( '
125 ml, plastic
bottle ( '
1 L, plastic bottle (1)
Preservation/Storage
Refrigerate <6°C4
HNO3, pH<2;
Room temperature
HN03, pH<2;
Room temperature
HNO3, pH<2;
Room temperature
HN03, pH<2;
Room temperature
HN03, pH<2;
Room temperature
HNO3, pH<2;
Room temperature
Holding Sampling
Time(s) Round2
28 days
6 months
(Hg- 28 days)
6 months
(Hg- 28 days)
6 months
(Hg- 28 days)
6 months
(Hg- 28 days)
6 months
(Hg- 28 days)
6 months
(Hg- 28 days)
1, 2, 3, 4
1
2
3,4
1
2
3,4
-------
A-22
Table A2. Sample containers, preservation, and holding times for ground water and surface water samples from the Raton
Basin, CO.
(continued)
Sample Type
Nutrients (as-N),
(N03~ + N02~), NH4
Dissolved Inorganic
Carbon (DIC)
Dissolved Organic
Carbon (DOC)
Dissolved Gases
Low-Molecular-
Weight Acids
Diesel Range
Organics(DRO)
Gasoline Range
Organics(GRO)
Analysis Method
(Lab Method)
EPA Method 353.1 and 350.1
(RSKSOP-214, v5)
EPA Method 9060A
(RSLSOP-330, v.O)
EPA Method 9060A
(RSLSOP-330, vO)
RSKSOP-194, v4 and -175, v5
(No EPA Method)
RSKSOP-112, v6
(No EPA Method)
EPA Method 8015D
(ORGM-508, Vl.O)
EPA Method 8015D
(ORGM-606, vl.O)
Sample Bottles
(# of Bottles1)
30 mL, plastic bottle (1)
40 mL, VOAvial
(clear glass)
40 mL, VOAvial
(clear glass)
60 mL, serum
bottles ( '
40 mL, VOAvial
(amberglass)
1 L, glass bottle5
(amber) ( '
40 mL, VOAvial5
(amberglass)
•UijkW^MNWll^HjjryHjM
H2S04, pH<2;
Refrigerate <6°C
Refrigerate <6°C
H3P04, pH<2;
Refrigerate <6°C
No Headspace
TSP3, pH>10;
Refrigerate <6°C4
1M NaOH, pH>10;TSP3
used in Round 1;
Refrigerate <6°C
HCI, pH<2;
Refrigerate <6°C
No Headspace
HCI, pH<2;
Refrigerate <6°C
Holding
Time(s)
28 days
14 days
28 days
14 days
30 days
7 days until
extraction;
40 days after
extraction
14 days
Sampling
1, 2, 3, 4
1, 2, 3, 4
1, 2, 3, 4
1, 2, 3, 4
1, 2, 3, 4
1, 2, 3, 4
1, 2, 3, 4
-------
A-23
Table A2. Sample containers, preservation, and holding times for ground water and surface water samples from the Raton
Basin, CO.
(continued)
^^^fflu^Bji
Glycols
Semivolatile Organic
Compounds (SVOC)
Volatile Organic
Compounds (VOC)
52H,5180-
Stable isotopes of
water (filtered)
513C-
Inorganic Carbon
(filtered)
iBi
Region III Method6
(No EPA Method)
EPA Method 8270D
(ORGM-515, Vl.l)
EPA Methods 5021A and
8260B
(RSKSOP-299, vl)
EPA Method 8260B
(SwRI TAP-01-0404-043)
RSKSOP-296, vl
(No EPA Method)
RSKSOP-334, vO
(No EPA Method)
Isotech SOP-100, vO; -104
(No EPA Method)
40 ml, VOAvial
(amber glass)
1 L, glass bottle5
(amber) ( '
40 ml, VOAvial
(amber glass)
40 ml, VOAvial
(amber glass)
20 ml, VOAvial
(clear glass)
20 ml, VOAvial
(clear glass)
60 ml, plastic
bottle ( '
Preservation/Storage
Refrigerate <6°C
Refrigerate <6°C
No Headspace;
TSP3, pH>10;
Refrigerate <6°C
No Headspace;
HCI, pH<2;
Refrigerate <6°C
Refrigerate <6°C
Refrigerate <6°C
Refrigerate <6°C
Holding
14 days
7 days until
extraction;
30 days after
extraction
14 days
14 days
Stable
Stable
14 days
Sampling
1, 2, 3, 4
1, 2, 3, 4
1,2,3
3,4
1
2,3,4
1, 2, 3, 4
-------
A-24
Table A2. Sample containers, preservation, and holding times for ground water and surface water samples from the Raton
Basin, CO.
(continued)
^^^fflu^Bji
513C, 52H -
Methane
87Sr/86Sr-
Strontium isotopes
(filtered)
534S-
Dissolved sulfide
534S,5180-
Dissolved sulfate
Microbial7
ma
Isotech SOP-120, vO;
SOP-103, vO; -104
(No EPA Method)
Thermal lonization Mass
Spectrometry (TIMS)
(No EPA Method)
Isotech SOP-119, vO
(No EPA Method)
Isotech SOP-119, vO; -120,
vO
(No EPA Method)
PCR Assays
1 L, plastic bottle (1)
500 ml, plastic
bottle (1)
1 L, plastic bottle (1)
1 L, plastic bottle (1)
1 L, amber plastic
bottle (autoclaved) ' '
Preservation/Storage
Caplet of benzalkonium
chloride;
Refrigerate <6°C
Refrigerate <6°C
Zn acetate to fix H2S(0q;
as ZnS;
Refrigerate <6°C
Zn acetate to fix H2S(0q;
as ZnS;
Refrigerate <6°C
Water: Refrigerate <6°C
Filters: Dry ice or-15°C
Holding
3 months
6 months
6 months
6 months
Water: 10 days
until filtered;
Filters: 45 days
Sampling
1, 2, 3, 4
1, 2, 3, 4
1, 2, 3, 4
2,3,4
1,2
bottles were available for laboratory QC samples and for replacement of compromised sample containers (broken bottle, QC failures, etc).
2Sampling rounds occurred in October 2011, May 2012, November 2012, and April/May 2013.
3Trisodium phosphate (TSP).
4Above the freezing point of water.
5For every 10 samples add two more bottles for one selected sample, or if <10 samples collected, collect two more bottles for one select sample.
6EPA Methods 8000C and 8321 were followed for method development and QA/QC; the method was based on ASTM D773-11.
7Microbial data are not presented in this report; these analyses were not performed to support the drinking water study.
-------
A-25
Table A3. Field QC samples, and acceptance criteria, for ground water analysis
Trip Blanks -
(VOCs, dissolved
gases, only)
Equipment Blanks
Field Blanks3
Assesses contamination during
transportation.
Assesses contamination from
field equipment, sampling
procedures, decontamination
procedures, sample
containers, preservative, and
shipping.
Assesses contamination
introduced from a sample
container, with the
appropriate preservative.
Fill bottles with reagent water,
preserve, take into the field, and
return without opening.
Apply only to samples collected
via equipment (i.e., filtered
samples)2. Reagent water is
filtered and collected into
bottles and preserved same as
filtered samples.
In the field, reagent water is
collected into the sample
containers and preserved.
One in each ice chest with VOC
and dissolved gas samples.
One day per sampling.
One per day of sampling.
Acceptance Criteria /
Corrective Actions
QL,
but<10Xthe
concentration found in
the blank.
Field Duplicates
Represents precision of field
sampling, analysis, and site
heterogeneity.
One or more samples collected
immediately after original
sample.
One in every 10 samples;
if <10 samples were collected
for a water type (ground or
surface), a duplicate was
collected for one sample.
RPD<30% for results >
SXtheQL
Affected data were
flagged as needed.
Temperature
Blanks
Measures the temperature of
samples in the cooler.
A bottle was filled with reagent
water, placed into a cooler prior
to sealing, and transported to
the analytical facility.
One per cooler.
The temperature was
recorded by the
receiving lab upon
receipt.4
Reporting Limit (RL) or Quantitation Limit (QL).
2Reagent water was filtered, collected into bottles, and preserved at the same time as filtered water samples.
3Blank samples were not required for isotope measurements, including O, H, C, S, and Sr.
The PI was notified if the samples arrived with no ice and/or if the temperature recorded from the temperature blank was >6°C.
-------
A-26
Table A4. Anions, DIC, DOC, and nutrient blanks: Raton Basin, CO.
Sample ID
October 2011
RBEqBlkOl-1011
RBEqBlk02-1011
RBEqBlk03-1011
RBFBIkOl-1011
RBFBIk02-1011
RBFBIk03-1011
MDL
QL
Detection in Samples
Concentration min
Concentration max
10/3/2011
10/4/2011
10/5/2011
10/3/2011
10/4/2011
10/6/2011
0.08
0.13
0.88
<0.50
0.08
<0.50
0.07
0.50
20/22
0.49
4.63
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
0.02
1.00
22/22
18.4
197
0.14
<0.05
0.01
<0.05
0.28
<0.05
0.01
0.05
8/22
0.18
0.37
<0.05
<0.05
0.07
<0.05
0.01
<0.05
0.01
0.05
12/22
0.01
0.61
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
0.14
1.00
0/22
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
0.07
1.00
22/22
1.80
159
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
0.14
1.00
20/22
2.08
445
<0.20
<0.20
<0.20
<0.20
<0.20
<0.20
0.04
0.20
22/22
0.20
9.41
-------
A-27
Table A4. Anions, DIC, DOC, and nutrient blanks for Round 2 (May 2012): Raton Basin, CO.
(continued)
May 2012
RBEqBlkOl-0512
5/14/2012
<0.50
<1.00
0.14
<0.10
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<0.20
RBEqBlk02-0512
5/15/2012
<0.50
<1.00
0.16
<0.10
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<0.20
RBEqBlk03-0512
5/16/2012
<0.50
<1.00
<0.10
<0.10
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<0.20
RBFBIkOl-0512
5/14/2012
<0.50
<1.00
0.13
<0.10
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<0.20
RBFBIk02-0512
5/15/2012
<0.50
<1.00
0.15
<0.10
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<0.20
RBFBIk03-0512
5/16/2012
<0.50
<1.00
<0.10
<0.10
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<0.20
MDL
0.01
0.04
0.01
0.01
0.13
0.11
0.05
0.03
QL
0.50
1.00
0.10
0.10
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.20
Detection in Samples
20/22
22/22
11/22
6/22
2/22
22/22
20/22
22/22
Concentration min
0.65
17.6
0.14
0.12
0.71
1.85
0.55
0.20
Concentration max
3.18
187
0.33
0.58
0.78
159
351
8.50
-------
A-28
Table A4. Anions, DIC, DOC, and nutrient blanks for Round 3 (November 2012): Raton Basin, CO.
f continued!
Sample ID
^•tFuS
KjwI^w^JjH
November 2012
RBEqBlkOl-1112
RBEqBlk02-1112
RBEqBlk03-1112
RBEqBlk04-1112
RBFBIkOl-1112
RBFBIk02-1112
RBFBIk03-1112
RBFBIk04-1112
MDL
QL
Detection in Samples
Concentration min
Concentration max
11/5/2012
11/6/2012
11/7/2012
11/8/2012
11/5/2012
11/6/2012
11/7/2012
11/8/2012
<0.50
<0.50
2.46
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
0.01
0.50
22/23
0.53
2.86
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
0.04
1.00
23/23
20.7
209
0.26
1.23
0.87
1.23
0.78
<0.10
0.73
1.08
0.01
0.10
10/23
0.16
1.15
<0.10
<0.10
<0.10
<0.10
<0.10
<0.10
<0.10
<0.10
0.01
0.10
7/23
0.12
0.81
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
R
<1.00
0.17
1.00
1/23
0.21
0.21
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
0.96
R
0.15
0.13
1.00
23/23
1.16
158
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
R
<1.00
0.16
1.00
21/23
0.31
349
<0.20
<0.20
<0.20
<0.20
<0.20
<0.20
R
<0.20
0.05
0.20
23/23
0.15
8.72
R = data rejected for RBFBIk03-1122 because the sample was mistakenly acidified.
-------
A-29
Table A4. Anions, DIC, DOC, and nutrient blanks for Round 4 (April/May 2013): Raton Basin, CO.
(continued)
^^^^ra^^^B
HjwI^w^JjB
April/May 2013
RBEqBlkOl-0413
RBEqBlk02-0413
RBEqBlk03-0413
RBEqBlk04-0413
RBFBIkOl-0413
RBFBIk02-0413
RBFBIk03-0413
RBFBIk04-0413
MDL
QL
Detection in Samples
Concentration min
Concentration max
4/29/2013
4/30/2013
5/1/2013
5/2/2013
4/29/2013
4/30/2013
5/1/2013
5/2/2013
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
0.05
0.50
21/23
0.64
3.42
<5.00
<5.00
<5.00
<5.00
<5.00
<5.00
<5.00
<5.00
0.04
5.00
23/23
19.7
213
0.01
<0.10
<0.10
<0.10
0.01
<0.10
0.01
<0.10
0.01
0.10
4/23
0.01
0.17
<0.10
<0.10
<0.10
<0.10
<0.10
<0.10
<0.10
<0.10
0.02
0.10
9/23
0.02
0.53
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
0.17
1.00
7/23
0.26
0.74
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
0.13
1.00
23/23
1.70
190
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
0.16
1.00
21/23
0.56
352
<0.20
<0.20
<0.20
<0.20
<0.20
<0.20
<0.20
<0.20
0.05
0.20
23/23
0.23
8.29
-------
A-30
Table AS. Dissolved metals blanks: Raton Basin, CO.
October 2011
RBEqBlkOl-1011
RBEqBlk02-1011
RBEqBlk03-1011
RBFBIkOl-1011
RBFBIk02-1011
RBFBIk03-1011
MDL
QL
Detection in Samples
Concentration min
Concentration max
10/3/2011
10/4/2011
10/5/2011
10/3/2011
10/4/2011
10/6/2011
6
<14
<14
9
<14
<14
4
14
0/22
<14
<14
<494
<494
<494
<494
<494
<494
148
494
0/22
<494
<494
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
6
20
0/22
<20
<20
<333
<333
<333
<333
<333
<333
100
333
2/22
135
219
<4
<4
<4
<4
<4
<4
1
4
22/22
11
485
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
3
10
0/22
<10
<10
<0.29
<0.29
<0.29
<0.29
<0.29
<0.29
0.09
0.29
22/22
1.99
73.9
<4
<4
<4
<4
<4
<4
1
4
0/22
<4
<4
<4
<4
<4
<4
<4
<4
1
4
1/22
2
2
-------
A-31
Table AS. Dissolved metals blanks for Round 1 (October 2011): Raton Basin, CO.
(continued)
Sample ID
LDate Cr
Collected
HHI mi i •
Mg
Mn
Mo
October 2011
RBEqBlkOl-1011
RBEqBlk02-1011
RBEqBlk03-1011
RBFBIkOl-1011
RBFBIk02-1011
RBFBIk03-1011
MDL
QL
Detection in Samples
Concentration min
Concentration max
10/3/2011
10/4/2011
10/5/2011
10/3/2011
10/4/2011
10/6/2011
<7
<7
<7
<7
<7
<7
2
7
0/22
<7
<7
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
6
20
2/22
16
30
<67
<67
<67
<67
<67
<67
20
67
10/22
21
2,690
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
<0.35
<0.35
<0.35
<0.35
<0.35
<0.35
0.11
0.35
22/22
0.21
2.25
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
<0.10
<0.10
<0.10
<0.10
<0.10
<0.10
0.030
0.10
20/22
0.03
11.9
<14
<14
<14
<14
<14
<14
4
14
13/22
6
281
<17
<17
<17
<17
<17
<17
5
17
11/22
5
17
NA = not analyzed.
-------
A-32
Table AS. Dissolved metals blanks for Round 1 (October 2011): Raton Basin, CO.
(continued)
Date
Collected
October 2011
RBEqBlkOl-1011
10/3/2011
<84
<0.06
<0.46
<30
<0.43
<4
RBEqBlk02-1011
10/4/2011
<84
<0.06
<0.46
<30
<0.43
<4
RBEqBlk03-1011
10/5/2011
<84
<0.06
<0.46
<30
<0.43
<4
RBFBIkOl-1011
10/3/2011
<84
<0.06
<0.46
<30
<0.43
<4
RBFBIk02-1011
10/4/2011
<84
<0.06
<0.46
<30
<0.43
<4
RBFBIk03-1011
10/6/2011
<84
<0.06
<0.46
<30
<0.43
<4
MDL
0.51
25
0.02
0.14
0.130
QL
1.71
84
0.06
17
0.46
30
0.43
Detection in Samples
22/22
0/22
2/22
0/22
20/22
7/22
22/22
22/22
Concentration min
12.8
<84
0.10
1.46
10
3.0
41
Concentration max
419
<84
0.39
695
32
10.3
1770
R = data rejected.
-------
A-33
Table AS. Dissolved metals blanks for Round 1 (October 2011): Raton Basin, CO.
(continued)
October 2011
RBEqBlkOl-1011
10/3/2011
NA
<7
<50
<50
RBEqBlk02-1011
10/4/2011
NA
<7
<50
<50
RBEqBlk03-1011
10/5/2011
NA
<7
<50
<50
RBFBIkOl-1011
10/3/2011
NA
<7
<50
<50
RBFBIk02-1011
10/4/2011
NA
<7
<50
<50
RBFBIk03-1011
10/6/2011
NA
<7
<50
<50
MDL
15
15
QL
17
50
10
50
Detection in Samples
2/22
0/22
2/22
1/22
4/22
Concentration min
16
22
Concentration max
20
156
NA = not analyzed.
-------
A-34
Table AS. Dissolved metals blanks for Round 2 (May 2012): Raton Basin, CO.
(continued)
May 2012
RBEqBlkOl-0512
5/14/2012
5.1
<333
<4
<0.29
<4
RBEqBlk02-0512
5/15/2012
4.7
<333
<4
<0.29
<4
RBEqBlk03-0512
5/16/2012
2.5
<333
<4
<0.29
<4
RBFBIkOl-0512
5/14/2012
<20.0
<333
<4
<0.29
<4
RBFBIk02-0512
5/15/2012
4.6
<333
<4
<0.29
<4
RBFBIk03-0512
5/16/2012
<20.0
<333
<4
<0.29
<4
MDL
2.2
0.18
100
0.09
0.06
QL
14
20.0
1.0
333
10
0.29
1.0
Detection in Samples
0/22
2/22
4/22
3/22
22/22
0/22
22/22
0/22
0/22
Concentration min
69.9
1.2
114
16.9
2.5
<4
Concentration max
577
2.1
291
561
58.9
<4
-------
A-35
Table AS. Dissolved metals blanks for Round 2 (May 2012): Raton Basin, CO.
(continued)
Sample ID
LDate Cr
Collected
HHI mi i •
Mg
Mn
Mo
May 2012
RBEqBlkOl-0512
RBEqBlk02-0512
RBEqBlk03-0512
RBFBIkOl-0512
RBFBIk02-0512
RBFBIk03-0512
MDL
QL
Detection in Samples
Concentration min
Concentration max
5/14/2012
5/15/2012
5/16/2012
5/14/2012
5/15/2012
5/16/2012
<2.0
<2.0
<2.0
<2.0
<2.0
<2.0
0.06
2.0
1/22
2.1
2.1
<2.0
<2.0
<2.0
<2.0
<2.0
<2.0
0.11
2.0
11/22
2.7
19.5
<67
<67
<67
<67
<67
<67
20
67
9/22
22
11300
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
<0.35
<0.35
<0.35
<0.35
<0.35
<0.35
0.11
0.35
22/22
0.29
3.4
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
<0.10
<0.10
<0.10
<0.10
<0.10
<0.10
0.03
0.10
22/22
0.04
12.7
<14
<14
<14
<14
<14
<14
4
14
12/22
7
282
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
0.14
1.0
13/22
1.2
21.2
NA= not analyzed.
-------
A-36
Table AS. Dissolved metals blanks for Round 2 (May 2012): Raton Basin, CO.
(continued)
Date
Collected
May 2012
RBEqBlkOl-0512
5/14/2012
<0.06
<0.46
<2.0
<0.43
<4
RBEqBlk02-0512
5/15/2012
<0.06
<0.46
<2.0
<0.43
<4
RBEqBlk03-0512
5/16/2012
<0.06
<0.46
<2.0
<0.43
<4
RBFBIkOl-0512
5/14/2012
<0.06
<0.46
<2.0
<0.43
<4
RBFBIk02-0512
5/15/2012
<0.06
<0.46
<2.0
<0.43
<4
RBFBIk03-0512
5/16/2012
<0.06
<0.46
<2.0
<0.43
<4
MDL
0.51
0.11
0.02
0.03
0.14
0.08
0.13
QL
1.71
1.0
0.06
1.0
0.46
2.0
0.43
Detection in Samples
22/22
4/22
3/22
3/22
22/22
2/22
22/22
22/22
Concentration min
6.9
1.5
0.02
1.2
0.4
0.16
3.08
82.3
Concentration max
432
6.9
0.09
1.9
471
2.3
11.1
1190
R = data rejected.
-------
A-37
Table AS. Dissolved metals blanks for Round 2 (May 2012): Raton Basin, CO.
(continued)
Sampled
EDate
ollected
May 2012
RBEqBlkOl-0512
RBEqBlk02-0512
RBEqBlk03-0512
RBFBIkOl-0512
RBFBIk02-0512
RBFBIk03-0512
MDL
QL
Detection in Samples
Concentration min
Concentration max
5/14/2012
5/15/2012
5/16/2012
5/14/2012
5/15/2012
5/16/2012
R
R
R
R
R
R
<7
<7
<7
<7
<7
<7
2
7
1/22
10
10
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
0.04
1.0
0/22
<1.0
<1.0
R
R
R
R
<1.0
R
0.04
1.0
3/16
1.5
2.7
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
3
10
0/22
<10
<10
<50
<50
<50
<50
<50
<50
15
50
3/22
16
284
R = data rejected.
-------
A-38
Table AS. Dissolved metals blanks for Round 3 (November 2012): Raton Basin, CO.
(continued)
\ llT^^fl
Sample ID
Collected
MJ& El
KJ^fl
1
November 2012
RBEqBlkOl-1112
RBEqBlk02-1112
RBEqBlk03-1112
RBEqBlk04-1112
RBFBIkOl-1112
RBFBIk02-1112
RBFBIk03-1112
RBFBIk04-1112
MDL
QL
Detection in Samples
Concentration min
Concentration max
11/5/2012
11/6/2012
11/7/2012
11/8/2012
11/5/2012
11/6/2012
11/7/2012
11/8/2012
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
2
10
0/23
<10
<10
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
6
2.5
20
15/23
3.1
18.8
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
0.2
0.2
8/23
0.26
1.8
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
5
40
7/23
50.7
290
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
0.5
<5
0.3
5
23/23
18.6
632
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
0.1
5
1/23
0.25
0.25
0.03
0.07
0.02
0.04
0.01
<0.1
0.05
0.03
0.01
0.1
23/23
2.2
54.9
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
0.2
0.2
0/23
<0.2
<0.2
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
1.6
5
5/23
1.7
2.7
-------
A-39
Table AS. Dissolved metals blanks for Round 3 (November 2012): Raton Basin, CO.
(continued)
Sample ID
tDate
Zollected
H^^Hl 1
Mffll
•••}•
Mg
Mn
Mo
November 2012
RBEqBlkOl-1112
RBEqBlk02-1112
RBEqBlk03-1112
RBEqBlk04-1112
RBFBIkOl-1112
RBFBIk02-1112
RBFBIk03-1112
RBFBIk04-1112
MDL
QL
Detection in Samples
Concentration min
Concentration max
11/5/2012
11/6/2012
11/7/2012
11/8/2012
11/5/2012
11/6/2012
11/7/2012
11/8/2012
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
0.25
2
4/23
0.3
0.69
0.1
0.2
<0.5
0.1
<0.5
<0.5
2.8
0.8
0.1
0.5
11/23
0.55
11
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
40
100
8/23
48.5
9760
0.02
0.02
0.01
0.04
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.03
0.01
0.2
0/23
<0.2
<0.2
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
0.05
0.5
23/23
0.23
2.6
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
0.8
10
21/23
1.2
50.5
<0.05
0.02
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
0.01
0.05
23/23
0.03
12
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
0.2
5
22/23
0.3
287
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
0.2
0.1
0.6
0.05
0.5
23/23
0.4
31
-------
A-40
Table AS. Dissolved metals blanks for Round 3 (November 2012): Raton Basin, CO.
f continued!
Sample ID
Kjw|^2^EB
November 2012
RBEqBlkOl-1112
RBEqBlk02-1112
RBEqBlk03-1112
RBEqBlk04-1112
RBFBIkOl-1112
RBFBIk02-1112
RBFBIk03-1112
RBFBIk04-1112
MDL
QL
Detection in Samples
Concentration min
Concentration max
11/5/2012
11/6/2012
11/7/2012
11/8/2012
11/5/2012
11/6/2012
11/7/2012
11/8/2012
0.02
0.03
0.06
0.18
0.02
0.02
<0.25
0.11
0.01
0.25
23/23
6.9
506
<0.2
0.45
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
0.40
0.12
0.1
0.2
21/23
0.20
4.3
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
0.02
0.01
<0.05
0.02
0.03
0.01
0.05
7/23
0.02
0.19
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
0.05
0.2
11/23
0.09
0.68
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
0.1
0.2
2/23
0.1
2.2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
0.6
2
4/23
0.68
1.9
<0.10
0.01
<0.10
<0.10
<0.10
0.01
<0.10
<0.10
0.01
0.10
23/23
3.2
11.1
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
0.33
<2
0.2
2
23/23
79.4
1,270
NA = not analyzed.
-------
A-41
Table AS. Dissolved metals blanks for Round 3 (November 2012): Raton Basin, CO.
(continued)
Sample ID
KJWl^R^^B
November 2012
RBEqBlkOl-1112
RBEqBlk02-1112
RBEqBlk03-1112
RBEqBlk04-1112
RBFBIkOl-1112
RBFBIk02-1112
RBFBIk03-1112
RBFBIk04-1112
MDL
QL
Detection in Samples
Concentration min
Concentration max
11/5/2012
11/6/2012
11/7/2012
11/8/2012
11/5/2012
11/6/2012
11/7/2012
11/8/2012
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
0.05
0.2
0/23
<0.2
<0.2
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
0.5
5
1/23
0.52
0.52
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
0.06
<0.2
0.05
0.2
0/23
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
0.15
0.2
8/23
0.15
3.7
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
0.02
0.2
22/23
0.02
2.3
<5
2
3
2
<5
<5
1
2
0.6
5
10/23
1.1
88.6
-------
A-42
Table AS. Dissolved metals blanks for Round 4 (April/May 2013): Raton Basin, CO.
(continued)
Sample ID
KJWl^R^^B
^H
April/May 2013
RBEqBlkOl-0413
RBEqBlk02-0413
RBEqBlk03-0413
RBEqBlk04-0413
RBFBIkOl-0413
RBFBIk02-0413
RBFBIk03-0413
RBFBIk04-0413
MDL
QL
Detection in Samples
Concentration min
Concentration max
4/29/2013
4/30/2013
5/1/2013
5/2/2013
4/29/2013
4/30/2013
5/1/2013
5/2/2013
<10
<10
1.2
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
0.6
10
2/23
0.98
1.1
49
34
38
36
36
38
37
<20
4
20
8/23
27.8
46.7
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
0.04
0.2
19/23
0.05
2.2
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
<40
4
40
11/23
40.4
310
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
0.1
5
23/23
18.4
635
0.1
<5
0.1
<5
<5
<5
0.1
<5
0.1
5
1/23
0.14
0.14
0.01
0.01
0.02
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.04
0.009
0.1
23/23
1.98
54.4
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
0.15
0.2
0/23
<0.2
<0.2
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
1
5
1/23
1.2
1.2
-------
A-43
Table AS. Dissolved metals blanks for Round 4 (April/May 2013): Raton Basin, CO.
(continued)
Sample ID
Bw
April/May 2013
RBEqBlkOl-0413
RBEqBlk02-0413
RBEqBlk03-0413
RBEqBlk04-0413
RBFBIkOl-0413
RBFBIk02-0413
RBFBIk03-0413
RBFBIk04-0413
MDL
QL
Detection in Samples
Concentration min
Concentration max
4/29/2013
4/30/2013
5/1/2013
5/2/2013
4/29/2013
4/30/2013
5/1/2013
5/2/2013
1.6
0.6
0.8
0.6
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.3
0.25
2
0/23
<2
<2
2.8
<0.5
0.7
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
0.4
0.5
14/23
0.48
7.6
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
14
100
8/23
76
2040
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
0.01
0.2
0/23
<0.2
<0.2
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
0.05
0.5
23/23
0.26
2.6
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
0.4
10
8/23
12.7
80.7
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
0.007
0.05
23/23
0.04
13.1
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
0.2
5
23/23
0.39
264
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
0.1
0.5
21/23
0.54
14.1
-------
A-44
Table AS. Dissolved metals blanks for Round 4 (April/May 2013): Raton Basin, CO.
(continued)
Sample ID
KJWl^R^^B
April/May 2013
RBEqBlkOl-0413
RBEqBlk02-0413
RBEqBlk03-0413
RBEqBlk04-0413
RBFBIkOl-0413
RBFBIk02-0413
RBFBIk03-0413
RBFBIk04-0413
MDL
QL
Detection in Samples
Concentration min
Concentration max
4/29/2013
4/30/2013
5/1/2013
5/2/2013
4/29/2013
4/30/2013
5/1/2013
5/2/2013
<0.25
<0.25
<0.25
<0.25
<0.25
<0.25
<0.25
<0.25
0.01
0.25
23/23
7.1
510
0.56
<0.2
0.29
0.15
0.20
0.18
0.24
<0.2
0.15
0.2
21/23
0.16
8.7
0.01
0.02
0.01
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.02
<0.05
0.005
0.05
3/23
0.06
0.15
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
0.15
0.2
7/23
0.18
1.6
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
0.05
0.2
4/23
0.06
2.7
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
0.4
2
6/23
0.41
2.2
<0.10
<0.10
<0.10
0.02
<0.10
<0.10
<0.10
<0.10
0.005
0.10
23/23
3.1
10.5
0.5
0.4
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
<2
0.05
2
23/23
69.1
1,170
NA = not analyzed.
-------
A-45
Table AS. Dissolved metals blanks for Round 4 (April/May 2013): Raton Basin, CO
(continued)
flW^B 1 1 1
Sample ID Collected
^TO
Mffll
April/May 2013
RBEqBlkOl-0413
RBEqBlk02-0413
RBEqBlk03-0413
RBEqBlk04-0413
RBFBIkOl-0413
RBFBIk02-0413
RBFBIk03-0413
RBFBIk04-0413
MDL
QL
Detection in Samples
Concentration min
Concentration max
4/29/2013
4/30/2013
5/1/2013
5/2/2013
4/29/2013
4/30/2013
5/1/2013
5/2/2013
<0.2
<0.2
0.38
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
0.05
0.2
2/23
0.32
0.36
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
0.2
5
5/23
0.22
0.98
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
0.05
0.2
0/23
<0.2
<0.2
0.10
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
0.05
0.2
8/23
0.09
3.8
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
0.02
0.2
23/23
0.02
1.1
1.2
1.2
1.9
1.2
<5
0.6
<5
<5
0.5
5
9/23
5.4
75.9
-------
A-46
Table A6. Total metals blanks: Raton Basin, CO.
October 2011
RBEqBlkOl-1011
RBEqBlk02-1011
RBEqBlk03-1011
RBFBIkOl-1011
RBFBIk02-1011
RBFBIk03-1011
MDL
QL
Detection in Samples
Concentration min
Concentration max
10/3/2011
10/4/2011
10/5/2011
10/3/2011
10/4/2011
10/6/2011
<16
<16
<16
<16
<16
<16
4
16
0/22
<16
<16
<548
<548
<548
<548
<548
<548
164
548
4/22
204
2,290
<22
<22
<22
<22
<22
<22
7
22
0/22
<22
<22
<370
<370
<370
<370
<370
<370
111
370
2/22
139
217
<4
<4
<4
<4
<4
<4
1
4
22/22
20
486
<11
<11
<11
<11
<11
<11
3
11
0/22
<11
<11
0.1
<0.32
<0.32
<0.32
<0.32
<0.32
0.1
0.32
22/22
2.47
75.7
<4
<4
<4
<4
<4
<4
1
4
2/22
1.0
1.0
<4
<4
<4
<4
<4
<4
1
4
0/22
<4
<4
-------
A-47
Table A6. Total metals blanks for Round 1 (October 2011): Raton Basin, CO.
(continued)
Sample ID
October 2011
RBEqBlkOl-1011
RBEqBlk02-1011
RBEqBlk03-1011
RBFBIkOl-1011
RBFBIk02-1011
RBFBIk03-1011
MDL
QL
Detection in Samples
Concentration min
Concentration max
10/3/2011
10/4/2011
10/5/2011
10/3/2011
10/4/2011
10/6/2011
<8
<8
<8
<8
<8
<8
2
8
3/22
3
5
<22
7
<22
<22
7
<22
7
22
9/22
8
41
<74
<74
<74
<74
<74
<74
22
74
17/22
28
4280
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
<0.39
<0.39
<0.39
<0.39
<0.39
<0.39
0.12
0.39
22/22
0.29
2.36
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
<0.11
<0.11
<0.11
<0.11
<0.11
<0.11
0.03
0.11
22/22
0.04
12
<16
<16
<16
<16
^ ID
^ ID
4
16
15/22
6
292
<19
<19
<19
<19
^ 1 Q
^ 1 Q
6
19
1/22
16
16
NA = not analyzed.
-------
A-48
Table A6. Total metals blanks for Round 1 (October 2011): Raton Basin, CO.
(continued)
Sample ID
October 2011
RBEqBlkOl-1011
RBEqBlk02-1011
RBEqBlk03-1011
RBFBIkOl-1011
RBFBIk02-1011
RBFBIk03-1011
MDL
QL
Detection in Samples
Concentration min
Concentration max
10/3/2011
10/4/2011
10/5/2011
10/3/2011
10/4/2011
10/6/2011
<1.90
<1.90
<1.90
<1.90
<1.90
<1.90
0.57
1.90
22/22
13.4
431
<93
<93
<93
<93
<93
<93
28
93
0/22
<93
<93
<0.07
<0.07
<0.07
<0.07
<0.07
<0.07
0.02
0.07
2/22
0.03
0.11
<19
<19
<19
<19
<19
<19
6
19
0/22
<19
<19
<0.51
<0.51
<0.51
<0.51
<0.51
<0.51
0.15
0.51
21/22
0.23
138
R
R
R
R
R
R
<33
<33
<33
<33
<33
<33
10
33
0/22
<33
<33
<0.48
<0.48
<0.48
<0.48
<0.48
<0.48
0.14
0.48
22/22
3.19
10.6
<4
<4
<4
<4
<4
<4
1
4
22/22
59
1,890
R = data rejected.
-------
A-49
Table A6. Total metals blanks for Round 1 (October 2011): Raton Basin, CO.
(continued)
Sample ID
Collected
October 2011
RBEqBlkOl-1011
RBEqBlk02-1011
RBEqBlk03-1011
RBFBIkOl-1011
RBFBIk02-1011
RBFBIk03-1011
MDL
QL
Detection in Samples
Concentration min
Concentration max
10/3/2011
10/4/2011
10/5/2011
10/3/2011
10/4/2011
10/6/2011
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
<8
<8
<8
<8
<8
<8
2
8
6/22
2
74
^ 1 Q
^ 1 Q
^ 1 Q
^* 1 Q
^* 1 Q
^* 1 Q
6
19
0/22
<19
<19
<56
<56
<56
<56
<56
<56
17
56
0/22
<56
<56
<11
<11
<11
<11
<11
<11
3
11
1/22
4
4
<56
<56
<56
<56
<56
<56
17
56
4/22
21
998
NA = not analyzed.
-------
A-50
Table A6. Total metals blanks for Round 2 (May 2012): Raton Basin, CO.
(continued)
May 2012
RBEqBlkOl-0512
5/14/2012
<20.0
<370
<4
<0.32
<4
RBEqBlk02-0512
5/15/2012
<20.0
<370
<4
<0.32
<4
RBEqBlk03-0512
5/16/2012
<20.0
<370
<4
<0.32
<4
RBFBIkOl-0512
5/14/2012
<20.0
<370
<4
<0.32
<4
RBFBIk02-0512
5/15/2012
<20.0
<370
<4
<0.32
<4
RBFBIk03-0512
5/16/2012
<20.0
<370
<4
<0.32
<4
MDL
2.2
0.18
111
0.10
0.06
QL
16
20.0
1.0
370
11
0.32
1.0
Detection in Samples
0/22
10/22
5/22
3/22
22/22
0/22
22/22
0/22
0/22
Concentration min
24.0
1.1
116
18.3
2.55
<4
Concentration max
810
1.6
292
589
57.5
<4
-------
A-51
Table A6. Total metals blanks for Round 2 (May 2012): Raton Basin, CO.
(continued)
Date
Zollected
May 2012
RBEqBlkOl-0512
5/14/2012
<2.0
<2.0
<74
NA
<0.39
NA
RBEqBlk02-0512
5/15/2012
<2.0
<2.0
<74
NA
<0.39
NA
RBEqBlk03-0512
5/16/2012
<2.0
<2.0
<74
NA
<0.39
NA
RBFBIkOl-0512
5/14/2012
<2.0
<2.0
<74
NA
<0.39
NA
RBFBIk02-0512
5/15/2012
<2.0
3.0
<74
NA
<0.39
NA
RBFBIk03-0512
5/16/2012
<2.0
<2.0
<74
NA
<0.39
NA
MDL
0.06
0.11
22
0.12
0.03
0.14
QL
2.0
2.0
74
0.39
0.11
16
1.0
Detection in Samples
3/22
13/22
19/22
22/22
18/22
15/22
13/22
Concentration min
2.4
2.5
25
0.29
0.16
1.1
Concentration max
3.8
20.5
12,200
2.97
12.1
286
30.4
NA= not analyzed.
-------
A-52
Table A6. Total metals blanks for Round 2 (May 2012): Raton Basin, CO.
(continued)
Date
Zollected
May 2012
RBEqBlkOl-0512
5/14/2012
<1.90
<0.07
<0.51
<2.0
<5.0
<0.48
<4
RBEqBlk02-0512
5/15/2012
<1.90
<0.07
<0.51
<2.0
<5.0
<0.48
<4
RBEqBlk03-0512
5/16/2012
<1.90
<0.07
0.18
<2.0
<5.0
<0.48
<4
RBFBIkOl-0512
5/14/2012
<1.90
<0.07
<0.51
<2.0
<5.0
<0.48
<4
RBFBIk02-0512
5/15/2012
<1.90
<0.07
<0.51
<2.0
<5.0
<0.48
<4
RBFBIk03-0512
5/16/2012
0.78
<0.07
0.21
<2.0
<5.0
<0.48
<4
MDL
0.57
0.110
0.02
0.03
0.15
0.08
1.2
0.14
QL
1.90
1.0
0.07
1.0
0.51
2.0
5.0
0.48
Detection in Samples
22/22
4/22
5/22
6/22
19/22
1/22
0/15
22/22
22/22
Concentration min
7.13
1.3
0.02
1.4
0.64
3.5
<5.0
3.1
87
Concentration max
457
8.9
0.10
3.5
104
3.5
<5.0
11.1
1,240
-------
A-53
Table A6. Total metals blanks for Round 2 (May 2012): Raton Basin, CO.
(continued)
Sample ID
Collected Th
May 2012
RBEqBlkOl-0512
RBEqBlk02-0512
RBEqBlk03-0512
RBFBIkOl-0512
RBFBIk02-0512
RBFBIk03-0512
MDL
QL
Detection in Samples
Concentration min
Concentration max
5/14/2012
5/15/2012
5/16/2012
5/14/2012
5/15/2012
5/16/2012
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
0.05
1.0
11/22
0.06
0.54
<8
<8
<8
<8
<8
<8
2
8
5/22
5
67
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
0.04
1.0
0/22
<1.0
<1.0
R
R
R
R
R
R
<11
<11
<11
<11
<11
<11
3
11
1/22
4
4
<56
<56
<56
<56
<56
<56
17
56
7/22
17
196
R = data rejected.
-------
A-54
Table A6. Total metals blanks for Round 3 (November 2012): Raton Basin, CO.
(continued)
Sample ID
0316 Ag
Collected B
^^
Mffll
^^H^l
November 2012
RBEqBlkOl-1112
RBEqBlk02-1112
RBEqBlk03-1112
RBEqBlk04-1112
RBFBIkOl-1112
RBFBIk02-1112
RBFBIk03-1112
RBFBIk04-1112
MDL
QL
Detection in Samples
Concentration min
Concentration max
11/5/2012
11/6/2012
11/7/2012
11/8/2012
11/5/2012
11/6/2012
11/7/2012
11/8/2012
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
2
10
0/23
<10
<10
<20
<20
<20
34
<20
<20
100
38
2.5
20
15/23
20.1
757
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
0.2
0.2
10/23
0.22
2.0
<20
<20
9
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
2.7
20
20/23
6.8
280
<2.5
0.4
<2.5
0.6
<2.5
<2.5
<2.5
<2.5
0.2
2.5
23/23
20.3
572
<2.5
<2.5
<2.5
<2.5
<2.5
<2.5
<2.5
<2.5
0.1
2.5
0/23
<2.5
<2.5
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
0.03
<0.05
<0.05
0.02
0.03
0.01
0.05
23/23
2.16
49.6
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
0.2
0.2
0/23
<0.2
<0.2
<2.5
<2.5
<2.5
<2.5
<2.5
<2.5
<2.5
<2.5
1
2.5
2/23
2.1
2.2
-------
A-55
Table A6. Total metals blanks for Round 3 (November 2012): Raton Basin, CO.
(continued)
Sample ID
tDate
Zollected
H^^Hl 1
Mffll
••M
Mg
Mn
Mo
November 2012
RBEqBlkOl-1112
RBEqBlk02-1112
RBEqBlk03-1112
RBEqBlk04-1112
RBFBIkOl-1112
RBFBIk02-1112
RBFBIk03-1112
RBFBIk04-1112
MDL
QL
Detection in Samples
Concentration min
Concentration max
11/5/2012
11/6/2012
11/7/2012
11/8/2012
11/5/2012
11/6/2012
11/7/2012
11/8/2012
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
0.3
2
7/23
0.43
4.8
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.9
0.2
0.2
1.2
0.9
0.1
0.5
20/23
0.5
16
<50
<50
65
<50
<50
<50
<50
<50
19
50
10/23
109
10,600
0.05
0.02
0.05
0.06
<0.2
<0.2
0.05
0.05
0.01
0.2
0/23
<0.2
<0.2
<0.25
<0.25
<0.25
<0.25
<0.25
<0.25
<0.25
<0.25
0.02
0.25
23/23
0.27
2.6
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
0.4
5
23/23
0.7
54
<0.03
<0.03
<0.03
<0.03
<0.03
<0.03
<0.03
<0.03
0.01
0.03
23/23
0.04
11.5
<2.5
<2.5
0.4
0.3
0.3
<2.5
<2.5
<2.5
0.2
2.5
18/23
1.8
260
<0.5
2.0
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
0.05
0.5
23/23
0.38
32.1
-------
A-56
Table A6. Total metals blanks for Round 3 (November 2012): Raton Basin, CO.
(continued)
Sample ID
tDate
Zollected
Mffll
November 2012
RBEqBlkOl-1112
RBEqBlk02-1112
RBEqBlk03-1112
RBEqBlk04-1112
RBFBIkOl-1112
RBFBIk02-1112
RBFBIk03-1112
RBFBIk04-1112
MDL
QL
Detection in Samples
Concentration min
Concentration max
11/5/2012
11/6/2012
11/7/2012
11/8/2012
11/5/2012
11/6/2012
11/7/2012
11/8/2012
<0.13
0.04
0.09
0.22
<0.13
0.03
0.06
0.13
0.01
0.13
23/23
6.8
530
<0.2
0.52
0.11
0.14
0.11
0.25
0.18
0.15
0.1
0.2
23/23
0.16
4.1
<0.03
<0.03
<0.03
0.01
<0.03
<0.03
<0.03
0.02
0.01
0.03
8/23
0.02
0.11
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
0.05
0.2
20/23
0.06
1.8
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
0.1
0.2
2/23
0.2
0.5
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
0.6
2
3/23
0.77
2.5
<0.05
<0.05
0.02
0.03
<0.05
<0.05
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.05
23/23
3.31
10.4
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
0.2
2
23/23
84.3
1,120
NA = not analyzed.
-------
A-57
Table A6. Total metals blanks for Round 3 (November 2012): Raton Basin, CO.
(continued)
Sample ID
Collected Th
November 2012
RBEqBlkOl-1112
RBEqBlk02-1112
RBEqBlk03-1112
RBEqBlk04-1112
RBFBIkOl-1112
RBFBIk02-1112
RBFBIk03-1112
RBFBIk04-1112
MDL
QL
Detection in Samples
Concentration min
Concentration max
11/5/2012
11/6/2012
11/7/2012
11/8/2012
11/5/2012
11/6/2012
11/7/2012
11/8/2012
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
0.05
0.2
3/23
0.09
0.14
<2.5
<2.5
<2.5
<2.5
<2.5
<2.5
<2.5
<2.5
0.25
2.5
12/23
0.3
7.4
<0.2
<0.2
0.24
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
0.07
<0.2
0.05
0.2
3/23
0.08
0.15
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
0.15
0.2
6/23
0.16
1.5
0.1
0.08
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.02
0.1
0.1
0.02
0.2
21/23
0.18
2.8
<2.5
4
4
<2.5
<2.5
<2.5
<2.5
<2.5
1.2
2.5
14/23
3.1
157
-------
A-58
Table A6. Total metals blanks for Round 4 (April/May 2013): Raton Basin, CO.
(continued)
Sample ID
0316 Ag
Collected B
^^
Mffll
^^H^l
April/May 2013
RBEqBlkOl-0413
RBEqBlk02-0413
RBEqBlk03-0413
RBEqBlk04-0413
RBFBIkOl-0413
RBFBIk02-0413
RBFBIk03-0413
RBFBIk04-0413
MDL
QL
Detection in Samples
Concentration min
Concentration max
4/29/2013
4/30/2013
5/1/2013
5/2/2013
4/29/2013
4/30/2013
5/1/2013
5/2/2013
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
0.6
10
0/23
<10
<10
37
39
36
37
61
35
37
36
4
20
16/23
22.2
433
0.20
0.22
<0.2
0.21
0.21
0.20
0.21
<0.2
0.04
0.2
23/23
0.26
2.4
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
2.1
20
18/23
3.3
300
<2.5
<2.5
<2.5
<2.5
<2.5
<2.5
<2.5
<2.5
0.2
2.5
23/23
18.1
630
<2.5
<2.5
<2.5
<2.5
<2.5
<2.5
<2.5
<2.5
0.1
2.5
0/23
<2.5
<2.5
0.01
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.005
0.05
23/23
1.94
53.8
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
0.15
0.2
1/23
0.16
0.16
<2.5
<2.5
<2.5
<2.5
<2.5
<2.5
<2.5
<2.5
0.4
2.5
5/23
0.65
1
-------
A-59
Table A6. Total metals blanks for Round 4 (April/May 2013): Raton Basin, CO.
(continued)
Sample ID
tDate
Zollected
H^^Hl 1
Mffll
••M
Mg
Mn
Mo
April/May 2013
RBEqBlkOl-0413
RBEqBlk02-0413
RBEqBlk03-0413
RBEqBlk04-0413
RBFBIkOl-0413
RBFBIk02-0413
RBFBIk03-0413
RBFBIk04-0413
MDL
QL
Detection in Samples
Concentration min
Concentration max
4/29/2013
4/30/2013
5/1/2013
5/2/2013
4/29/2013
4/30/2013
5/1/2013
5/2/2013
<2
<2
0.7
0.6
0.4
0.4
0.5
0.3
0.25
2
3/23
2.3
78.2
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
4.7
<0.5
0.4
0.5
19/23
0.74
17.9
<50
<50
<50
<50
<50
<50
<50
<50
7
50
20/23
8.1
8,190
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
0.01
0.2
0/23
<0.2
<0.2
0.03
<0.25
0.02
0.02
<0.25
<0.25
<0.25
<0.25
0.02
0.25
23/23
0.33
2.7
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
0.2
5
15/23
3.1
46.2
<0.03
<0.03
<0.03
<0.03
<0.03
<0.03
<0.03
<0.03
0.002
0.03
23/23
0.07
12.9
0.18
<2.5
<2.5
<2.5
<2.5
<2.5
<2.5
<2.5
0.1
2.5
20/23
3.5
282
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
0.1
0.5
23/23
0.52
14.8
-------
A-60
Table A6. Total metals blanks for Round 4 (April/May 2013): Raton Basin, CO.
(continued)
Sample ID
tDate
Zollected
Mffll
April/May 2013
RBEqBlkOl-0413
RBEqBlk02-0413
RBEqBlk03-0413
RBEqBlk04-0413
RBFBIkOl-0413
RBFBIk02-0413
RBFBIk03-0413
RBFBIk04-0413
MDL
QL
Detection in Samples
Concentration min
Concentration max
4/29/2013
4/30/2013
5/1/2013
5/2/2013
4/29/2013
4/30/2013
5/1/2013
5/2/2013
0.01
0.01
<0.13
<0.13
<0.13
<0.13
<0.13
<0.13
0.004
0.13
23/23
7.8
500
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
0.15
0.2
23/23
0.25
46
<0.03
<0.03
<0.03
<0.03
<0.03
<0.03
<0.03
<0.03
0.002
0.03
8/23
0.003
0.105
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
0.15
0.2
14/23
0.15
1.8
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
0.05
0.2
7/23
0.06
3.0
0.70
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
0.42
0.4
2
8/23
0.43
2.5
0.02
0.02
<0.05
<0.05
0.01
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
0.002
0.05
23/23
3.1
10.4
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
0.05
25
23/23
71.9
1,230
NA = not analyzed.
-------
A-61
Table A6. Total metals blanks for Round 4 (April/May 2013): Raton Basin, CO.
(continued)
Sample ID
Collected Th
April/May 2013
RBEqBlkOl-0413
RBEqBlk02-0413
RBEqBlk03-0413
RBEqBlk04-0413
RBFBIkOl-0413
RBFBIk02-0413
RBFBIk03-0413
RBFBIk04-0413
MDL
QL
Detection in Samples
Concentration min
Concentration max
4/29/2013
4/30/2013
5/1/2013
5/2/2013
4/29/2013
4/30/2013
5/1/2013
5/2/2013
<0.2
<0.2
0.32
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
0.05
0.2
3/23
0.28
0.34
<2.5
<2.5
<2.5
<2.5
<2.5
<2.5
<2.5
<2.5
0.4
2.5
8/23
0.5
12.4
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
0.05
0.2
0/23
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
0.05
0.2
14/23
0.06
3.8
0.42
0.42
0.42
0.40
0.42
0.39
0.40
0.32
0.02
0.2
23/23
0.35
2.1
4.4
2.8
3.8
3.1
0.5
<2.5
<2.5
0.7
0.4
2.5
13/23
2.7
192
-------
A-62
Table A7. Volatile organic compound (VOC) blanks: Raton Basin, CO.
RBEqBlkOl-1011
10/3/2011
<100
<25
<25
<0.5
RBEqBlk02-1011
10/4/2011
<100
<25
<25
<0.5
<5.0
RBEqBlk03-1011
10/5/2011
<100
<25
<25
<0.5
<5.0
RBFBlkOl-1011
10/3/2011
<100
<25
<25
<0.5
<5.0
RBFBlk02-1011
10/4/2011
<100
<25
<25
<0.5
<5.0
RBFBlk03-1011
10/6/2011
<100
<25
<25
<0.5
<5.0
RBTripBlkOl-1011
10/3/2011
<100
<25
<25
<0.5
<5.0
RBTripBlk02-1011
10/4/2011
<100
<25
<25
<0.5
<5.0
RBTripBlk03-1011
10/5/2011
<100
<25
<25
<0.5
<5.0
RBTripBlk04-1011
10/6/2011
<100
<25
<25
<0.5
<5.0
MDL
12.4
6.4
6.8
0.16
0.63
2.8
0.41
0.12
0.17
0.15
QL
100
25
25
0.5
1.0
5.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Detection in Samples
0/22
0/22
0/22
0/22
0/22
3/22
0/22
0/22
0/22
0/22
Concentration min
<100
<25
<25
<0.5
11.7
Concentration max
<100
<25
<25
<0.5
965
-------
A-63
Table A7. VOC blanks for Round 1 (October 2011): Raton Basin, CO.
(continued)
RBEqBlkOl-1011
RBEqBlk02-1011
RBEqBlk03-1011
RBFBlkOl-1011
RBFBlk02-1011
RBFBlk03-1011
RBTripBlkOl-1011
RBTripBlk02-1011
RBTripBlk03-1011
RBTripBlk04-1011
MDL
QL
Detection in Samples
Concentration min
Concentration max
10/3/2011
10/4/2011
10/5/2011
10/3/2011
10/4/2011
10/6/2011
10/3/2011
10/4/2011
10/5/2011
10/6/2011
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
0.18
0.5
0/22
<0.5
<0.5
mim
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
Bsifl
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
0.07
0.5
0/22
<0.5
<0.5
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
0.14
1.0
0/22
<1.0
<1.0
HftXjH
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
0.11
0.5
0/22
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
0.08
0.5
0/22
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
0.14
0.5
0/22
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
0.07
0.5
4/22
0.56
14
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
0.09
0.5
0/22
<0.5
<0.5
1
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
0.10
0.5
0/22
<0.5
<0.5
R = data rejected.
-------
A-64
Table A7. VOC blanks for Round 1 (October 2011): Raton Basin, CO.
(continued)
RBEqBlkOl-1011
10/3/2011
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<2.0
<0.5
RBEqBlk02-1011
10/4/2011
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<2.0
<0.5
RBEqBlk03-1011
10/5/2011
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
0.24
<0.5
<0.5
<2.0
<0.5
RBFBlkOl-1011
10/3/2011
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<2.0
<0.5
RBFBlk02-1011
10/4/2011
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
0.24
<0.5
<0.5
<2.0
<0.5
RBFBlk03-1011
10/6/2011
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<2.0
<0.5
RBTripBlkOl-1011
10/3/2011
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<2.0
<0.5
RBTripBlk02-1011
10/4/2011
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<2.0
<0.5
RBTripBlk03-1011
10/5/2011
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
0.40
<0.5
<0.5
<2.0
<0.5
RBTripBlk04-1011
10/6/2011
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
0.41
<0.5
<0.5
<2.0
<0.5
MDL
0.07
0.16
0.15
0.10
0.10
0.09
0.07
0.17
0.06
QL
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
1.0
2.0
0.5
Detection in Samples
2/22
0/22
0/22
4/22
0/22
0/22
0/22
0/22
0/22
Concentration min
0.38
<0.5
<0.5
0.53
<0.5
<0.5
<2.0
<0.5
Concentration max
0.98
<0.5
<0.5
4.16
<0.5
<0.5
<2.0
<0.5
R = data rejected.
-------
A-65
Table A7. VOC blanks for Round 1 (October 2011): Raton Basin, CO.
(continued)
RBEqBlkOl-1011
10/3/2011
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
RBEqBlk02-1011
10/4/2011
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
RBEqBlk03-1011
10/5/2011
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
RBFBIkOl-1011
10/3/2011
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
RBFBIk02-1011
10/4/2011
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
RBFBIk03-1011
10/6/2011
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
RBTripBlkOl-1011
10/3/2011
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
RBTripBlk02-1011
10/4/2011
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
RBTripBlk03-1011
10/5/2011
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
RBTripBlk04-1011
10/6/2011
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
MDL
0.06
0.06
0.06
0.10
0.08
0.12
0.13
0.12
QL
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
Detection in Samples
1/22
0/22
0/22
0/22
0/22
0/22
0/22
0/22
Concentration min
0.31
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
Concentration max
0.31
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
-------
A-66
Table A7. VOC blanks for Round 2 (May 2012): Raton Basin, CO.
(continued)
RBEqBlkOl-0512
5/14/2012
<100
<25
<25
<0.5
<5.0
RBEqBlk02-0512
5/15/2012
<100
<25
<25
<0.5
<5.0
RBEqBlk03-0512
5/16/2012
<100
<25
<25
<0.5
<5.0
RBFBlkOl-0512
5/14/2012
<100
<25
<25
<0.5
<5.0
RBFBlk02-0512
5/15/2012
<100
<25
<25
<0.5
<5.0
RBFBlk03-0512
5/16/2012
<100
<25
<25
<0.5
<5.0
RBTripBlkOl-0512
5/14/2012
<100
<25
<25
<0.5
<5.0
RBTripBlk02-0512
5/15/2012
<100
<25
<25
<0.5
<5.0
RBTripBlk03-0512
5/16/2012
<100
<25
<25
<0.5
<5.0
MDL
12.4
6.4
6.8
0.16
0.63
2.8
0.41
0.12
0.17
0.15
QL
100
25
25
0.5
1.0
5.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Detection in Samples
0/22
0/22
0/22
0/22
1/22
5/22
0/22
0/22
0/22
0/22
Concentration min
<100
<25
<25
<0.5
62.3
19.5
Concentration max
<100
<25
<25
<0.5
62.3
1310
-------
A-67
Table A7. VOC blanks for Round 2 (May 2012): Raton Basin, CO.
(continued)
RBEqBlkOl-0512
5/14/2012
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
RBEqBlk02-0512
5/15/2012
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
RBEqBlk03-0512
5/16/2012
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
RBFBIkOl-0512
5/14/2012
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
RBFBIk02-0512
5/15/2012
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
RBFBIk03-0512
5/16/2012
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
RBTripBlkOl-0512
5/14/2012
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
RBTripBlk02-0512
5/15/2012
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
RBTripBlk03-0512
5/16/2012
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
MDL
0.18
0.11
0.07
0.14
0.11
0.08
0.14
0.07
0.09
0.10
QL
0.5
0.5
0.5
1.0
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
Detection in Samples
0/22
0/22
0/22
0/22
0/22
0/22
0/22
2/22
0/22
0/22
Concentration min
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
1.93
<0.5
<0.5
Concentration max
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
39.0
<0.5
<0.5
-------
A-68
Table A7. VOC blanks for Round 2 (May 2012): Raton Basin, CO.
(continued)
RBEqBlkOl-0512
5/14/2012
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<2.0
<0.5
RBEqBlk02-0512
5/15/2012
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<2.0
<0.5
RBEqBlk03-0512
5/16/2012
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<2.0
<0.5
RBFBlkOl-0512
5/14/2012
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<2.0
<0.5
RBFBlk02-0512
5/15/2012
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<2.0
<0.5
RBFBlk03-0512
5/16/2012
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<2.0
<0.5
RBTripBlkOl-0512
5/14/2012
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<2.0
<0.5
RBTripBlk02-0512
5/15/2012
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<2.0
<0.5
RBTripBlk03-0512
5/16/2012
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<2.0
<0.5
MDL
0.07
0.16
0.10
0.10
0.100
0.090
0.07
0.17
0.06
QL
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
1.0
2.0
0.5
Detection in Samples
4/22
0/22
0/22
3/22
0/22
0/22
1/22
1/22
0/22
Concentration min
0.66
<0.5
<0.5
1.96
<0.5
<0.5
1.67
2.94
<0.5
Concentration max
1.03
<0.5
<0.5
5.91
<0.5
<0.5
1.67
2.94
<0.5
R = data rejected.
-------
A-69
Table A7. VOC blanks for Round 2 (May 2012): Raton Basin, CO.
(continued)
RBEqBlkOl-0512
5/14/2012
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
RBEqBlk02-0512
5/15/2012
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
RBEqBlk03-0512
5/16/2012
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
RBFBlkOl-0512
5/14/2012
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
RBFBlk02-0512
5/15/2012
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
RBFBlk03-0512
5/16/2012
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
RBTripBlkOl-0512
5/14/2012
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
RBTripBlk02-0512
5/15/2012
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
RBTripBlk03-0512
5/16/2012
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
MDL
0.06
0.06
0.06
0.10
0.08
0.12
0.13
0.12
QL
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
Detection in Samples
0/22
0/22
1/22
0/22
0/22
0/22
0/22
0/22
Concentration min
<0.5
<0.5
1.96
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
Concentration max
<0.5
<0.5
1.96
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
-------
A-70
Table A7. SwRI VOC blanks for ROUnd 3 (November 2012): RatOn Basin, CO. *Primarydataset.TheShaw VOC data are presented for comparison.
RBEqBlkOl-1112
11/5/2012
<100
NA
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
RBEqBlk02-1112
11/6/2012
<100
NA
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
RBEqBlk03-1112
11/7/2012
<100
NA
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
RBEqBlk04-1112
11/8/2012
<100
NA
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
RBFBIkOl-1112
11/5/2012
<100
NA
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
RBFBIk02-1112
11/6/2012
<100
NA
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
RBFBIk03-1112
11/7/2012
<100
NA
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
RBFBIk04-1112
11/8/2012
<100
NA
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
RBTripBlkOl-1112
11/5/2012
<100
NA
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
RBTripBlk02-1112
11/6/2012
<100
NA
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
RBTripBlk03-1112
11/7/2012
<100
NA
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
RBTripBlk04-1112
11/8/2012
<100
NA
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
MDL
63
7.4
0.07
0.28
4.9
0.07
0.08
0.11
0.11
QL
100
10
1.0
1.0
10
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
Detection in Samples
0/23
0/23
0/23
3/23
4/23
0/23
0/23
0/23
0/23
Concentration min
<100
0.65
9.1
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
Concentration max
<100
1.6
1000
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
-------
A-71
Table A7. SwRI VOC blanks for Round 3 (November 2012): Raton Basin, CO.
(continued)
RBEqBlkOl-1112
11/5/2012
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
RBEqBlk02-1112
11/6/2012
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
RBEqBlk03-1112
11/7/2012
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
RBEqBlk04-1112
11/8/2012
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
RBFBlkOl-1112
11/5/2012
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
RBFBlk02-1112
11/6/2012
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
RBFBlk03-1112
11/7/2012
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
RBFBlk04-1112
11/8/2012
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
RBTripBlkOl-1112
11/5/2012
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
RBTripBlk02-1112
11/6/2012
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
RBTripBlk03-1112
11/7/2012
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
RBTripBlk04-1112
11/8/2012
<0.5
<0.5
0.11
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
MDL
0.14
0.09
0.10
0.10
0.07
0.06
0.10
0.05
0.09
0.09
QL
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
Detection in Samples
0/23
0/23
9/23
3/23
0/23
0/23
0/23
6/23
0/23
0/23
Concentration min
<0.5
<0.5
0.12
0.11
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
0.19
<0.5
<0.5
Concentration max
<0.5
<0.5
0.71
2.1
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
4.1
<0.5
<0.5
-------
A-72
Table A7. SwRI VOC blanks for Round 3 (November 2012): Raton Basin, CO.
(continued)
RBEqBlkOl-1112
11/5/2012
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
RBEqBlk02-1112
11/6/2012
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
RBEqBlk03-1112
11/7/2012
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
RBEqBlk04-1112
11/8/2012
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
RBFBIkOl-1112
11/5/2012
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
RBFBIk02-1112
11/6/2012
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
RBFBIk03-1112
11/7/2012
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
RBFBIk04-1112
11/8/2012
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
RBTripBlkOl-1112
11/5/2012
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
RBTripBlk02-1112
11/6/2012
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
RBTripBlk03-1112
11/7/2012
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
RBTripBlk04-1112
11/8/2012
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
MDL
0.05
0.04
0.12
0.07
0.07
0.13
0.08
0.06
0.15
0.06
QL
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
1.0
0.5
Detection in Samples
3/23
0/23
0/23
6/23
0/23
0/23
0/23
1/23
1/23
2/23
Concentration min
0.07
<0.5
<0.5
0.08
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
0.06
0.20
0.08
Concentration max
0.84
<0.5
<0.5
1.8
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
0.06
0.20
0.10
-------
A-73
Table A7. SwRI VOC blanks for Round 3 (November 2012): Raton Basin, CO.
(continued)
RBEqBlkOl-1112
11/5/2012
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
RBEqBlk02-1112
11/6/2012
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
RBEqBlk03-1112
11/7/2012
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
RBEqBlk04-1112
11/8/2012
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
RBFBlkOl-1112
11/5/2012
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
RBFBlk02-1112
11/6/2012
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
RBFBlk03-1112
11/7/2012
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
RBFBlk04-1112
11/8/2012
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
RBTripBlkOl-1112
11/5/2012
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
RBTripBlk02-1112
11/6/2012
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
RBTripBlk03-1112
11/7/2012
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
RBTripBlk04-1112
11/8/2012
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
MDL
0.07
0.08
0.03
0.09
0.07
0.15
0.05
0.08
QL
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
Detection in Samples
0/23
0/23
1/23
0/23
0/23
4/23
1/23
2/23
Concentration min
<0.5
<0.5
0.13
<0.5
<0.5
0.08
0.08
0.73
Concentration max
<0.5
<0.5
0.13
<0.5
<0.5
0.16
0.08
0.78
-------
A-74
Table A7. Shaw VOC blanks for Round 3 (November 2012): Raton Basin, CO.
*The SwRI VOC data is the primary data set; the Shaw VOC data is presented for comparison.
RBEqBlkOl-1112
11/5/2012
<200
<25
<25
<0.5
RBEqBlk02-1112
11/6/2012
<200
<25
<25
<0.5
<5.0
RBEqBlk03-1112
11/7/2012
<200
<25
<25
<0.5
<5.0
RBEqBlk04-1112
11/8/2012
<200
<25
<25
<0.5
<5.0
RBFBlkOl-1112
11/5/2012
<200
<25
<25
<0.5
<5.0
RBFBlk02-1112
11/6/2012
<200
<25
<25
<0.5
<5.0
RBFBlk03-1112
11/7/2012
<200
<25
<25
<0.5
<5.0
RBFBlk04-1112
11/8/2012
<200
<25
<25
<0.5
<5.0
RBTripBlkOl-1112
11/5/2012
<200
<25
<25
<0.5
<5.0
RBTripBlk02-1112
11/6/2012
<200
<25
<25
<0.5
<5.0
RBTripBlk03-1112
11/7/2012
<200
<25
<25
<0.5
<5.0
RBTripBlk04-1112
11/8/2012
<200
<25
<25
<0.5
<5.0
MDL
35.5
16.8
9.09
0.06
4.35
2.66
0.09
0.15
0.28
0.10
QL
200
25
25
0.5
10
5.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Detection in Samples
0/23
0/23
0/23
0/23
0/23
3/23
0/23
0/23
0/23
0/23
Concentration min
<200
<25
<25
<0.5
34.8
Concentration max
<200
<25
<25
<0.5
958
-------
A-75
Table A7. Shaw VOC blanks for Round 3 (November 2012): Raton Basin, CO.
(continued)
RBEqBlkOl-1112
11/5/2012
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
RBEqBlk02-1112
11/6/2012
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
RBEqBlk03-1112
11/7/2012
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
RBEqBlk04-1112
11/8/2012
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
RBFBlkOl-1112
11/5/2012
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
RBFBlk02-1112
11/6/2012
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
RBFBlk03-1112
11/7/2012
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
RBFBlk04-1112
11/8/2012
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
RBTripBlkOl-1112
11/5/2012
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
RBTripBlk02-1112
11/6/2012
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
RBTripBlk03-1112
11/7/2012
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
RBTripBlk04-1112
11/8/2012
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
MDL
0.12
0.05
0.17
0.17
0.09
0.15
0.09
0.17
0.12
QL
0.5
0.5
1.0
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
Detection in Samples
0/23
0/23
1/23
0/23
0/23
0/23
3/23
0/23
0/23
Concentration min
<0.5
<0.5
1.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
0.98
<0.5
<0.5
Concentration max
<0.5
<0.5
1.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
3.56
<0.5
<0.5
R = data rejected.
-------
A-76
Table A7. Shaw VOC blanks for Round 3 (November 2012): Raton Basin, CO.
(continued)
RBEqBlkOl-1112
11/5/2012
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<2.0
<0.5
RBEqBlk02-1112
11/6/2012
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<2.0
<0.5
RBEqBlk03-1112
11/7/2012
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<2.0
<0.5
RBEqBlk04-1112
11/8/2012
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<2.0
<0.5
RBFBlkOl-1112
11/5/2012
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<2.0
<0.5
RBFBlk02-1112
11/6/2012
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<2.0
<0.5
RBFBlk03-1112
11/7/2012
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<2.0
<0.5
RBFBlk04-1112
11/8/2012
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<2.0
<0.5
RBTripBlkOl-1112
11/5/2012
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<2.0
<0.5
RBTripBlk02-1112
11/6/2012
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<2.0
<0.5
RBTripBlk03-1112
11/7/2012
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<2.0
<0.5
RBTripBlk04-1112
11/8/2012
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<2.0
<0.5
MDL
0.11
0.21
0.10
0.09
0.10
0.10
0.06
0.14
0.03
QL
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
1.00
2.0
0.5
Detection in Samples
2/23
0/23
0/23
3/23
0/23
0/23
0/23
0/23
1/23
Concentration min
0.39
<0.5
<0.5
1.83
<0.5
<0.5
<2.0
2.18
Concentration max
0.61
<0.5
<0.5
3.17
<0.5
<0.5
<2.0
2.18
R = data rejected.
-------
A-77
Table A7. Shaw VOC blanks for Round 3 (November 2012): Raton Basin, CO.
(continued)
RBEqBlkOl-1112
11/5/2012
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
RBEqBlk02-1112
11/6/2012
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
RBEqBlk03-1112
11/7/2012
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
RBEqBlk04-1112
11/8/2012
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
RBFBlkOl-1112
11/5/2012
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
RBFBlk02-1112
11/6/2012
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
RBFBlk03-1112
11/7/2012
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
RBFBlk04-1112
11/8/2012
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
RBTripBlkOl-1112
11/5/2012
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
RBTripBlk02-1112
11/6/2012
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
RBTripBlk03-1112
11/7/2012
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
RBTripBlk04-1112
11/8/2012
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
MDL
0.07
0.04
0.07
0.10
0.07
0.06
0.09
0.12
QL
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
Detection in Samples
0/23
0/23
0/23
0/23
0/23
0/23
0/23
0/23
Concentration min
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
Concentration max
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
-------
A-78
Table A7. VOC blanks for Round 4 (April/May 2013): Raton Basin, CO.
(continued)
Sample ID
RBEqBlkOl-0413
RBEqBlk02-0413
RBEqBlk03-0413
RBEqBlk04-0413
RBFBlkOl-0413
RBFBlk02-0413
RBFBlk03-0413
RBFBlk04-0413
RBTripBlkOl-0413
RBTripBlk02-0413
RBTripBlk03-0413
RBTripBlk04-0413
MDL
QL
Detection in Samples
Concentration min
Concentration max
Collected ~ 3 8 S » S Ł3
4/29/2013
4/30/2013
5/1/2013
5/2/2013
4/29/2013
4/30/2013
5/1/2013
5/2/2013
4/29/2013
4/30/2013
5/1/2013
5/2/2013
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
63
100
0/23
<100
<100
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
7.4
10
0/23
<10
<10
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
0.07
1.0
0/23
<1.0
<1.0
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
0.05
0.5
0/23
<0.5
<0.5
B*M^V
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
0.28
1.0
2/23
0.16
0.30
01 "S I**
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
4.9
10
4/23
6.9
960
sEn ssn oJ-iie. sea
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
0.07
0.5
0/23
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
0.08
0.5
0/23
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
0.11
0.5
0/23
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
0.51
0.5
0/23
<0.5
<0.5
-------
A-79
Table A7. VOC blanks for Round 4 (April/May 2013): Raton Basin, CO.
(continued)
RBEqBlkOl-0413
4/29/2013
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
RBEqBlk02-0413
4/30/2013
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
RBEqBlk03-0413
5/1/2013
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
RBEqBlk04-0413
5/2/2013
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
RBFBlkOl-0413
4/29/2013
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
RBFBlk02-0413
4/30/2013
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
RBFBlk03-0413
5/1/2013
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
RBFBlk04-0413
5/2/2013
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
RBTripBlkOl-0413
4/29/2013
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
RBTripBlk02-0413
4/30/2013
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
RBTripBlk03-0413
5/1/2013
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
RBTripBlk04-0413
5/2/2013
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
MDL
0.14
0.09
0.10
0.10
0.07
0.06
0.10
0.05
0.09
0.09
QL
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
Detection in Samples
0/23
0/23
2/23
1/23
0/23
0/23
0/23
8/23
0/23
0/23
Concentration min
<0.5
<0.5
0.22
0.12
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
0.08
<0.5
<0.5
Concentration max
<0.5
<0.5
0.45
0.12
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
2.3
<0.5
<0.5
-------
A-80
Table A7. VOC blanks for Round 4 (April/May 2013): Raton Basin, CO.
(continued)
Sample II
RBEqBlkOl-0413
4/29/2013
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
RBEqBlk02-0413
4/30/2013
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
RBEqBlk03-0413
5/1/2013
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
RBEqBlk04-0413
5/2/2013
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
RBFBlkOl-0413
4/29/2013
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
RBFBlk02-0413
4/30/2013
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
RBFBlk03-0413
5/1/2013
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
RBFBlk04-0413
5/2/2013
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
RBTripBlkOl-0413
4/29/2013
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
RBTripBlk02-0413
4/30/2013
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
RBTripBlk03-0413
5/1/2013
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
RBTripBlk04-0413
5/2/2013
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
MDL
0.05
0.04
0.12
0.07
0.07
0.13
0.08
0.06
0.15
0.06
QL
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
1.0
0.5
Detection in Samples
3/23
0/23
0/23
4/23
0/23
0/23
0/23
0/23
0/23
0/23
Concentration min
0.25
<0.5
<0.5
0.11
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
Concentration max
0.43
<0.5
<0.5
0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
-------
A-81
Table A7. VOC blanks for Round 4 (April/May 2013): Raton Basin, CO.
(continued)
RBEqBlkOl-0413
4/29/2013
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
RBEqBlk02-0413
4/30/2013
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
RBEqBlk03-0413
5/1/2013
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
RBEqBlk04-0413
5/2/2013
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
RBFBlkOl-0413
4/29/2013
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
RBFBlk02-0413
4/30/2013
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
RBFBlk03-0413
5/1/2013
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
RBFBlk04-0413
5/2/2013
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
RBTripBlkOl-0413
4/29/2013
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
RBTripBlk02-0413
4/30/2013
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
RBTripBlk03-0413
5/1/2013
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
RBTripBlk04-0413
5/2/2013
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
MDL
0.07
0.08
0.08
0.09
0.07
0.15
0.05
0.08
QL
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
Detection in Samples
0/23
0/23
0/23
0/23
0/23
0/23
0/23
0/23
Concentration min
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
Concentration max
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
-------
A-82
Table A8. Low-molecular-weight acid blanks: Raton Basin, CO.
Acetate Propionati
obutyrate Butyrate
RBEqBlkOl-1011
10/3/2011
<0.10
<0.10
<0.10
<0.10
<0.10
RBEqBlk02-1011
10/4/2011
<0.10
0.05
<0.10
<0.10
<0.10
RBEqBlk03-1011
10/5/2011
<0.10
<0.10
<0.10
<0.10
<0.10
RBFBlkOl-1011
10/3/2011
<0.10
0.07
<0.10
<0.10
<0.10
RBFBlk02-1011
10/4/2011
<0.10
0.09
<0.10
<0.10
<0.10
RBFBlk03-1011
10/6/2011
<0.10
<0.10
<0.10
<0.10
<0.10
MDL
0.01
0.01
0.02
0.01
0.01
QL
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
Detection in Samples
2/22
4/22
0/22
0/22
0/22
Concentration min
0.09
0.06
<0.10
<0.10
<0.10
Concentration max
0.17
0.18
<0.10
<0.10
<0.10
R = data rejected.
-------
A-83
Table A8. Low-molecular-weight acid blanks for Rounds 2 (May 2012): Raton Basin, CO.
(continued)
RBEqBlkOl-0512
5/14/2012
<0.10
<0.10
<0.10
<0.10
<0.10
RBEqBlk02-0512
5/15/2012
<0.10
<0.10
<0.10
<0.10
<0.10
RBEqBlk03-0512
5/16/2012
<0.10
<0.10
<0.10
<0.10
<0.10
RBFBlkOl-0512
5/14/2012
<0.10
<0.10
<0.10
<0.10
<0.10
RBFBlk02-0512
5/15/2012
<0.10
<0.10
<0.10
<0.10
<0.10
RBFBlk03-0512
5/16/2012
<0.10
0.06
0.27
<0.10
<0.10
MDL
0.01
0.01
0.02
0.01
0.01
QL
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
Detection in Samples
0/22
4/22
1/22
0/22
0/22
Concentration min
<0.10
0.05
0.14
<0.10
<0.10
Concentration max
<0.10
0.20
0.14
<0.10
<0.10
R = data rejected.
-------
A-84
Table A8. Low-molecular-weight acid blanks for Round 3 (November 2012): Raton Basin, CO.
(continued)
\
RBEqBlkOl-1112
11/5/2012
(50-21-5)
<0.10
•ormate
(64-18-6)
NR
(64-19-7)
<0.10
(79-09-4)
<0.10
(79-31
<0.10
yrate
17-92-6)
<0.10
RBEqBlk02-1112
11/6/2012
<0.10
NR
<0.10
<0.10
<0.10
<0.10
RBEqBlk03-1112
11/7/2012
<0.10
NR
<0.10
<0.10
<0.10
<0.10
RBEqBlk04-1112
11/8/2012
<0.10
NR
<0.10
<0.10
<0.10
<0.10
RBFBlkOl-1112
11/5/2012
<0.10
NR
<0.10
<0.10
<0.10
<0.10
RBFBlk02-1112
11/6/2012
<0.10
NR
<0.10
<0.10
<0.10
<0.10
RBFBlk03-1112
11/7/2012
<0.10
NR
<0.10
<0.10
<0.10
<0.10
RBFBlk04-1112
11/8/2012
<0.10
NR
<0.10
<0.10
<0.10
<0.10
MDL
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
QL
0.02
0.01
0.02
0.02
0.02
Detection in Samples
1/23
7/23
0/23
0/23
0/23
Concentration min
0.08
0.05
<0.10
<0.10
<0.10
Concentration max
0.08
0.47
<0.10
<0.10
<0.10
NR = not reported.
-------
A-85
Table A8. Low-molecular-weight acid blanks for Round 4 (April/May 2013): Raton Basin, CO.
(continued)
RBEqBlkOl-0413
4/29/2013
<0.10
NR
<0.10
<0.10
<0.10
<0.10
RBEqBlk02-0413
4/30/2013
<0.10
NR
<0.10
<0.10
<0.10
<0.10
RBEqBlk03-0413
5/1/2013
<0.10
NR
<0.10
1.12
<0.10
<0.10
RBEqBlk04-0413
5/2/2013
<0.10
NR
<0.10
2.01
<0.10
<0.10
RBFBlkOl-0413
4/29/2013
<0.10
NR
<0.10
<0.10
<0.10
<0.10
RBFBlk02-0413
4/30/2013
<0.10
NR
<0.10
<0.10
<0.10
<0.10
RBFBlk03-0413
5/1/2013
<0.10
NR
<0.10
<0.10
<0.10
<0.10
RBFBlk04-0413
5/2/2013
<0.10
NR
<0.10
1.00
<0.10
<0.10
MDL
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
QL
0.02
0.01
0.02
0.02
0.02
Detection in Samples
0/23
0/23
0/23
0/23
0/23
Concentration min
<0.10
<0.10
<0.10
<0.10
<0.10
Concentration max
<0.10
<0.10
<0.10
<0.10
<0.10
NR = not reported.
-------
A-86
Table A9. Dissolved gas blanks: Raton Basin, CO.
am* ID
HPH99
RBEqBlkOl-1011
RBEqBlk02-1011
RBEqBlk03-1011
RBFBlkOl-1011
RBFBlk02-1011
RBFBlk03-1011
RBTripBlkOl-1011
RBTripBlk02-1011
RBTripBlk03-1011
RBTripBlk04-1011
MDL
QL
Detection in Samples
Concentration min
Concentration max
10/3/2011
10/4/2011
10/5/2011
10/3/2011
10/4/2011
10/6/2011
10/3/2011
10/4/2011
10/5/2011
10/6/2011
K /I ethane
74-82-8)
0.0009
<0.0014
<0.0014
<0.0014
<0.0014
<0.0014
0.0029
0.0044
<0.0014
<0.0014
0.0002
0.0014
21/22
0.0026
27.80
Ba
0.0010
<0.0029
<0.0029
<0.0029
0.0022
<0.0029
0.0049
0.0066
<0.0029
<0.0029
0.0008
0.0029
12/22
0.0027
0.0893
Propane
Butane
(74-98-6) tlUb-9/-8)
<0.0040
<0.0040
<0.0040
<0.0040
0.0040
<0.0040
0.0091
0.0129
<0.0040
<0.0040
0.0008
0.0040
3/22
0.0046
0.0094
0.0022
<0.0051
<0.0051
<0.0051
0.0018
<0.0051
0.0071
0.0104
<0.0051
0.0012
0.0010
0.0051
1/22
0.0072
0.0072
-------
A-87
Table A9. Dissolved gas blanks for Round 2 (May 2012): Raton Basin, CO.
(continued)
RBEqBlkOl-0512
ollectei
5/14/2012
ethan
'74-82-8,
<0.0013
<0.0027
'ropan
74-98-6,
<0.0038
utane
<0.0047
RBEqBlk02-0512
5/15/2012
<0.0013
<0.0027
<0.0038
<0.0047
RBEqBlk03-0512
5/16/2012
<0.0013
<0.0027
<0.0038
<0.0047
RBFBIkOl-0512
5/14/2012
<0.0013
<0.0027
<0.0038
<0.0047
RBFBIk02-0512
5/15/2012
<0.0013
<0.0027
<0.0038
<0.0047
RBFBIk03-0512
5/16/2012
<0.0013
<0.0027
<0.0038
<0.0047
RBTripBlkOl-0512
5/14/2012
<0.0013
<0.0027
<0.0038
<0.0047
RBTripBlk02-0512
5/15/2012
<0.0013
<0.0027
<0.0038
<0.0047
RBTripBlk03-0512
5/16/2012
<0.0013
<0.0027
<0.0038
<0.0047
MDL
0.0003
0.0005
0.0007
0.0007
QL
0.0013
0.0027
0.0038
0.0047
Detection in Samples
22/22
12/22
0/22
0/22
Concentration min
0.0005
0.0006
<0.0038
<0.0047
Concentration max
19.60
0.0180
<0.0038
<0.0047
-------
A-88
Table A9. Dissolved gas blanks for Round 3 (November 2012): Raton Basin, CO.
(continued)
Sample ID
RBEqBlkOl-1112
RBEqBlk02-1112
RBEqBlk03-1112
RBEqBlk04-1112
RBFBIkOl-1112
RBFBIk02-1112
RBFBIk03-1112
RBFBIk04-1112
RBTripBlkOl-1112
RBTripBlk02-1112
RBTripBlk03-1112
RBTripBlk04-1112
MDL
QL
Detection in Samples
Concentration min
Concentration max
11/5/2012
11/6/2012
11/7/2012
11/8/2012
11/5/2012
11/6/2012
11/7/2012
11/8/2012
11/5/2012
11/6/2012
11/7/2012
11/8/2012
H
<0.0013
<0.0013
0.0105
<0.0013
<0.0013
<0.0013
0.0138
<0.0013
<0.0013
<0.0013
0.0095
<0.0013
0.0003
0.0013
23/23
0.0044
18.70
<0.0027
<0.0027
<0.0027
<0.0027
<0.0027
<0.0027
<0.0027
<0.0027
<0.0027
<0.0027
<0.0027
<0.0027
0.0005
0.0027
11/23
0.0017
0.0274
HB
<0.0037
<0.0037
<0.0037
<0.0037
<0.0037
<0.0037
<0.0037
<0.0037
<0.0037
<0.0037
<0.0037
<0.0037
0.0007
0.0037
0/23
<0.0037
<0.0037
Butane
(106-97-8)
<0.0047
<0.0047
<0.0047
<0.0047
<0.0047
<0.0047
<0.0047
<0.0047
<0.0047
<0.0047
<0.0047
<0.0047
0.0007
0.0047
0/23
<0.0047
<0.0047
-------
A-89
Table A9. Dissolved gas blanks for Round 4 (April/May 2013): Raton Basin, CO.
(continued)
ollectei
ethan
'74-82-8,
•ropan
74-98-6,
utane
RBEqBlkOl-0413
4/29/2013
<0.0013
<0.0027
<0.0037
<0.0047
RBEqBlk02-0413
4/30/2013
<0.0013
<0.0027
<0.0037
<0.0047
RBEqBlk03-0413
5/1/2013
<0.0013
<0.0027
<0.0037
<0.0047
RBEqBlk04-0413
5/2/2013
<0.0013
<0.0027
<0.0037
<0.0047
RBFBIkOl-0413
4/29/2013
<0.0013
<0.0027
<0.0037
<0.0047
RBFBIk02-0413
4/30/2013
<0.0013
<0.0027
<0.0037
<0.0047
RBFBIk03-0413
5/1/2013
<0.0013
<0.0027
<0.0037
<0.0047
RBFBIk04-0413
5/2/2013
<0.0013
<0.0027
<0.0037
<0.0047
RBTripBlkOl-0413
4/29/2013
<0.0013
<0.0027
<0.0037
<0.0047
RBTripBlk02-0413
4/30/2013
<0.0013
<0.0027
<0.0037
<0.0047
RBTripBlk03-0413
5/1/2013
<0.0013
<0.0027
<0.0037
<0.0047
RBTripBlk04-0413
5/2/2013
<0.0013
<0.0027
<0.0037
<0.0047
MDL
0.0002
0.0008
0.0004
0.0003
QL
0.0013
0.0027
0.0037
0.0047
Detection in Samples
18/23
6/23
0/23
0/23
Concentration min
0.0142
0.0009
<0.0037
<0.0047
Concentration max
28.90
0.0181
<0.0037
<0.0047
-------
A-90
Table A10. Glycol blanks: Raton Basin, CO.
RBEqBlkOl-1011
Date 2-butoxyethanol Diethylene g
Collected (111-76-2) (111-46-6]
10/3/2011
<5
<25
:hylene glyc
'112-27-6)
etraethylene
glycol
(112-60-7)
<25
<25
RBEqBlk02-1011
10/4/2011
<5
<25
<25
<25
RBEqBlk03-1011
10/5/2011
<5
<25
<25
<25
RBFBIkOl-1011
10/3/2011
<5
<25
<25
<25
RBFBIk02-1011
10/4/2011
<5
<25
<25
<25
RBFBIk03-1011
10/6/2011
<5
<25
<25
<25
QL
25
25
25
Detection in Samples
0/22
0/22
0/22
0/22
Concentration min
<5
<25
<25
<25
Concentration max
<5
<25
<25
<25
-------
A-91
Table A10. Glycol blanks for Round 2 (May 2012): Raton Basin, CO.
(continued)
CiillU JiaL^
RBEqBlkOl-0512
RBEqBlk02-0512
RBEqBlk03-0512
RBFBIkOl-0512
RBFBIk02-0512
RBFBIk03-0512
QL
Detection in Samples
Concentration min
Concentration max
5/14/2012
5/15/2012
5/16/2012
5/14/2012
5/15/2012
5/16/2012
2-bu«oxv«hano,
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
25
0/22
<25
<25
Bylene glycol
11-46-6)
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
25
0/22
<25
<25
Triethylene glycol
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
25
0/22
<25
<25
Tetraethylene
glycol (112-60-7)
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
25
0/22
<25
<25
-------
A-92
Table A10. Glycol blanks for Round 3 (November 2012): Raton Basin, CO.
(continued)
utoxyetha
•iethylene glyco.
.11-46-1
yiene giycoi
12-2
Tetraethylene
''-col (112-60-7)
RBEqBlkOl-1112
11/5/2012
<25
RBEqBlk02-1112
11/6/2012
<25
RBEqBlk03-1112
11/7/2012
<25
RBEqBlk04-1112
11/8/2012
<25
RBFBIkOl-1112
11/5/2012
<25
RBFBIk02-1112
11/6/2012
<25
RBFBIk03-1112
11/7/2012
<25
RBFBIk04-1112
11/8/2012
<25
QL
25
10
10
10
Detection in Samples
0/23
0/23
0/23
0/23
Concentration min
<25
Concentration max
<25
-------
A-93
Table A10. Glycol blanks for Round 4 (April/May 2013): Raton Basin, CO.
(continued)
utoxyetha
•iethylene glyco.
.11-46-1
yiene giycoi
12-2
Tetraethylene
''-col (112-60-7)
RBEqBlkOl-0413
4/29/2013
RBEqBlk02-0413
4/30/2013
RBEqBlk03-0413
5/01/2013
RBEqBlk04-0413
5/02/2013
RBFBIkOl-0413
4/29/2013
RBFBIk02-0413
4/30/2013
RBFBIk03-0413
5/01/2013
RBFBIk04-0413
5/02/2013
QL
10
10
10
10
Detection in Samples
0/23
1/23
1/23
0/23
Concentration min
1.1
2.6
Concentration max
1.1
2.6
-------
A-94
Table All. Semivolatile organic compound (SVOC) blanks: Raton Basin, CO.
RBEqBlkOl-1011
10/3/2011
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
RBEqBlk02-1011
10/4/2011
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
RBEqBlk03-1011
10/5/2011
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
RBFBlkOl-1011
10/3/2011
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
RBFBlk02-1011
10/4/2011
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
RBFBlk03-1011
10/6/2011
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
QL
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
Detection in Samples
0/22
0/22
0/22
0/22
0/22
0/22
0/22
0/22
0/22
0/22
0/22
Concentration min
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
Concentration max
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
-------
A-95
Table All. Semivolatile organic compound (SVOC) blanks for Round 1 (October 2011): Raton Basin, CO.
(continued)
RBEqBlkOl-1011
10/3/2011
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<5.00
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<1.00
<0.50
RBEqBlk02-1011
10/4/2011
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<5.00
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<1.00
<0.50
RBEqBlk03-1011
10/5/2011
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<5.00
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<1.00
<0.50
RBFBlkOl-1011
10/3/2011
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<5.00
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<1.00
<0.50
RBFBlk02-1011
10/4/2011
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<5.00
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<1.00
<0.50
RBFBlk03-1011
10/6/2011
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<5.00
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<1.00
<0.50
QL
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
5.00
0.50
0.50
0.50
1.00
0.50
Detection in Samples
0/22
0/22
0/22
0/22
0/22
0/22
0/22
0/22
3/22
1/22
0/22
Concentration min
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<5.00
<0.50
<0.50
0.65
1.22
<0.50
Concentration max
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<5.00
<0.50
<0.50
1.45
1.22
<0.50
-------
A-96
Table All. Semivolatile organic compound (SVOC) blanks for Round 1 (October 2011): Raton Basin, CO.
(continued)
RBEqBlkOl-1011
10/3/2011
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
NR
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
RBEqBlk02-1011
10/4/2011
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
NR
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
RBEqBlk03-1011
10/5/2011
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
NR
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
RBFBlkOl-1011
10/3/2011
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
NR
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
RBFBlk02-1011
10/4/2011
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
NR
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
RBFBlk03-1011
10/6/2011
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
NR
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
QL
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
Detection in Samples
0/22
0/22
0/22
0/22
0/22
0/22
0/22
0/22
0/22
0/22
Concentration min
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
Concentration max
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
NR = not reported.
-------
A-97
Table All. Semivolatile organic compound (SVOC) blanks for Round 1 (October 2011): Raton Basin, CO.
(continued)
RBEqBlkOl-1011
10/3/2011
<1.00
<0.50
<0.50
<2.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<1.00
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
RBEqBlk02-1011
10/4/2011
<1.00
<0.50
<0.50
<2.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<1.00
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
RBEqBlk03-1011
10/5/2011
<1.00
<0.50
<0.50
<2.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<1.00
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
RBFBlkOl-1011
10/3/2011
<1.00
<0.50
<0.50
<2.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<1.00
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
RBFBlk02-1011
10/4/2011
<1.00
<0.50
<0.50
<2.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<1.00
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
RBFBlk03-1011
10/6/2011
<1.00
<0.50
<0.50
<2.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<1.00
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
QL
1.00
0.50
0.50
2.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
1.00
0.50
0.50
0.50
Detection in Samples
0/22
0/22
0/22
0/22
0/22
0/22
0/22
0/22
0/22
0/22
0/22
Concentration min
<1.00
<0.50
<0.50
<2.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<1.00
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
Concentration max
<1.00
<0.50
<0.50
<2.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<1.00
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
-------
A-98
Table All. Semivolatile organic compound (SVOC) blanks for Round 1 (October 2011): Raton Basin, CO.
(continued)
RBEqBlkOl-1011
10/3/2011
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<5.00
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<1.00
<1.00
RBEqBlk02-1011
10/4/2011
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<5.00
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<1.00
1.23
RBEqBlk03-1011
10/5/2011
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<5.00
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<1.00
<1.00
RBFBlkOl-1011
10/3/2011
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<5.00
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<1.00
<1.00
RBFBlk02-1011
10/4/2011
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<5.00
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<1.00
<1.00
RBFBlk03-1011
10/6/2011
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<5.00
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<1.00
<1.00
QL
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
5.00
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
1.00
1.00
Detection in Samples
0/22
0/22
0/22
0/22
0/22
0/22
0/22
0/22
0/22
10/22
5/22
Concentration min
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<5.00
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
1.46
1.03
Concentration max
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<5.00
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
3.07
143
-------
A-99
Table All. Semivolatile organic compound (SVOC) blanks for Round 1 (October 2011): Raton Basin, CO.
(continued)
RBEqBlkOl-1011
10/3/2011
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
RBEqBlk02-1011
10/4/2011
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
RBEqBlk03-1011
10/5/2011
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
RBFBlkOl-1011
10/3/2011
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
RBFBlk02-1011
10/4/2011
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
RBFBlk03-1011
10/6/2011
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
QL
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
Detection in Samples
0/22
0/22
0/22
0/22
0/22
0/22
0/22
1/22
1/22
0/22
0/22
Concentration min
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
5.68
7.64
<0.50
<0.50
Concentration max
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
5.68
7.64
<0.50
<0.50
-------
A-100
Table All. Semivolatile organic compound (SVOC) blanks for Round 1 (October 2011): Raton Basin, CO.
(continued)
RBEqBlkOl-1011
10/3/2011
<0.50
<0.50
<1.00
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
RBEqBlk02-1011
10/4/2011
<0.50
<0.50
<1.00
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
RBEqBlk03-1011
10/5/2011
<0.50
<0.50
<1.00
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
RBFBlkOl-1011
10/3/2011
<0.50
<0.50
<1.00
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
RBFBlk02-1011
10/4/2011
<0.50
<0.50
<1.00
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
RBFBlk03-1011
10/6/2011
<0.50
<0.50
<1.00
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
QL
0.50
0.50
1.00
0.50
1.0
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
Detection in Samples
0/22
0/22
0/22
0/22
0/22
0/22
1/22
0/22
1/22
0/22
0/22
Concentration min
<0.50
<0.50
<1.00
<0.50
<0.50
1.26
<0.50
0.63
<0.50
<0.50
Concentration max
<0.50
<0.50
<1.00
<0.50
<0.50
1.26
<0.50
0.63
<0.50
<0.50
-------
A-101
Table All. Semivolatile organic compound (SVOC) blanks for Round 1 (October 2011): Raton Basin, CO.
(continued)
RBEqBlkOl-1011
RBEqBlk02-1011
RBEqBlk03-1011
RBFBlkOl-1011
RBFBlk02-1011
RBFBlk03-1011
QL
Detection in Samples
Concentration min
Concentration max
10/3/2011
10/4/2011
10/5/2011
10/3/2011
10/4/2011
10/6/2011
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
1.00
0/22
<1.00
<1.00
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
0.50
0/22
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
0.50
2/22
0.52
1.08
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
0.50
0/22
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
0.50
0/22
<0.50
<0.50
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
1.00
2/22
1.62
1.87
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
0.50
0/22
<0.50
<0.50
-------
A-102
Table All. Semivolatile organic compound (SVOC) blanks for Round 2 (May 2012): Raton Basin, CO.
(continued)
RBEqBlkOl-0512
5/14/2012
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<2.00
RBEqBlk02-0512
5/15/2012
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<2.00
RBEqBlk03-0512
5/16/2012
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<2.00
RBFBlkOl-0512
5/14/2012
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<2.00
RBFBlk02-0512
5/15/2012
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<2.00
RBFBlk03-0512
5/16/2012
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<2.00
QL
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
2.00
Detection in Samples
0/22
0/22
0/22
0/22
0/22
0/22
0/22
0/22
0/22
0/22
0/22
Concentration min
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<2.00
Concentration max
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<2.00
-------
A-103
Table All. Semivolatile organic compound (SVOC) blanks for Round 2 (May 2012): Raton Basin, CO.
[continued]
RBEqBlkOl-0512
5/14/2012
<2.00
<2.00
<2.00
<2.00
<2.00
<3.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
RBEqBlk02-0512
5/15/2012
<2.00
<2.00
<2.00
<2.00
<2.00
<3.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
RBEqBlk03-0512
5/16/2012
<2.00
<2.00
<2.00
<2.00
<2.00
<3.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
RBFBlkOl-0512
5/14/2012
<2.00
<2.00
<2.00
<2.00
<2.00
<3.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
RBFBlk02-0512
5/15/2012
<2.00
<2.00
<2.00
<2.00
<2.00
<3.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
RBFBlk03-0512
5/16/2012
<2.00
<2.00
<2.00
<2.00
<2.00
<3.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
QL
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
3.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Detection in Samples
0/22
0/22
0/22
0/22
0/22
0/22
0/22
0/22
0/22
0/22
0/22
Concentration min
<2.00
<2.00
<2.00
<2.00
<2.00
<3.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
Concentration max
<2.00
<2.00
<2.00
<2.00
<2.00
<3.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
-------
A-104
Table All. Semivolatile organic compound (SVOC) blanks for Round 2 (May 2012): Raton Basin, CO.
[continued]
RBEqBlkOl-0512
Date
Collected
i .± >• m
9 "? Ł 4
O) iŁ> <1> PO -Q -G O (J CT»
2. «* E ia 4 3 :i <* ia
5/14/2012
<2.00
<1.00
ng/L ng/L
<2.00
<1.00
<2.00
<5.00
<1.00
<3.00
<2.00
<1.00
<2.00
RBEqBlk02-0512
5/15/2012
<2.00
<1.00
<2.00
<1.00
<2.00
<5.00
<1.00
<3.00
<2.00
<1.00
<2.00
RBEqBlk03-0512
5/16/2012
<2.00
<1.00
<2.00
<1.00
<2.00
<5.00
<1.00
<3.00
<2.00
<1.00
<2.00
RBFBlkOl-0512
5/14/2012
<2.00
<1.00
<2.00
<1.00
<2.00
<5.00
<1.00
<3.00
<2.00
<1.00
<2.00
RBFBlk02-0512
5/15/2012
<2.00
<1.00
<2.00
<1.00
<2.00
<5.00
<1.00
<3.00
<2.00
<1.00
<2.00
RBFBlk03-0512
5/16/2012
<2.00
<1.00
<2.00
<1.00
<2.00
<5.00
<1.00
<3.00
<2.00
<1.00
<2.00
QL
2.00
1.00
2.00
1.00
2.00
5.00
1.00
3.00
2.00
1.00
2.00
Detection in Samples
0/22
0/22
0/22
0/22
0/22
0/22
0/22
0/22
0/22
0/22
0/22
Concentration min
<2.00
<1.00
<2.00
<1.00
<2.00
<5.00
<1.00
<3.00
<2.00
<1.00
<2.00
Concentration max
<2.00
<1.00
<2.00
<1.00
<2.00
<5.00
<1.00
<3.00
<2.00
<1.00
<2.00
-------
A-105
Table All. Semivolatile organic compound (SVOC) blanks for Round 2 (May 2012): Raton Basin, CO.
(continued)
RBEqBlkOl-0512
5/14/2012
<3.00
<1.00
<3.00
<3.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
RBEqBlk02-0512
5/15/2012
<3.00
<1.00
<3.00
<3.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
RBEqBlk03-0512
5/16/2012
<3.00
<1.00
<3.00
<3.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
RBFBlkOl-0512
5/14/2012
<3.00
<1.00
<3.00
<3.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
RBFBlk02-0512
5/15/2012
<3.00
<1.00
<3.00
<3.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
RBFBlk03-0512
5/16/2012
<3.00
<1.00
<3.00
<3.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
QL
3.00
1.00
3.00
3.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Detection in Samples
0/22
0/22
0/22
0/22
0/22
0/22
0/22
0/22
0/22
0/22
0/22
Concentration min
<3.00
<1.00
<3.00
<3.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
Concentration max
<3.00
<1.00
<3.00
<3.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
-------
A-106
Table All. Semivolatile organic compound (SVOC) blanks for Round 2 (May 2012): Raton Basin, CO.
(continued)
RBEqBlkOl-0512
5/14/2012
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<3.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<2.00
RBEqBlk02-0512
5/15/2012
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<3.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<2.00
RBEqBlk03-0512
5/16/2012
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<3.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<2.00
RBFBlkOl-0512
5/14/2012
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<3.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<2.00
RBFBlk02-0512
5/15/2012
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<3.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<2.00
RBFBlk03-0512
5/16/2012
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<3.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<2.00
QL
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
3.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
2.00
Detection in Samples
0/22
0/22
0/22
0/22
0/22
0/22
0/22
0/22
0/22
0/22
3/22
Concentration min
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<3.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
4.27
Concentration max
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<3.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
135
-------
A-107
Table All. Semivolatile organic compound (SVOC) blanks for Round 2 (May 2012): Raton Basin, CO.
(continued)
RBEqBlkOl-0512
5/14/2012
<1.00
<3.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
RBEqBlk02-0512
5/15/2012
<1.00
<3.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
RBEqBlk03-0512
5/16/2012
<1.00
<3.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
RBFBlkOl-0512
5/14/2012
<1.00
<3.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
RBFBlk02-0512
5/15/2012
<1.00
<3.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
RBFBlk03-0512
5/16/2012
<1.00
<3.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
QL
1.00
3.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Detection in Samples
0/22
0/22
0/22
0/22
0/22
0/22
0/22
0/22
0/22
0/22
0/22
Concentration min
<1.00
<3.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
Concentration max
<1.00
<3.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
-------
A-108
Table All. Semivolatile organic compound (SVOC) blanks for Round 2 (May 2012): Raton Basin, CO.
(continued)
RBEqBlkOl-0512
5/14/2012
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
RBEqBlk02-0512
5/15/2012
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
RBEqBlk03-0512
5/16/2012
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
RBFBlkOl-0512
5/14/2012
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
RBFBlk02-0512
5/15/2012
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
RBFBlk03-0512
5/16/2012
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
QL
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Detection in Samples
0/22
0/22
0/22
0/22
0/22
0/22
1/22
0/22
0/22
0/22
0/22
Concentration min
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
1.86
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
Concentration max
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
1.86
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
-------
A-109
Table All. Semivolatile organic compound (SVOC) blanks for Round 2 (May 2012): Raton Basin, CO.
(continued)
RBEqBlkOl-0512
RBEqBlk02-0512
RBEqBlk03-0512
RBFBlkOl-0512
RBFBlk02-0512
RBFBlk03-0512
QL
Detection in Samples
Concentration min
Concentration max
5/14/2012
5/15/2012
5/16/2012
5/14/2012
5/15/2012
5/16/2012
<2.00
<2.00
<2.00
<2.00
<2.00
<2.00
2.00
0/22
<2.00
<2.00
^••^B^fl
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
1.00
0/22
<1.00
<1.00
Q. ii
Hg/L
<2.00
<2.00
<2.00
<2.00
<2.00
<2.00
2.00
0/22
<2.00
<2.00
^^t^^K^^^I
Hg/L
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
1.00
0/22
<1.00
<1.00
Hg/L
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
1.00
0/22
<1.00
<1.00
Hg/L
<2.00
<2.00
<2.00
<2.00
<2.00
<2.00
2.00
0/22
<2.00
<2.00
•
Hg/L
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
1.00
0/22
<1.00
<1.00
-------
A-110
Table All. Semivolatile organic compound (SVOC) blanks for Round 3 (November 2012): Raton Basin, CO.
(continued)
RBEQBLK01-1112
11/5/2012
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<2.00
RBEqBLK02-1112
11/6/2012
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<2.00
RBEqBLK03-1112
11/7/2012
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<2.00
RBEqBLK04-1112
11/8/2012
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<2.00
RBFBLK01-1112
11/5/2012
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<2.00
RBFBLK02-1112
11/6/2012
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<2.00
RBFBLK03-1112
11/7/2012
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<2.00
RBFBLK04-1112
11/8/2012
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<2.00
QL
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
2.00
Detection in Samples
0/23
0/23
0/23
0/23
0/23
0/23
0/23
0/23
0/23
0/23
0/23
Concentration min
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<2.00
Concentration max
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<2.00
-------
A-lll
Table All. Semivolatile organic compound (SVOC) blanks for Round 3 (November 2012): Raton Basin, CO.
(continued)
RBEQBLK01-1112
11/5/2012
<2.00
<2.00
<2.00
<2.00
<2.00
<3.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
RBEqBLK02-1112
11/6/2012
<2.00
<2.00
<2.00
<2.00
<2.00
<3.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
RBEqBLK03-1112
11/7/2012
<2.00
<2.00
<2.00
<2.00
<2.00
<3.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
RBEqBLK04-1112
11/8/2012
<2.00
<2.00
<2.00
<2.00
<2.00
<3.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
RBFBLK01-1112
11/5/2012
<2.00
<2.00
<2.00
<2.00
<2.00
<3.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
RBFBLK02-1112
11/6/2012
<2.00
<2.00
<2.00
<2.00
<2.00
<3.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
RBFBLK03-1112
11/7/2012
<2.00
<2.00
<2.00
<2.00
<2.00
<3.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
RBFBLK04-1112
11/8/2012
<2.00
<2.00
<2.00
<2.00
<2.00
<3.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
QL
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
3.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Detection in Samples
0/23
0/23
0/23
0/23
0/23
0/23
0/23
0/23
0/23
0/23
0/23
Concentration min
<2.00
<2.00
<2.00
<2.00
<2.00
<3.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
Concentration max
<2.00
<2.00
<2.00
<2.00
<2.00
<3.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
-------
A-112
Table All. Semivolatile organic compound (SVOC) blanks for Round 3 (November 2012): Raton Basin, CO.
(continued)
RBEQBLK01-1112
11/5/2012
<2.00
<1.00
<2.00
<1.00
<2.00
<5.00
<1.00
<3.00
<2.00
<1.00
<2.00
RBEqBLK02-1112
11/6/2012
<2.00
<1.00
<2.00
<1.00
<2.00
<5.00
<1.00
<3.00
<2.00
<1.00
<2.00
RBEqBLK03-1112
11/7/2012
<2.00
<1.00
<2.00
<1.00
<2.00
<5.00
<1.00
<3.00
<2.00
<1.00
<2.00
RBEqBLK04-1112
11/8/2012
<2.00
<1.00
<2.00
<1.00
<2.00
<5.00
<1.00
<3.00
<2.00
<1.00
<2.00
RBFBLK01-1112
11/5/2012
<2.00
<1.00
<2.00
<1.00
<2.00
<5.00
<1.00
<3.00
<2.00
<1.00
<2.00
RBFBLK02-1112
11/6/2012
<2.00
<1.00
<2.00
<1.00
<2.00
<5.00
<1.00
<3.00
<2.00
<1.00
<2.00
RBFBLK03-1112
11/7/2012
<2.00
<1.00
<2.00
<1.00
<2.00
<5.00
<1.00
<3.00
<2.00
<1.00
<2.00
RBFBLK04-1112
11/8/2012
<2.00
<1.00
<2.00
<1.00
<2.00
<5.00
<1.00
<3.00
<2.00
<1.00
<2.00
QL
2.00
1.00
2.00
1.00
2.00
5.00
1.00
3.00
2.00
1.00
2.00
Detection in Samples
0/23
0/23
0/23
0/23
0/23
0/23
0/23
0/23
0/23
0/23
0/23
Concentration min
<2.00
<1.00
<2.00
<1.00
<2.00
<5.00
<1.00
<3.00
<2.00
<1.00
<2.00
Concentration max
<2.00
<1.00
<2.00
<1.00
<2.00
<5.00
<1.00
<3.00
<2.00
<1.00
<2.00
-------
A-113
Table All. Semivolatile organic compound (SVOC) blanks for Round 3 (November 2012): Raton Basin, CO.
(continued)
RBEQBLK01-1112
11/5/2012
<3.00
<1.00
<3.00
<3.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
RBEqBLK02-1112
11/6/2012
<3.00
<1.00
<3.00
<3.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
RBEqBLK03-1112
11/7/2012
<3.00
<1.00
<3.00
<3.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
RBEqBLK04-1112
11/8/2012
<3.00
<1.00
<3.00
<3.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
RBFBLK01-1112
11/5/2012
<3.00
<1.00
<3.00
<3.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
RBFBLK02-1112
11/6/2012
<3.00
<1.00
<3.00
<3.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
RBFBLK03-1112
11/7/2012
<3.00
<1.00
<3.00
<3.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
RBFBLK04-1112
11/8/2012
<3.00
<1.00
<3.00
<3.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
QL
3.00
1.00
3.00
3.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Detection in Samples
0/23
0/23
0/23
0/23
0/23
0/23
0/23
0/23
0/23
0/23
0/23
Concentration min
<3.00
<1.00
<3.00
<3.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
Concentration max
<3.00
<1.00
<3.00
<3.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
-------
A-114
Table All. Semivolatile organic compound (SVOC) blanks for Round 3 (November 2012): Raton Basin, CO.
(continued)
RBEQBLK01-1112
11/5/2012
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<3.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<2.00
RBEqBLK02-1112
11/6/2012
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<3.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<2.00
RBEqBLK03-1112
11/7/2012
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<3.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<2.00
RBEqBLK04-1112
11/8/2012
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<3.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
5.34
RBFBLK01-1112
11/5/2012
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<3.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
9.40
RBFBLK02-1112
11/6/2012
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<3.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<2.00
RBFBLK03-1112
11/7/2012
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<3.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<2.00
RBFBLK04-1112
11/8/2012
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<3.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<2.00
QL
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
3.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
2.00
Detection in Samples
0/23
0/23
0/23
0/23
0/23
0/23
0/23
0/23
0/23
0/23
5/23
Concentration min
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<3.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
2.22
Concentration max
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<3.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
139
-------
A-115
Table All. Semivolatile organic compound (SVOC) blanks for Round 3 (November 2012): Raton Basin, CO.
(continued)
RBEQBLK01-1112
11/5/2012
<1.00
<3.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
RBEqBLK02-1112
11/6/2012
<1.00
<3.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
RBEqBLK03-1112
11/7/2012
<1.00
<3.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
RBEqBLK04-1112
11/8/2012
<1.00
<3.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
RBFBLK01-1112
11/5/2012
<1.00
<3.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
RBFBLK02-1112
11/6/2012
<1.00
<3.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
RBFBLK03-1112
11/7/2012
<1.00
<3.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
RBFBLK04-1112
11/8/2012
<1.00
<3.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
QL
1.00
3.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Detection in Samples
0/23
0/23
0/23
0/23
0/23
0/23
0/23
0/23
0/23
0/23
0/23
Concentration min
<1.00
<3.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
Concentration max
<1.00
<3.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
-------
A-116
Table All. Semivolatile organic compound (SVOC) blanks for Round 3 (November 2012): Raton Basin, CO.
(continued)
RBEQBLK01-1112
Date
Collected
11/5/2012
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
RBEqBLK02-1112
11/6/2012
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
RBEqBLK03-1112
11/7/2012
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
RBEqBLK04-1112
11/8/2012
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
RBFBLK01-1112
11/5/2012
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
RBFBLK02-1112
11/6/2012
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
RBFBLK03-1112
11/7/2012
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
RBFBLK04-1112
11/8/2012
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
QL
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Detection in Samples
0/23
0/23
0/23
0/23
0/23
0/23
0/23
0/23
0/23
0/23
0/23
Concentration min
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
Concentration max
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
-------
A-117
Table All. Semivolatile organic compound (SVOC) blanks for Round 3 (November 2012): Raton Basin, CO.
(continued)
RBEQBLK01-1112
RBEqBLK02-1112
RBEqBLK03-1112
RBEqBLK04-1112
RBFBLK01-1112
RBFBLK02-1112
RBFBLK03-1112
RBFBLK04-1112
QL
Detection in Samples
Concentration min
Concentration max
11/5/2012
11/6/2012
11/7/2012
11/8/2012
11/5/2012
11/6/2012
11/7/2012
11/8/2012
<2.00
<2.00
<2.00
<2.00
<2.00
<2.00
<2.00
<2.00
2.00
0/23
<2.00
<2.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
1.00
0/23
<1.00
<1.00
<2.00
<2.00
<2.00
<2.00
<2.00
<2.00
<2.00
<2.00
2.00
0/23
<2.00
<2.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
1.00
0/23
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
1.00
0/23
<1.00
<1.00
<2.00
<2.00
<2.00
<2.00
<2.00
<2.00
18.0
<2.00
2.00
0/23
<2.00
<2.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
1.00
0/23
<1.00
<1.00
-------
A-118
Table All. Semivolatile organic compound (SVOC) blanks for Round 4 (April/May 2013): Raton Basin, CO.
(continued)
RBEqBlkOl-0413
4/29/2013
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<2.00
RBEqBlk02-0413
4/30/2013
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<2.00
RBEqBlk03-0413
5/1/2013
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<2.00
RBEqBlk04-0413
5/2/2013
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<2.00
RBFBlkOl-0413
4/29/2013
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<2.00
RBFBlk02-0413
4/30/2013
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<2.00
RBFBlk03-0413
5/1/2013
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<2.00
RBFBlk04-0413
5/2/2013
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<2.00
QL
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
2.00
Detection in Samples
0/23
0/23
0/23
0/23
0/23
0/23
0/23
0/23
0/23
0/23
0/23
Concentration min
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<2.00
Concentration max
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<2.00
-------
A-119
Table All. Semivolatile organic compound (SVOC) blanks for Round 4 (April/May 2013): Raton Basin, CO.
(continued)
Sample ID
Date
Collected
RBEqBlkOl-0413
4/29/2013
<2.00
<2.00
<2.00
<2.00
<2.00
<3.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
RBEqBlk02-0413
4/30/2013
<2.00
<2.00
<2.00
<2.00
<2.00
<3.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
RBEqBlk03-0413
5/1/2013
<2.00
<2.00
<2.00
<2.00
<2.00
<3.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
RBEqBlk04-0413
5/2/2013
<2.00
<2.00
<2.00
<2.00
<2.00
<3.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
RBFBlkOl-0413
4/29/2013
<2.00
<2.00
<2.00
<2.00
<2.00
<3.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
RBFBlk02-0413
4/30/2013
<2.00
<2.00
<2.00
<2.00
<2.00
<3.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
RBFBlk03-0413
5/1/2013
<2.00
<2.00
<2.00
<2.00
<2.00
<3.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
RBFBlk04-0413
5/2/2013
<2.00
<2.00
<2.00
<2.00
<2.00
<3.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
QL
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
3.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Detection in Samples
0/23
0/23
0/23
0/23
0/23
0/23
0/23
0/23
0/23
1/23
0/23
Concentration min
<2.00
<2.00
<2.00
<2.00
<2.00
<3.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
1.05
<1.00
Concentration max
<2.00
<2.00
<2.00
<2.00
<2.00
<3.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
1.05
<1.00
-------
A-120
Table All. Semivolatile organic compound (SVOC) blanks for Round 4 (April/May 2013): Raton Basin, CO.
(continued)
RBEqBlkOl-0413
4/29/2013
<2.00
<1.00
<2.00
<1.00
<2.00
<5.00
<1.00
<3.00
<2.00
<1.00
<2.00
RBEqBlk02-0413
4/30/2013
<2.00
<1.00
<2.00
<1.00
<2.00
<5.00
<1.00
<3.00
<2.00
<1.00
<2.00
RBEqBlk03-0413
5/1/2013
<2.00
<1.00
<2.00
<1.00
<2.00
<5.00
<1.00
<3.00
<2.00
<1.00
<2.00
RBEqBlk04-0413
5/2/2013
<2.00
<1.00
<2.00
<1.00
<2.00
<5.00
<1.00
<3.00
<2.00
<1.00
<2.00
RBFBlkOl-0413
4/29/2013
<2.00
<1.00
<2.00
<1.00
<2.00
<5.00
<1.00
<3.00
<2.00
<1.00
<2.00
RBFBlk02-0413
4/30/2013
<2.00
<1.00
<2.00
<1.00
<2.00
<5.00
<1.00
<3.00
<2.00
<1.00
<2.00
RBFBlk03-0413
5/1/2013
<2.00
<1.00
<2.00
<1.00
<2.00
<5.00
<1.00
<3.00
<2.00
<1.00
<2.00
RBFBlk04-0413
5/2/2013
<2.00
<1.00
<2.00
<1.00
<2.00
<5.00
<1.00
<3.00
<2.00
<1.00
<2.00
QL
2.00
1.00
2.00
1.00
2.00
5.00
1.00
3.00
2.00
1.00
2.00
Detection in Samples
0/23
0/23
0/23
0/23
0/23
0/23
0/23
0/23
0/23
0/23
0/23
Concentration min
<2.00
<1.00
<2.00
<1.00
<2.00
<5.00
<1.00
<3.00
<2.00
<1.00
<2.00
Concentration max
<2.00
<1.00
<2.00
<1.00
<2.00
<5.00
<1.00
<3.00
<2.00
<1.00
<2.00
-------
A-121
Table All. Semivolatile organic compound (SVOC) blanks for Round 4 (April/May 2013): Raton Basin, CO.
(continued)
RBEqBlkOl-0413
4/29/2013
<3.00
<1.00
<3.00
<3.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
RBEqBlk02-0413
4/30/2013
<3.00
<1.00
<3.00
<3.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
RBEqBlk03-0413
5/1/2013
<3.00
<1.00
<3.00
<3.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
RBEqBlk04-0413
5/2/2013
<3.00
<1.00
<3.00
<3.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
RBFBlkOl-0413
4/29/2013
<3.00
<1.00
<3.00
<3.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
RBFBlk02-0413
4/30/2013
<3.00
<1.00
<3.00
<3.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
RBFBlk03-0413
5/1/2013
<3.00
<1.00
<3.00
<3.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
RBFBlk04-0413
5/2/2013
<3.00
<1.00
<3.00
<3.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
QL
3.00
1.00
3.00
3.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Detection in Samples
0/23
0/23
0/23
0/23
0/23
0/23
0/23
0/23
0/23
0/23
0/23
Concentration min
<3.00
<1.00
<3.00
<3.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
Concentration max
<3.00
<1.00
<3.00
<3.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
-------
A-122
Table All. Semivolatile organic compound (SVOC) blanks for Round 4 (April/May 2013): Raton Basin, CO.
(continued)
RBEqBlkOl-0413
4/29/2013
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<3.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<2.00
RBEqBlk02-0413
4/30/2013
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<3.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<2.00
RBEqBlk03-0413
5/1/2013
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<3.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<2.00
RBEqBlk04-0413
5/2/2013
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<3.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<2.00
RBFBlkOl-0413
4/29/2013
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<3.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<2.00
RBFBlk02-0413
4/30/2013
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<3.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<2.00
RBFBlk03-0413
5/1/2013
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<3.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<2.00
RBFBlk04-0413
5/2/2013
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<3.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<2.00
QL
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
3.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
2.00
Detection in Samples
0/23
0/23
0/23
0/23
0/23
0/23
0/23
0/23
0/23
0/23
10/23
Concentration min
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<3.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
5.28
Concentration max
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<3.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
291
-------
A-12 3
Table All. Semivolatile organic compound (SVOC) blanks for Round 4 (April/May 2013): Raton Basin, CO.
(continued)
RBEqBlkOl-0413
4/29/2013
<1.00
<3.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
RBEqBlk02-0413
4/30/2013
<1.00
<3.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
RBEqBlk03-0413
5/1/2013
<1.00
<3.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
RBEqBlk04-0413
5/2/2013
<1.00
<3.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
RBFBlkOl-0413
4/29/2013
<1.00
<3.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
RBFBlk02-0413
4/30/2013
<1.00
<3.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
RBFBlk03-0413
5/1/2013
<1.00
<3.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
RBFBlk04-0413
5/2/2013
<1.00
<3.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
QL
1.00
3.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Detection in Samples
0/23
0/23
0/23
0/23
0/23
0/23
0/23
0/23
1/23
0/23
0/23
Concentration min
<1.00
<3.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
7.35
<1.00
<1.00
Concentration max
<1.00
<3.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
7.35
<1.00
<1.00
-------
A-124
Table All. Semivolatile organic compound (SVOC) blanks for Round 4 (April/May 2013): Raton Basin, CO.
(continued)
RBEqBlkOl-0413
4/29/2013
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
RBEqBlk02-0413
4/30/2013
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
RBEqBlk03-0413
5/1/2013
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
RBEqBlk04-0413
5/2/2013
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
RBFBlkOl-0413
4/29/2013
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
RBFBlk02-0413
4/30/2013
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
RBFBlk03-0413
5/1/2013
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
RBFBlk04-0413
5/2/2013
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
QL
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Detection in Samples
0/23
0/23
0/23
0/23
0/23
0/23
1/23
0/23
0/23
0/23
0/23
Concentration min
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
1.11
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
Concentration max
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
1.11
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
-------
A-12 5
Table All. Semivolatile organic compound (SVOC) blanks for Round 4 (April/May 2013): Raton Basin, CO.
(continued)
RBEqBlkOl-0413
RBEqBlk02-0413
RBEqBlk03-0413
RBEqBlk04-0413
RBFBlkOl-0413
RBFBlk02-0413
RBFBlk03-0413
RBFBlk04-0413
QL
Detection in Samples
Concentration min
Concentration max
4/29/2013
4/30/2013
5/1/2013
5/2/2013
4/29/2013
4/30/2013
5/1/2013
5/2/2013
<2.00
<2.00
<2.00
<2.00
<2.00
<2.00
<2.00
<2.00
2.00
0/23
<2.00
<2.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
1.00
0/23
<1.00
<1.00
<2.00
<2.00
<2.00
<2.00
<2.00
<2.00
<2.00
<2.00
2.00
0/23
<2.00
<2.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
1.00
0/23
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
1.00
0/23
<1.00
<1.00
<2.00
<2.00
<2.00
<2.00
3.12
<2.00
<2.00
<2.00
2.00
2/23
3.13
3.82
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
1.00
0/23
<1.00
<1.00
-------
A-126
Table A12. Diesel Range Organics (DRO) & Gasoline Range Organics (GRO) blanks:
Raton Basin, CO
Sample ID
Iv/MTJjQl^H^H*!
October 2011
RBEqBlkOl-1011
RBEqBlk02-1011
RBEqBlk03-1011
RBFBIkOl-1011
RBFBIk02-1011
RBFBIk03-1011
QL
Detection in Samples
Concentration min
Concentration max
10/3/2011
10/4/2011
10/5/2011
10/3/2011
10/4/2011
10/6/2011
28.0
<20.0
<20.0
<20.0
20.2
<20.0
20
4/22
22.5
30.1
<20.0
<20.0
<20.0
<20.0
<20.0
<22.2
20
14/22
20.0
1940
May 2012
RBEqBlkOl-0512
RBEqBlk02-0512
RBEqBlk03-0512
RBFBIkOl-0512
RBFBIk02-0512
RBFBIk03-0512
QL
Detection in Samples
Concentration min
Concentration max
5/14/2012
5/15/2012
5/16/2012
5/14/2012
5/15/2012
5/16/2012
<20.0
<20.0
<20.0
<20.0
<20.0
<20.0
20.0
6/22
21.5
49.8
<20.0
<20.0
<20.0
<20.0
<20.0
<20.0
20.0
10/22
26.6
1310
-------
A-12 7
Table A12. DRO/GRO blanks for Rounds 3 (November 2012) and 4 (April/May
2013): Raton Basin, CO.
(continued)
Sample ID
mQt^^i
November 2012
RBEQBLK01-1112
RBEqBLK02-1112
RBEqBLK03-1112
RBEqBLK04-1112
RBFBLK01-1112
RBFBLK02-1112
RBFBLK03-1112
RBFBLK04-1112
QL
Detection in Samples
Concentration min
Concentration max
11/5/2012
11/6/2012
11/7/2012
11/8/2012
11/5/2012
11/6/2012
11/7/2012
11/8/2012
<20.0
<20.0
<20.0
<20.0
<20.0
<20.0
<20.0
<20.0
20.0
3/23
20.6
29.6
<20.0
<20.0
24.7
<20.0
<20.0
<20.0
<20.0
<20.0
20.0
13/23
21.3
874
April/May 2013
RBEqBlkOl-0413
RBEqBlk02-0413
RBEqBlk03-0413
RBEqBlk04-0413
RBFBIkOl-0413
RBFBIk02-0413
RBFBIk03-0413
RBFBIk04-0413
QL
Detection in Samples
Concentration min
Concentration max
4/29/2013
4/30/2013
5/1/2013
5/2/2013
4/29/2013
4/30/2013
5/1/2013
5/2/2013
<20.0
<20.0
<20.0
<20.0
<20.0
<20.0
<20.0
<20.0
20.0
0/23
<20.0
<20.0
<20.0
<20.0
24.8
<20.0
<20.0
<20.0
<20.0
<20.0
20.0
16/23
21.9
1530
-------
A-128
Table A13. DOC, DIC, nutrients, and anion field duplicates: Raton Basin, CO.
^HUl^Ufl
mg N/L mg N/L
^HUl^Ufl
mg/L
October 2011
5xQL
RBDW05-1011
RBDW05d-1011
RPD%
RBDW10-1011
RBDWlOd-1011
RPD%
10/4/2011
10/4/2011
10/5/2011
10/5/2011
2.50
<0.50
<0.50
NC
0.58
0.57
NC
5.00
49.0
49.1
0.20
21.5
21.5
0.00
0.25
0.35
0.37
5.56
<0.05
<0.05
NC
0.25
<0.05
<0.05
NC
0.20
0.26
NC
5.00
<1.00
<1.00
NC
<1.00
<1.00
NC
5.00
9.53
9.65
1.25
12.0
12.0
0.00
5.00
55.8
56.8
1.78
93.5
94.5
1.06
1.00
0.57
0.49
NC
5.95
6.06
1.83
May 2012
5XQL
RBDW06-0512
RBDW06d-0512
RPD%
RBDW11-0512
RBDWlld-0512
RPD%
5/16/2012
5/16/2012
5/15/2012
5/15/2012
2.5
1.16
1.16
NC
0.83
0.79
NC
5.00
42.7
42.6
0.23
54.1
54.3
0.37
0.50
<0.10
<0.10
NC
0.17
0.16
NC
0.50
<0.10
<0.10
NC
<0.10
<0.10
NC
5.00
<1.00
<1.00
NC
<1.00
<1.00
NC
5.0
10.9
11.0
0.91
13.6
13.8
1.46
5.0
62.8
62.5
0.48
4.37
4.38
NC
1.0
1.65
1.54
6.9
1.34
1.42
5.80
NC = not calculated.
-------
A-129
Table A13. DOC, DIC, nutrients, and anion field duplicates: Raton Basin, CO.
(continued)
November 2012
5xQL
RBDW03-1112
RBDW03-1112 Dup
RPD%
RBDW10-1112
RBDW10-1112 Dup
RPD%
11/5/2012
11/5/2012
11/8/2012
11/8/2012
2.50
0.93
0.95
NC
0.67
0.68
NC
5.00
41.0
41.0
0.00
20.9
21.0
0.48
0.50
0.59
0.58
1.71
<0.10
<0.10
NC
0.50
<0.10
<0.10
NC
0.56
0.64
13.33
5.00
<1.00
<1.00
NC
<1.00
<1.00
NC
5.00
7.11
7.18
0.98
12.0
12.2
1.65
5.00
67.0
66.7
0.45
100
101
1.00
1.00
0.17
0.16
NC
6.23
6.27
0.64
April/May 2013
5xQL
RBMW01-0413
RBMWOld-0413
RPD%
RBDW02-0413
RBDW02d-0413
RPD%
RBSW01-0413
RBSWOld-0413
RPD%
4/29/2013
4/29/2013
4/29/2013
4/29/2013
4/30/2013
4/30/2013
2.50
1.48
1.44
NC
1.15
1.15
NC
2.57
2.37
NC
25.0
38.7
39.4
1.79
37.0
36.5
1.36
153
154
0.65
0.50
<0.10
<0.10
NC
<0.10
<0.10
NC
0.01
<0.10
NC
0.50
0.09
0.09
NC
<0.10
<0.10
NC
<0.10
<0.10
NC
5.00
0.36
0.35
NC
<1.00
<1.00
NC
0.60
0.56
NC
5.00
4.50
4.64
NC
9.54
9.50
0.42
40.1
40.0
0.25
5.00
94.6
97.1
2.61
62.3
62.3
0.00
2.37
2.43
NC
1.00
0.44
0.41
NC
1.03
1.04
0.97
3.15
3.17
0.63
-------
A-130
Table A14. Dissolved metal field duplicates: Raton Basin, CO.
5xQL
2470
100
1665
20
50
1.45
20
20
35
100
RBDW05-1011
10/4/2011
<494
<20
<333
39
4.18
<4
<4
<7
<20
RBDW05d-1011
10/4/2011
<494
<20
<333
39
4.17
<4
<4
<7
<20
RPD%
NC
NC
NC
NC
0.0
NC
0.24
NC
NC
NC
NC
RBDW10-1011
10/5/2011
<494
<20
<333
25
3.94
<4
<4
<7
<20
RBDWlOd-1011
10/5/2011
<494
<20
<333
25
3.86
<4
<4
<7
<20
RPD%
NC
NC
NC
NC
0.0
NC
2.05
NC
NC
NC
NC
RBDW05-1011
10/4/2011
<67
NA
0.63
NA
0.27
20
123
<84
<0.060
RBDW05d-1011
10/4/2011
<67
NA
0.58
NA
0.27
20
123
<84
<0.060
RPD%
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
0.00
NC
NC
NC
RBDW10-1011
10/5/2011
<67
NA
0.22
NA
0.05
12
105
<84
<0.060
RBDWlOd-1011
10/5/2011
<67
NA
0.24
NA
0.04
103
<84
<0.060
RPD%
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
1.92
NC
NC
NC
NC = not calculated. NA = not analyzed.
-------
A-131
Table A14. Dissolved metal field duplicates for Round 1 (October 2011): Raton Basin, CO
(continued)
5xQL
2.30
150
2.15
20
35
85
250
50
250
RBDW05-1011
10/4/2011
19.8
<30
4.75
100
NA
<7
<50
<50
RBDW05d-1011
10/4/2011
19.9
<30
4.74
99
NA
<7
<50
<50
RPD%
0.50
NC
0.21
1.01
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
RBDW10-1011
10/5/2011
681
18
4.90
90
NA
<50
<50
RBDWlOd-1011
10/5/2011
695
16
4.91
86
NA
<7
<50
<50
RPD%
2.03
NC
0.20
4.55
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC = not calculated. NA = not analyzed.
-------
A-132
Table A14. Dissolved metal field duplicates for Round 2 (May 2012): Raton Basin, CO.
(continued)
5XQL
100
1665
20
50
1.45
20
10
10
RBDW06-0512
5/16/2012
<20.0
<333
17.1
12.1
<4
<2.0
<2.0
RBDW06d-0512
5/16/2012
<20.0
<333
16.9
12.2
<4
<2.0
<2.0
RPD%
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
0.82
NC
NC
NC
NC
RBDW11-0512
5/15/2012
<20.0
<333
275
18.0
<4
<2.0
3.7
RBDWlld-0512
5/15/2012
<20.0
<333
271
17.9
<4
<2.0
2.7
RPD%
NC
NC
NC
NC
1.47
NC
0.56
NC
NC
NC
NC
Sample ID
Date
Collected
5XQL
335
1.77
0.5
70
8.55
0.30
RBDW06-0512
5/16/2012
<67
NA
0.56
NA
2.24
21.2
101
<0.06
RBDW06d-0512
5/16/2012
<67
NA
0.56
NA
2.25
17.7
102
<0.06
RPD%
NC
NC
0.45
NC
17.99
0.99
NC
NC
NC
RBDW11-0512
5/15/2012
534
NA
1.13
NA
2.62
25
2.1
88.6
<0.06
RBDWlld-0512
5/15/2012
556
NA
1.11
NA
2.57
25
2.3
87.7
<0.06
RPD%
4.04
NC
1.93
NC
NC
1.02
NC
NC
NC
NC = not calculated. NA = not analyzed.
-------
A-13 3
Table A14. Dissolved metal field duplicates for Round 2 (May 2012): Raton Basin, CO.
(continued)
5XQL
10
25
2.15
20
35
50
250
RBDW06-0512
5/16/2012
143
<2.0
9.50
428
<7
<50
RBDW06d-0512
5/16/2012
142
<2.0
9.51
431
<7
<50
RPD%
0.70
NC
0.11
0.70
NC
NC
NC
NC
RBDW11-0512
5/15/2012
1.23
<2.0
<5.0
3.81
603
<7
<50
RBDWlld-0512
5/15/2012
1.20
<2.0
3.80
594
<7
<50
RPD%
NC
NC
NC
0.26
1.50
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC = not calculated. R = data rejected.
-------
A-134
Table A14. Dissolved metal field duplicates for Round 3 (November 2012): Raton Basin, CO.
(continued)
5XQL
50
100
200
25
25
0.5
25
10
2.5
RBDW03-1112
11/5/2012
<20
<0.2
<40
60
<5
43.4
<0.2
<5
<2
1.2
RBDW03-1112
Dup
11/5/2012
<20
<0.2
<40
61
43.4
<0.2
<5
<2
1.2
RPD%
NC
NC
NC
NC
0.99
NC
0.00
NC
NC
NC
NC
RBDW10-1112
11/8/2012
8.3
<0.2
<40
20
3.9
<0.2
<5
<2
<0.5
RBDW10-1112
Dup
11/8/2012
4.9
<0.2
<40
20
<5
3.8
<0.2
<5
<2
<0.5
RPD%
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
1.83
NC
NC
NC
NC
5XQL
RBDW03-1112
RBDW03-1112
Dup
RPD%
RBDW10-1112
RBDW10-1112
Dup
RPD%
jgjjgB
11/5/2012
11/5/2012
11/8/2012
11/8/2012
500
51
49
NC
<100
<100
NC
1
<0.2
<0.2
NC
<0.2
<0.2
NC
2.5
1.1
1.1
NC
0.23
0.24
NC
Li Mg Mn Mo Na Ni P
50
<10
<10
NC
1.9
2.2
NC
0.25
12
12
0.00
0.03
0.03
NC
25
0.3
0.3
NC
1.8
1.7
NC
2.5
0.5
0.5
NC
1.1
1.0
NC
1.25
35.6
35.9
0.84
108
108
0.00
1
1.6
1.4
13.33
0.24
<0.2
NC
0.25
<0.05
<0.05
NC
<0.05
<0.05
NC
1
0.18
0.16
NC
<0.2
<0.2
NC
-------
A-13 5
Table A14. Dissolved metal field duplicates for Round 3 (November 2012): Raton Basin, CO.
(continued)
Sample ID
Units
5XQL
RBDW03-1112
RBDW03-1112
Dup
RPD%
RBDW10-1112
RBDW10-1112
Dup
RPD%
i^die
Collected
11/5/2012
11/5/2012
11/8/2012
11/8/2012
D
NR
NR
NR
NR
^HklS^I
1
<0.2
<0.2
NC
<0.2
<0.2
NC
10
1.6
1.9
NC
0.7
<2
NC
D
0.5
4.4
4.4
0.00
4.88
4.85
0.62
B
10
576
581
0.86
86
89
3.33
D
i
<0.2
<0.2
NC
<0.2
<0.2
NC
D
25
<5
<5
NC
<5
<5
NC
D
1
<0.2
<0.2
NC
<0.2
<0.2
NC
D
1
0.42
0.42
NC
<0.2
<0.2
NC
D
1
0.1
0.1
NC
0.02
0.02
NC
B
25
3
3
NC
<5
<5
NC
NC = not calculated. NR = not reported.
-------
A-136
Table A14. Dissolved metal field duplicates for Round 4 (April/May 2013): Raton Basin, CO.
(continued)
5xQL
50
100
200
25
25
0.5
25
10
2.5
RBMW01-0413
4/29/2013
<20
0.07
<40
31.5
<5
54.4
<0.2
<2
<0.5
RBMWOld-0413
4/29/2013
<20
0.08
<40
32.0
<5
54.2
<0.2
<5
<2
0.6
RPD%
NC
NC
NC
NC
1.57
NC
0.37
NC
NC
NC
NC
RBDW02-0413
4/29/2013
<20
0.07
<40
102
<5
17.2
<0.2
<2
1.8
RBDW02d-0413
4/29/2013
<20
0.07
40
101
<5
16.7
<0.2
<5
<2
2.0
RPD%
NC
NC
NC
NC
0.99
NC
2.95
NC
NC
NC
NC
RBSW01-0413
4/30/2013
<20
0.47
117
117
<5
12.7
<0.2
<2
0.5
RBSWOld-0413
4/30/2013
<20
0.50
152
111
<5
11.8
<0.2
<2
0.7
RPD%
NC
NC
NC
NC
5.26
NC
7.35
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC = not calculated.
-------
A-13 7
Table A14. Dissolved metal field duplicates for Round 4 (April/May 2013): Raton Basin, CO
(continued)
Sample ID
5xQL
RBMW01-0413
RBMWOld-0413
RPD%
RBDW02-0413
RBDW02d-0413
RPD%
RBSW01-0413
RBSWOld-0413
RPD%
4/29/2013
4/29/2013
4/29/2013
4/29/2013
4/30/2013
4/30/2013
500
175
175
NC
<100
<100
NC
76
<100
NC
1
<0.2
<0.2
NC
<0.2
<0.2
NC
<0.2
<0.2
NC
2.5
1.1
1.1
NC
0.67
0.64
NC
1.5
1.6
NC
50
13
13
NC
<10
<10
NC
36
36
NC
0.25
4.24
4.32
1.87
1.46
1.42
2.78
4.68
4.51
3.70
Mn
25
260
264
1.53
2.8
3.1
NC
1.5
1.3
NC
Mo
2.5
0.78
0.66
NC
1.5
1.4
NC
1.5
1.5
NC
Na
1.25
48
49
1.24
87
84
3.53
318
319
0.31
HZ9
i
1.2
1.4
15.38
0.77
0.73
NC
0.58
0.54
NC
^^^^^1
0.25
<0.05
<0.05
NC
<0.05
<0.05
NC
<0.05
<0.05
NC
Q^l
1
<0.2
<0.2
NC
0.25
0.20
NC
<0.2
<0.2
NC
NC = not calculated.
-------
A-138
Table A14. Dissolved metal field duplicates for Round 4 (April/May 2013): Raton Basin, CO.
(continued)
Date
ollected
5xQL
10
0.5
10
25
25
RBMW01-0413
4/29/2013
NA
<0.2
<2
4.3
1170
<0.2
0.2
<0.2
<0.2
0.02
RBMWOld-0413
4/29/2013
NA
<0.2
4.3
1170
<0.2
0.3
<0.2
<0.2
0.04
<5
RPD%
NC
NC
0.70
0.00
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
RBDW02-0413
4/29/2013
NA
0.06
<2
3.18
396
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
0.23
8.8
RBDW02d-0413
4/29/2013
NA
0.06
0.4
3.10
394
<0.2
<5
<0.2
<0.2
0.26
7.9
RPD%
NC
NC
2.55
0.51
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
RBSW01-0413
4/30/2013
NA
<0.2
<2
6.10
309
<0.2
0.7
<0.2
1.5
0.94
RBSWOld-0413
4/30/2013
NA
<0.2
<2
6.11
294
0.32
<0.2
1.6
0.96
7.3
RPD%
NC
NC
0.16
4.98
NC
NC
NC
6.45
NC
NC
NC = not calculated. NA = not analyzed.
-------
A-139
Table A15. Total metal field duplicates: Raton Basin, CO.
5XQL
2740
110
1850
20
55
1.60
20
20
40
110
RBDW05-1011
10/4/2011
<548
<22
<370
39
4.27
<4
<4
<8
<22
RBDW05d-1011
10/4/2011
<548
<22
<370
38
4.20
<4
<4
<8
<22
RPD%
NC
NC
NC
NC
2.60
NC
1.65
NC
NC
NC
NC
RBDW10-1011
10/5/2011
<548
<22
<370
26
4.03
<4
<4
<8
<22
RBDWlOd-1011
10/5/2011
<548
<22
<370
25
4.01
<4
<4
<8
<22
RPD%
NC
NC
NC
NC
3.92
NC
0.50
NC
NC
NC
NC
Sample ID Collected
5XQL
370
1.95
0.55
80
95
9.50
465
0.35
95
RBDW05-1011
10/4/2011
<74
NA
0.68
NA
0.28
22
124
<93
<0.07
RBDW05d-1011
10/4/2011
<74
NA
0.69
NA
0.27
22
124
<93
<0.07
RPD%
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
0.00
NC
NC
NC
RBDW10-1011
10/5/2011
36
NA
0.29
NA
0.06
106
<93
<0.07
RBDWlOd-1011
10/5/2011
36
NA
0.30
NA
0.05
108
<93
<0.07
RPD%
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
1.87
NC
NC
NC
NC = not calculated. NA = not analyzed.
-------
A-140
Table A15. Total metal field duplicates for Round 1 (October 2011): Raton Basin, CO.
(continued)
|F
Sample ID Collected
5XQL
2.55
165
2.4
20
40
95
280
55
280
RBDW05-1011
10/4/2011
17.9
<33
5.00
106
NA
<8
<56
<56
RBDW05d-1011
10/4/2011
17.8
<33
4.98
104
NA
<8
<56
<56
RPD%
0.560
NC
0.40
1.90
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
RBDW10-1011
10/5/2011
40.0
<33
5.47
93
NA
<8
<56
<56
RBDWlOd-1011
10/5/2011
40.6
<33
5.52
94
NA
<8
<56
<56
RPD%
1.49
NC
0.91
1.07
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC = not calculated. R = data rejected. NA = not analyzed.
-------
A-141
Table A15. Total metal field duplicates for Round 2 (May 2012): Raton Basin, CO.
(continued)
1 ' in
^r^TI
^•Mjl
\^M
Ircl
••(•1
•l<«i
mm
Sample ID Collected
5xQL
RBDW06-0512
RBDW06d-0512
RPD%
RBDW11-0512
RBDWlld-0512
RPD%
5/16/2012
5/16/2012
5/15/2012
5/15/2012
78
<16
<16
NC
<16
<16
NC
100
<20.0
<20.0
NC
<20.0
<20.0
NC
5.0
<1.0
<1.0
NC
<1.0
<1.0
NC
1850
<370
<370
NC
<370
<370
NC
22
18.3
18.8
NC
282
281
0.36
56
<11
<11
NC
<11
<11
NC
1.6
12.4
12.3
0.81
17.7
17.8
0.56
5.0
<1.0
<1.0
NC
<1.0
<1.0
NC
20
<4
<4
NC
<4
<4
NC
10
<2.0
<2.0
NC
<2.0
<2.0
NC
10
<2.0
<2.0
NC
4.7
4.1
NC
Sample ID Collected
5xQL
RBDW06-0512
RBDW06d-0512
RPD%
RBDW11-0512
RBDWlld-0512
RPD%
5/16/2012
5/16/2012
5/15/2012
5/15/2012
370
26
29
NC
744
659
12.12
NA
NA
NA
NA
1.97
0.56
0.53
NC
1.03
1.02
NC
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.55
2.17
2.11
2.80
2.36
2.36
0.00
80
<16
<16
NC
27
26
NC
5.0
30.4
29.7
2.33
2.3
2.1
NC
9.50
101
99.7
1.30
88.8
88.0
0.90
5.0
<1.0
<1.0
NC
<1.0
<1.0
NC
0.35
<0.07
<0.07
NC
<0.07
<0.07
NC
5.0
<1.0
<1.0
NC
2.7
<1.0
NC
NC = not calculated. NA = not analyzed.
-------
A-142
Table A15. Total metal field duplicates for Round 2 (May 2012): Raton Basin, CO
(continued)
|F
Sample ID Collected
5xQL
2.6
10
25
2.4
20
5.0
40
5.0
5.0
55
280
RBDW06-0512
5/16/2012
18.3
<2.0
<5.0
9.24
450
<8
100
RBDW06d-0512
5/16/2012
19.0
<2.0
9.37
449
<8
100
RPD%
3.75
NC
NC
1.40
0.22
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
RBDW11-0512
5/15/2012
1.01
<2.0
<5.0
3.51
627
0.07
<8
17
RBDWlld-0512
5/15/2012
1.01
<2.0
<5.0
3.50
626
<8
<56
RPD%
NC
NC
NC
0.29
0.16
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC = not calculated. R = data rejected.
-------
A-143
Table A15. Total metal field duplicates for Round 3 (November 2012): Raton Basin, CO.
(continued)
5xQL
100
1.0
100
12.5
12.5
0.25
12.5
10
2.5
RBDW03-1112
11/5/2012
25
<0.2
23
55
<2.5
41.1
<0.2
<2.5
<2
2.0
RBDW03-1112
Dup
11/5/2012
46
<0.2
20
56
<2.5
41.5
<0.2
<2.5
<2
1.8
RPD%
NC
NC
NC
NC
1.27
NC
0.97
NC
NC
NC
NC
RBDW10-1112
11/8/2012
24
<0.2
37
23
<2.5
3.8
<0.2
2.2
0.6
<0.5
RBDW10-1112
Dup
11/8/2012
39
<0.2
36
23
<2.5
3.8
<0.2
<2.5
<2
1.9
RPD%
NC
NC
NC
NC
0.44
NC
0.00
NC
NC
NC
NC
5xQL
250
1.3
25
0.15
12.5
2.5
0.65
0.15
RBDW03-1112
11/5/2012
<50
<0.2
1.1
0.70
11
<2.5
0.6
33
2.9
<0.03
0.28
RBDW03-1112
Dup
11/5/2012
<50
<0.2
1.1
0.85
12
<2.5
0.9
32
1.7
<0.03
0.26
RPD%
NC
NC
NC
NC
0.87
NC
NC
0.62
52
NC
NC
RBDW10-1112
11/8/2012
<50
<0.2
0.27
2.4
0.05
<2.5
2.6
107
0.26
<0.03
0.07
RBDW10-1112
Dup
RPD%
11/8/2012
<50
NC
<0.2
NC
0.29
NC
2.6
NC
0.04
NC
<2.5
NC
2.4
NC
104
2.84
0.22
NC
<0.03
NC
<0.2
NC
-------
A-144
Table A15. Total metal field duplicates for Round 3 (November 2012): Raton Basin, CO.
(continued)
T5
Sample ID Collected
5xQL
10
0.25
10
12.5
12.5
RBDW03-1112
11/5/2012
NA
<0.2
2.5
4.4
529
<0.2
0.3
0.15
0.43
0.2
RBDW03-1112
Dup
11/5/2012
NA
<0.2
1.9
4.4
538
<0.2
0.3
<0.2
0.42
0.3
RPD%
NC
NC
0.68
1.69
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
RBDW10-1112
11/8/2012
NA
<0.2
<2
5.2
104
<0.2
0.3
<0.2
<0.2
0.2
<2.5
RBDW10-1112
Dup
11/8/2012
NA
<0.2
<2
5.2
92
<0.2
0.3
<0.2
<0.2
0.2
<2.5
RPD%
NC
NC
0.77
12.57
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC = not calculated. NA = not analyzed.
-------
A-145
Table A15. Total metal field duplicates for Round 4 (April/May 2013): Raton Basin, CO.
(continued)
1 ' in
^r^TI
^•Mjl
\^M
Ircl
Sample ID Collected
5XQL
RBMW01-0413
RBMWOld-0413
RPD%
RBDW02-0413
RBDW02d-0413
RPD%
RBSW01-0413
RBSWOld-0413
RPD%
4/29/2013
4/29/2013
4/29/2013
4/29/2013
4/30/2013
4/30/2013
50
<10
<10
NC
<10
<10
NC
<10
<10
NC
100
38.9
<20
NC
22.2
24.1
NC
329
433
27.3
1
0.31
0.29
NC
0.36
0.26
NC
0.64
0.77
NC
100
<20
11.6
NC
<20
3.50
NC
118
124
4.96
12.5
29.8
30.1
1.0
105
104
0.96
123
117
5.0
12.5
<2.5
<2.5
NC
<2.5
<2.5
NC
<2.5
<2.5
NC
0.25
52.6
53.8
2.3
16.9
16.9
0.00
12.8
12.1
5.6
1
<0.2
<0.2
NC
<0.2
<0.2
NC
<0.2
<0.2
NC
mm
••••••H
12.5
<2.5
<2.5
NC
<2.5
<2.5
NC
<2.5
0.7
NC
10
<2
<2
NC
<2
<2
NC
<2
<2
NC
2.5
<0.5
<0.5
NC
5.5
7.2
26.8
0.98
1.10
NC
NC = not calculated.
-------
A-146
Table A15. Total metal field duplicates for Round 4 (April/May 2013): Raton Basin, CO
(continued)
\ 1
^^^H^^l
m^fl
Sample ID Collected
5XQL
RBMW01-0413
RBMWOld-0413
RPD%
RBDW02-0413
RBDW02d-0413
RPD%
RBSW01-0413
RBSWOld-0413
RPD%
4/29/2013
4/29/2013
4/29/2013
4/29/2013
4/30/2013
4/30/2013
250
143
161
NC
26.7
54
NC
476
467
1.91
1
<0.2
<0.2
NC
<0.2
<0.2
NC
<0.2
<0.2
NC
1.25
1.0
1.1
NC
0.69
0.69
NC
1.7
1.7
1.18
25
12.4
13.1
NC
<5
4.8
NC
35.6
36.4
2.2
0.13
4.3
4.3
0.46
1.4
1.4
0.0
4.7
4.5
3.04
12.5
278
282
1.43
47.3
64.8
31.22
14.2
14
1.42
2.5
0.82
1.0
NC
1.2
0.96
NC
1.8
1.7
NC
0.63
44.8
47.2
5.2
84.2
84.4
0.24
309
305
1.30
1
1.8
1.5
18.2
0.68
0.76
NC
1.0
1.2
NC
0.13
<0.03
<0.03
NC
0.003
<0.03
NC
0.034
<0.03
NC
1
<0.2
<0.2
NC
0.53
0.72
NC
0.15
0.17
NC
NC = not calculated.
-------
A-147
Table A15. Total metal field duplicates for Round 4 (April/May 2013): Raton Basin, CO.
(continued)
\ \
Sample ID Collected
5XQL
RBMW01-0413
RBMWOld-0413
RPD%
RBDW02-0413
RBDW02d-0413
RPD%
RBSW01-0413
RBSWOld-0413
RPD%
4/29/2013
4/29/2013
4/29/2013
4/29/2013
4/30/2013
4/30/2013
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
^Ł]*K
1
<0.2
<0.2
NC
<0.2
<0.2
NC
<0.2
0.08
NC
••
10
<2
<2
NC
<2
<2
NC
0.43
0.92
NC
•H
0.25
4.1
4.3
4.7
3.1
3.1
0.97
7.0
7.0
0.00
•H
125
1220
1230
0.82
417
414
0.72
326
306
6.33
••
1
<0.2
<0.2
NC
0.29
<0.2
NC
<0.2
0.28
NC
••
12.5
<2.5
<2.5
NC
<2.5
<2.5
NC
12.4
11.6
NC
•
1
<0.2
<0.2
NC
<0.2
<0.2
NC
<0.2
<0.2
NC
1
<0.2
<0.2
NC
0.12
0.13
NC
1.6
1.5
6.5
1
0.4
0.4
NC
0.66
0.65
NC
1.6
2.0
22.2
12.5
<2.5
<2.5
NC
6.5
7
NC
<2.5
<2.5
NC
NC = not calculated. NA = not analyzed.
-------
A-148
Table A16. Volatile organic compound (VOC) field duplicates: Raton Basin, CO.
NC = not calculated.
-------
A-149
Table A16. VOC field duplicates for Round 1 (October 2011): Raton Basin, CO
(continued)
5xQL
2.5
2.5
5.0
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
RBDW05-1011
10/4/2011
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
0.56
<0.5
<0.5
RBDW05d-1011
10/4/2011
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
0.58
<0.5
<0.5
RPD%
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
RBDW10-1011
10/5/2011
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
RBDWlOd-1011
10/5/2011
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
RPD%
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC = not calculated. R = data rejected.
-------
A-150
Table A16. VOC field duplicates for Round 1 (October 2011): Raton Basin, CO
(continued)
5xQL
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
5.0
10
2.5
RBDW05-1011
10/4/2011
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<2.0
<0.5
RBDW05d-1011
10/4/2011
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<2.0
<0.5
RPD%
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
RBDW10-1011
10/5/2011
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
4.16
<0.5
<0.5
<2.0
<0.5
RBDWlOd-1011
10/5/2011
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
4.14
<0.5
<0.5
<2.0
<0.5
RPD%
NC
NC
NC
0.48
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC = not calculated. R = data rejected.
-------
A-151
Table A16. VOC field duplicates for Round 1 (October 2011): Raton Basin, CO
(continued)
5xQL
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
RBDW05-1011
10/4/2011
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
RBDW05d-1011
10/4/2011
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
RPD%
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
RBDW10-1011
10/5/2011
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
RBDWlOd-1011
10/5/2011
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
RPD%
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC = not calculated.
-------
A-152
Table A16. VOC field duplicates for Round 2 (May 2012): Raton Basin, CO
(continued)
ample ID Collected
5xQL
500
125
125
2.5
5.0
25
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
RBDW06-0512
5/16/2012
<100
<25
<25
<0.5
<5.0
RBDW06d-0512
5/16/2012
<100
<25
<25
<0.5
<5.0
RPD%
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
RBDW11-0512
5/15/2012
<100
<25
<25
<0.5
20.4
RBDWlld-0512
5/15/2012
<100
<25
<25
<0.5
19.5
RPD%
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC = not calculated.
-------
A-153
Table A16. VOC field duplicates for Round 2 (May 2012): Raton Basin, CO.
(continued)
5xQL
2.5
2.5
2.5
5.0
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
RBDW06-0512
5/16/2012
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
RBDW06d-0512
5/16/2012
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
RPD%
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
RBDW11-0512
5/15/2012
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
RBDWlld-0512
5/15/2012
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
RPD%
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC = not calculated.
-------
A-154
Table A16. VOC field duplicates for Round 2 (May 2012): Raton Basin, CO.
(continued)
5xQL
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
5.0
10
2.5
RBDW06-0512
5/16/2012
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
1.96
<0.5
<0.5
<2.0
<0.5
RBDW06d-0512
5/16/2012
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
2.08
<0.5
<0.5
<2.0
<0.5
RPD%
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
RBDW11-0512
5/15/2012
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<2.0
<0.5
RBDWlld-0512
5/15/2012
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<2.0
<0.5
RPD%
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC = not calculated. R. data rejected.
-------
A-155
Table A16. VOC field duplicates for Round 2 (May 2012): Raton Basin, CO
(continued)
NC = not calculated.
-------
A-156
Table A16. SwRI - VOC field duplicates for Round 3 (November 2012): Raton Basin, CO
"Primary data setThe Shaw VOC data is presented for comparison.
5xQL
500
5.0
5.0
50
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
RBDW03-1112
11/5/2012
<100
NR
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
RBDW03-1112
Dup
11/5/2012
<100
NR
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
RPD%
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
RBDW10-1112
11/8/2012
<100
NR
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
RBDW10-1112
Dup
11/8/2012
<100
NR
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
RPD%
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC = not calculated. NR = not reported.
-------
A-157
Table A16. SwRI - VOC field duplicates for Round 3 (November 2012): Raton Basin, CO
(continued)
5xQL
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
RBDW03-1112
11/5/2012
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
RBDW03-1112
Dup
11/5/2012
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
RPD%
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
RBDW10-1112
11/8/2012
<0.5
<0.5
0.71
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
RBDW10-1112
Dup
11/8/2012
<0.5
<0.5
0.56
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
RPD%
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC = not calculated.
-------
A-158
Table A16. SwRI - VOC field duplicates for Round 3 (November 2012): Raton Basin, CO
(continued)
5xQL
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
5.0
2.5
RBDW03-1112
11/5/2012
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
RBDW03-1112
Dup
11/5/2012
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
RPD%
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
RBDW10-1112
11/8/2012
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
1.8
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
RBDW10-1112
Dup
11/8/2012
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
0.66
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
RPD%
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC = not calculated.
-------
A-159
Table A16. SwRI - VOC field duplicates for Round 3 (November 2012): Raton Basin, CO
(continued)
5xQL
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
RBDW03-1112
11/5/2012
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
RBDW03-1112
Dup
11/5/2012
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
RPD%
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
RBDW10-1112
11/8/2012
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
RBDW10-1112
Dup
11/8/2012
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
RPD%
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC = not calculated.
-------
A-160
Table A16. Shaw - VOC field duplicates for Round 3 (November 2012): Raton Basin, CO
*The SwRI VOC data is the primary data set; the Shaw VOC data is presented for comparison.
5xQL
1000
125
125
50
25
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
RBDW03-1112
11/5/2012
<200
<25
<25
<0.5
<5.0
RBDW03-1112
Dup
11/5/2012
<200
<25
<25
<0.5
<5.0
RPD%
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
RBDW10-1112
11/8/2012
<200
<25
<25
<0.5
<5.0
RBDW10-1112
Dup
11/8/2012
<200
<25
<25
<0.5
<5.0
RPD%
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC = not calculated.
-------
A-161
Table A16. Shaw - VOC field duplicates for Round 3 (November 2012): Raton Basin, CO
(continued)
5xQL
2.5
2.5
2.5
5.0
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
RBDW03-1112
11/5/2012
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
RBDW03-1112
Dup
11/5/2012
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
RPD%
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
RBDW10-1112
11/8/2012
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
RBDW10-1112
Dup
11/8/2012
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
RPD%
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC = not calculated. R = data rejected.
-------
A-162
Table A16. Shaw - VOC field duplicates for Round 3 (November 2012): Raton Basin, CO
(continued)
NC = not calculated. R = data rejected.
-------
A-163
Table A16. Shaw - VOC field duplicates for Round 3 (November 2012): Raton Basin, CO
(continued)
5xQL
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
RBDW03-1112
11/5/2012
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
RBDW03-1112
Dup
11/5/2012
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
RPD%
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
RBDW10-1112
11/8/2012
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
RBDW10-1112
Dup
11/8/2012
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
RPD%
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC = not calculated.
-------
A-164
Table A16. VOC field duplicates for Round 4 (April/May 2013): Raton Basin, CO.
(continued)
5xQL
500
5.0
2.5
5.0
50
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
RBMW01-0413
4/29/2013
<100
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
RBMWOld-0413
4/29/2013
<100
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
RPD%
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
RBDW02-0413
4/29/2013
<100
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
RBDW02d-0413
4/29/2013
<100
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
RPD%
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
RBSW01-0413
4/30/2013
<100
<0.5
0.30
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
RBSWOld-0413
4/30/2013
<100
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
RPD%
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC = not calculated.
-------
A-165
Table A16. VOC field duplicates for Round 4 (April/May 2013): Raton Basin, CO
(continued)
5xQL
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
RBMW01-0413
4/29/2013
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
RBMWOld-0413
4/29/2013
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
RPD%
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
RBDW02-0413
4/29/2013
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
0.09
<0.5
<0.5
RBDW02d-0413
4/29/2013
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
0.08
<0.5
<0.5
RPD%
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
RBSW01-0413
4/30/2013
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
RBSWOld-0413
4/30/2013
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
RPD%
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC = not calculated.
-------
A-166
Table A16. VOC field duplicates for Round 4 (April/May 2013): Raton Basin, CO
(continued)
5xQL
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
5.0
2.5
RBMW01-0413
4/29/2013
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
RBMWOld-0413
4/29/2013
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
RPD%
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
RBDW02-0413
4/29/2013
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
RBDW02d-0413
4/29/2013
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
RPD%
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
RBSW01-0413
4/30/2013
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
RBSWOld-0413
4/30/2013
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
RPD%
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC = not calculated.
-------
A-167
Table A16. VOC field duplicates for Round 4 (April/May 2013): Raton Basin, CO.
(continued)
5xQL
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
RBMW01-0413
4/29/2013
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
RBMWOld-0413
4/29/2013
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
RPD%
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
RBDW02-0413
4/29/2013
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
RBDW02d-0413
4/29/2013
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
RPD%
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
RBSW01-0413
4/30/2013
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
RBSWOld-0413
4/30/2013
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
RPD%
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC = not calculated.
-------
A-168
Table A17. Low-molecular-weight acid field duplicates: Raton Basin, CO.
5xQL
RBDW05-1011
RBDW05d-1011
RPD%
RBDW10-1011
RBDWlOd-1011
RPD%
KjwI^M^TjB
10/4/2011
10/4/2011
10/5/2011
10/5/2011
Lactate
0.50
0.09
<0.10
NC
0.17
<0.10
NC
Formate
(64-18-6)
0.50
<0.10
<0.10
NC
0.06
<0.10
NC
Acetate
(64-19-7)
R
R
R
R
Propionate
(79-09-4)
0.50
<0.10
<0.10
NC
<0.10
<0.10
NC
Isobutyrate
0.50
<0.10
<0.10
NC
<0.10
<0.10
NC
Butyrate
(107-92-6)
0.50
<0.10
<0.10
NC
<0.10
<0.10
NC
NC = not calculated. R = data rejected.
-------
A-169
Table A17. Low-molecular-weight acid field duplicates for Round 2 (May 2012): Raton Basin, CO.
(continued)
5xQL
Formate Acetate Propionate Isobutyrate Butyrate
(64-18-6) (64-19-7) (79-09-4) (79-31-2) (107-92-6)
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
RBDW06-0512
5/16/2012
<0.10
<0.10
<0.10
<0.10
<0.10
RBDW06d-0512
5/16/2012
<0.10
<0.10
<0.10
<0.10
<0.10
RPD%
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
RBDW11-0512
5/15/2012
<0.10
<0.10
<0.10
<0.10
<0.10
RBDWlld-0512
5/15/2012
<0.10
<0.10
<0.10
<0.10
<0.10
RPD%
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC = not calculated. R = data rejected.
-------
A-170
Table A17. Low-molecular-weight acid field duplicates for Round 3 (November 2012): Raton Basin, CO.
(continued)
5xQL
Formate Acetate Propionate Isobutyrate Butyrate
(64-18-6) (64-19-7) (79-09-4) (79-31-2) (107-92-6)
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
RBDW03-1112
11/5/2012
<0.10
NR
<0.10
<0.10
<0.10
<0.10
RBDW03-1112 Dup
11/5/2012
<0.10
NR
<0.10
<0.10
<0.10
<0.10
RPD%
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
RBDW10-1112
11/8/2012
<0.10
NR
<0.10
<0.10
<0.10
<0.10
RBDW10-1112Dup
11/8/2012
<0.10
NR
<0.10
<0.10
<0.10
<0.10
RPD%
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC = not calculated. NR = not reported.
-------
A-171
Table A17. Low-molecular-weight acid field duplicates for Round 4 (April/May 2013): Raton Basin, CO
(continued)
5xQL
RBMW01-0413
RBMWOld-0413
RPD%
RBDW02-0413
RBDW02d-0413
RPD%
RBSW01-0413
RBSWOld-0413
RPD%
Date
Collected
4/29/2013
4/29/2013
4/29/2013
4/29/2013
4/30/2013
4/30/2013
(867-56-1)
0.50
<0.10
<0.10
NC
<0.10
<0.10
NC
<0.10
<0.10
NC
p .
rorrnate
(64-18-6)
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
A & &
Acetate
(127-09-3)
0.50
<0.10
<0.10
NC
<0.10
<0.10
NC
<0.10
<0.10
NC
n ' &
Kropionate
(137-40-6)
0.50
<0.10
<0.10
NC
<0.10
<0.10
NC
<0.10
<0.10
NC
•"•••••r •••••••• ŁVry-ffR9H
0.50
<0.10
<0.10
NC
<0.10
<0.10
NC
<0.10
<0.10
NC
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Duiyictie
(156-54-7)
0.50
<0.10
<0.10
NC
<0.10
<0.10
NC
<0.10
<0.10
NC
NC = not calculated. NR = not reported.
-------
A-172
Table A18. Dissolved gas field duplicates: Raton Basin, CO
mjHjM
Methane
Ethane Propane
Butane
(106-97-8)
October 2011
5xQL
RBDW05-1011
RBDW05d-1011
RPD%
RBDW10-1011
RBDWlOd-1011
RPD%
10/4/2011
10/4/2011
10/5/2011
10/5/2011
0.0071
0.0026
0.0052
NC
9.580
10.40
8.21
0.0145
<0.0029
<0.0029
NC
0.0087
0.0090
NC
0.0200
<0.0040
<0.0040
NC
<0.0040
<0.0040
NC
0.0255
<0.0051
<0.0051
NC
<0.0051
<0.0051
NC
May 2012
5xQL
RBDW06-0512
RBDW06d-0512
RPD%
RBDW11-0512
RBDWlld-0512
RPD%
5/16/2012
5/16/2012
5/15/2012
5/15/2012
0.0065
6.710
5.300
23.48
0.5500
0.6410
15.28
0.0135
0.0100
0.0074
NC
0.0009
0.0006
NC
0.0190
<0.0038
<0.0038
NC
<0.0038
<0.0038
NC
0.0235
<0.0047
<0.0047
NC
<0.0047
<0.0047
NC
November 2012
5xQL
RBDW03-1112
RBDW03-1112 Dup
RPD%
RBDW10-1112
RBDW10-1112Dup
RPD%
11/5/2012
11/5/2012
11/8/2012
11/8/2012
0.0065
0.0328
0.0518
44.9
11.70
12.20
4.18
0.0135
<0.0027
<0.0027
NC
0.0099
0.0110
NC
0.0185
<0.0037
<0.0037
NC
<0.0037
<0.0037
NC
0.0235
<0.0047
<0.0047
NC
<0.0047
<0.0047
NC
NC = not calculated.
-------
A-173
Table A18. Dissolved gas field duplicates for Round 4 (April/May 2013): Raton
Basin, CO.
(continued)
jlJiiiii^B
April/May 2013
5xQL
RBMW01-0413 A
RBMWOld-0413 A
RPD%
RBDW02-0413A
RBDW02d-0413 A
RPD%
RBSW01-0413A
RBSWOld-0413 A
RPD%
4/29/2013
4/29/2013
4/29/2013
4/29/2013
4/30/2013
4/30/2013
0.0065
1.040
0.4940
71.2
<0.0013
0.1490
NC
<0.0013
<0.0013
NC
0.0135
<0.0027
<0.0027
NC
<0.0027
<0.0027
NC
<0.0027
<0.0027
NC
0.0185
<0.0037
<0.0037
NC
<0.0037
<0.0037
NC
<0.0037
<0.0037
NC
0.0235
<0.0047
<0.0047
NC
<0.0047
<0.0047
NC
<0.0047
<0.0047
NC
NC = not calculated.
-------
A-174
Table A19. Glycol field duplicates: Raton Basin, CO.
Sample ID
Units
•^TWuWM
•ssr
Diethylene
(111-46-6)
Triethylene
(112-27-6)
Tetraethylene
glycol
(112-60-7)
October 2011
5xQL
RBDW05-1011
RBDW05d-1011
RPD%
RBDW10-1011
RBDWlOd-1011
RPD%
10/4/2011
10/4/2011
10/5/2011
10/5/2011
25
<5
<5
NC
<5
<5
NC
125
<25
<25
NC
<25
<25
NC
125
<25
<25
NC
<25
<25
NC
125
<25
<25
NC
<25
<25
NC
May 2012
5xQL
RBDW06-0512
RBDW06d-0512
RPD%
RBDW11-0512
RBDWlld-0512
RPD%
5/16/2012
5/16/2012
5/15/2012
5/15/2012
125
<25
<25
NC
<25
<25
NC
125
<25
<25
NC
<25
<25
NC
125
<25
<25
NC
<25
<25
NC
125
<25
<25
NC
<25
<25
NC
November 2012
5xQL
RBDW03-1112
RBDW03d-1112
RPD%
RBDW10-1112
RBDWlOd-1112
RPD%
11/5/2012
11/5/2012
11/8/2012
11/8/2012
125
<25
<25
NC
<25
<25
NC
50
<10
<10
NC
<10
<10
NC
50
<10
<10
NC
<10
<10
NC
50
<10
<10
NC
<10
<10
NC
-------
A-175
Table A19. Glycol field duplicates for Round 4 (April/May 2013): Raton Basin, CO.
(continued)
Sample ID
Diethylene Triethylene
giycoi
(111-46-6)
(112-60-7)
April/May 2013
5xQL
RBMW01-0413
RBMWOld-0413
RPD%
RBDW02-0413
RBDW02d-0413
RPD%
RBSW01-0413
RBSWOld-0413
RPD%
4/29/2013
4/29/2013
4/29/2013
4/29/2013
4/30/2013
4/30/2013
50
<10
<10
NC
<10
<10
NC
<10
<10
NC
50
<10
<10
NC
<10
<10
NC
<10
<10
NC
50
<10
<10
NC
<10
<10
NC
<10
<10
NC
50
<10
<10
NC
<10
<10
NC
<10
<10
NC
NC = not calculated.
-------
A-176
Table A20. Semivolatile organic compound (SVOC) field duplicates: Raton Basin, CO.
5xQL
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
RBDW05-1011
10/4/2011
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
RBDW05d-1011
10/4/2011
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
RPD%
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
RBDW10-1011
10/5/2011
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
RBDWlOd-1011
10/5/2011
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
RPD%
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC = not calculated.
-------
A-177
Table A20. SVOC field duplicates for Round 1 (October 2011): Raton Basin, CO.
(continued)
5xQL
RBDW05-1011
RBDW05d-1011
RPD%
RBDW10-1011
RBDWlOd-1011
RPD%
10/4/2011
10/4/2011
10/5/2011
10/5/2011
2.5
<0.50
<0.50
NC
<0.50
<0.50
NC
2.5
<0.50
<0.50
NC
<0.50
<0.50
NC
2.5
<0.50
<0.50
NC
<0.50
<0.50
NC
2.5
<0.50
<0.50
NC
<0.50
<0.50
NC
2.5
<0.50
<0.50
NC
<0.50
<0.50
NC
25.0
<5.00
<5.00
NC
<5.00
<5.00
NC
2.5
<0.50
<0.50
NC
<0.50
<0.50
NC
2.5
<0.50
<0.50
NC
<0.50
<0.50
NC
2.5
0.65
0.74
NC
<0.50
<0.50
NC
5.0
<1.00
<1.00
NC
<1.00
<1.00
NC
2.5
<0.50
<0.50
NC
<0.50
<0.50
NC
NC = not calculated.
-------
A-178
Table A20. SVOC field duplicates for Round 1 (October 2011): Raton Basin, CO
(continued)
5xQL
RBDW05-1011
RBDW05d-1011
RPD%
RBDW10-1011
RBDWlOd-1011
RPD%
10/4/2011
10/4/2011
10/5/2011
10/5/2011
2.5
<0.50
<0.50
NC
<0.50
<0.50
NC
2.5
<0.50
<0.50
NC
<0.50
<0.50
NC
2.5
<0.50
<0.50
NC
<0.50
<0.50
NC
2.5
<0.50
<0.50
NC
<0.50
<0.50
NC
2.5
<0.50
<0.50
NC
<0.50
<0.50
NC
2.5
<0.50
<0.50
NC
<0.50
<0.50
NC
NR
NR
NR
NR
2.5
<0.50
<0.50
NC
<0.50
<0.50
NC
2.5
<0.50
<0.50
NC
<0.50
<0.50
NC
2.5
<0.50
<0.50
NC
<0.50
<0.50
NC
2.5
<0.50
<0.50
NC
<0.50
<0.50
NC
NC = not calculated. NR = not reported.
-------
A-179
Table A20. SVOC field duplicates for Round 1 (October 2011): Raton Basin, CO
(continued)
NC = not calculated.
-------
A-180
Table A20. SVOC field duplicates for Round 1 (October 2011): Raton Basin, CO.
(continued)
NC = not calculated.
-------
A-181
Table A20. SVOC field duplicates for Round 1 (October 2011): Raton Basin, CO
(continued)
5xQL
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
RBDW05-1011
10/4/2011
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
RBDW05d-1011
10/4/2011
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
RPD%
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
RBDW10-1011
10/5/2011
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
RBDWlOd-1011
10/5/2011
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
RPD%
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC = not calculated.
-------
A-182
Table A20. SVOC field duplicates for Round 1 (October 2011): Raton Basin, CO.
(continued)
5xQL
RBDW05-1011
RBDW05d-1011
RPD%
RBDW10-1011
RBDWlOd-1011
RPD%
10/4/2011
10/4/2011
10/5/2011
10/5/2011
2.5
<0.50
<0.50
NC
<0.50
<0.50
NC
2.5
<0.50
<0.50
NC
<0.50
<0.50
NC
5.0
<1.00
<1.00
NC
<1.00
<1.00
NC
2.5
<0.50
<0.50
NC
<0.50
<0.50
NC
5.0
<1.0
<1.0
NC
<1.0
<1.0
NC
2.5
<0.50
<0.50
NC
<0.50
<0.50
NC
2.5
<0.50
<0.50
NC
<0.50
<0.50
NC
2.5
<0.50
<0.50
NC
<0.50
<0.50
NC
2.5
<0.50
<0.50
NC
<0.50
<0.50
NC
2.5
<0.50
<0.50
NC
<0.50
<0.50
NC
2.5
<0.50
<0.50
NC
<0.50
<0.50
NC
NC = not calculated.
-------
A-183
Table A20 Semivolatile organic compound (SVOC) field duplicates for Round 1 (October 2011): Raton Basin, CO.
(continued)
5xQL
RBDW05-1011
RBDW05d-1011
RPD%
RBDW10-1011
RBDWlOd-1011
RPD%
10/4/2011
10/4/2011
10/5/2011
10/5/2011
<1.00
<1.00
NC
<1.00
<1.00
NC
2.5
<0.50
<0.50
NC
<0.50
<0.50
NC
2.5
<0.50
<0.50
NC
<0.50
<0.50
NC
2.5
<0.50
<0.50
NC
<0.50
<0.50
NC
2.5
<0.50
<0.50
NC
<0.50
<0.50
NC
5.0
<1.00
<1.00
NC
<1.00
<1.00
NC
NC = not calculated.
2.5
<0.50
<0.50
NC
<0.50
<0.50
NC
-------
A-184
Table A20. SVOC field duplicates for Round 2 (May 2012): Raton Basin, CO.
(continued)
5xQL
RBDW06-0512
RBDW06d-0512
RPD%
RBDW11-0512
RBDWlld-0512
RPD%
5/16/2012
5/16/2012
5/15/2012
5/15/2012
5.0
<1.00
<1.00
NC
<1.00
<1.00
NC
5.0
<1.00
<1.00
NC
<1.00
<1.00
NC
5.0
<1.00
<1.00
NC
<1.00
<1.00
NC
5.0
<1.00
<1.00
NC
<1.00
<1.00
NC
5.0
<1.00
<1.00
NC
<1.00
<1.00
NC
5.0
<1.00
<1.00
NC
<1.00
<1.00
NC
5.0
<1.00
<1.00
NC
<1.00
<1.00
NC
5.0
<1.00
<1.00
NC
<1.00
<1.00
NC
5.0
<1.00
<1.00
NC
<1.00
<1.00
NC
5.0
<1.00
<1.00
NC
<1.00
<1.00
NC
10.0
<2.00
<2.00
NC
<2.00
<2.00
NC
NC = not calculated.
-------
A-185
Table A20. SVOC field duplicates for Round 2 (May 2012): Raton Basin, CO.
(continued)
5xQL
RBDW06-0512
RBDW06d-0512
RPD%
RBDW11-0512
RBDWlld-0512
RPD%
5/16/2012
5/16/2012
5/15/2012
5/15/2012
10.0
<2.00
<2.00
NC
<2.00
<2.00
NC
10.0
<2.00
<2.00
NC
<2.00
<2.00
NC
10.0
<2.00
<2.00
NC
<2.00
<2.00
NC
10.0
<2.00
<2.00
NC
<2.00
<2.00
NC
10.0
<2.00
<2.00
NC
<2.00
<2.00
NC
15.0
<3.00
<3.00
NC
<3.00
<3.00
NC
5.0
<1.00
<1.00
NC
<1.00
<1.00
NC
5.0
<1.00
<1.00
NC
<1.00
<1.00
NC
5.0
<1.00
<1.00
NC
<1.00
<1.00
NC
5.0
<1.00
<1.00
NC
<1.00
<1.00
NC
5.0
<1.00
<1.00
NC
<1.00
<1.00
NC
NC = not calculated.
-------
A-186
Table A20. SVOC field duplicates for Round 2 (May 2012): Raton Basin, CO
(continued)
NC = not calculated.
-------
A-187
Table A20. SVOC field duplicates for Round 2 (May 2012): Raton Basin, CO
(continued)
NC = not calculated.
-------
A-188
Table A20. SVOC field duplicates for Round 2 (May 2012): Raton Basin, CO
(continued)
NC = not calculated.
-------
A-189
Table A20. SVOC field duplicates for Round 2 (May 2012): Raton Basin, CO
(continued)
5xQL
15.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
RBDW06-0512
5/16/2012
<1.00
<3.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
RBDW06d-0512
5/16/2012
<1.00
<3.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
RPD%
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
RBDW11-0512
5/15/2012
<1.00
<3.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
RBDWlld-0512
5/15/2012
<1.00
<3.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
RPD%
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC = not calculated.
-------
A-190
Table A20. SVOC field duplicates for Round 2 (May 2012): Raton Basin, CO
(continued)
5xQL
RBDW06-0512
RBDW06d-0512
RPD%
RBDW11-0512
RBDWlld-0512
RPD%
5/16/2012
5/16/2012
5/15/2012
5/15/2012
5.0
<1.00
<1.00
NC
<1.00
<1.00
NC
5.0
<1.00
<1.00
NC
<1.00
<1.00
NC
5.0
<1.00
<1.00
NC
<1.00
<1.00
NC
5.0
<1.00
<1.00
NC
<1.00
<1.00
NC
5.0
<1.00
<1.00
NC
<1.00
<1.00
NC
5.0
<1.00
<1.00
NC
<1.00
<1.00
NC
5.0
<1.00
<1.00
NC
<1.00
<1.00
NC
5.0
<1.00
<1.00
NC
<1.00
<1.00
NC
5.0
<1.00
<1.00
NC
<1.00
<1.00
NC
5.0
<1.00
<1.00
NC
<1.00
<1.00
NC
5.0
<1.00
<1.00
NC
<1.00
<1.00
NC
NC = not calculated.
-------
A-191
Table A20 Semivolatile organic compound (SVOC) field duplicates for Round 2 (May 2012): Raton Basin, CO.
(continued)
5xQL
RBDW06-0512
RBDW06d-0512
RPD%
RBDW11-0512
RBDWlld-0512
RPD%
5/16/2012
5/16/2012
5/15/2012
5/15/2012
10.0
<2.00
<2.00
NC
<2.00
<2.00
NC
<1.00
<1.00
NC
<1.00
<1.00
NC
10.0
<2.00
<2.00
NC
<2.00
<2.00
NC
5.0
<1.00
<1.00
NC
<1.00
<1.00
NC
5.0
<1.00
<1.00
NC
<1.00
<1.00
NC
10.0
<2.00
<2.00
NC
<2.00
<2.00
NC
NC = not calculated.
5.0
<1.00
<1.00
NC
<1.00
<1.00
NC
-------
A-192
Table A20. SVOC field duplicates for Round 3 (November 2012): Raton Basin, CO
(continued)
5xQL
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
10.0
RBDW03-1112
11/5/2012
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<2.00
RBDW03-1112
Pup
11/5/2012
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<2.00
RPD%
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
RBDW10-1112
11/8/2012
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<2.00
RBDW10-1112
Dup
11/8/2012
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<2.00
RPD%
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC = not calculated.
-------
A-193
Table A20. SVOC field duplicates for Round 3 (November 2012): Raton Basin, CO.
(continued)
5xQL
RBDW03-1112
RBDW03-1112
Dup
RPD%
RBDW10-1112
RBDW10-1112
Dup
RPD%
11/5/2012
11/5/2012
11/8/2012
11/8/2012
10.0
<2.00
<2.00
NC
<2.00
<2.00
NC
10.0
<2.00
<2.00
NC
<2.00
<2.00
NC
10.0
<2.00
<2.00
NC
<2.00
<2.00
NC
10.0
<2.00
<2.00
NC
<2.00
<2.00
NC
10.0
<2.00
<2.00
NC
<2.00
<2.00
NC
15.0
<3.00
<3.00
NC
<3.00
<3.00
NC
5.0
<1.00
<1.00
NC
<1.00
<1.00
NC
5.0
<1.00
<1.00
NC
<1.00
<1.00
NC
5.0
<1.00
<1.00
NC
<1.00
<1.00
NC
5.0
<1.00
<1.00
NC
<1.00
<1.00
NC
5.0
<1.00
<1.00
NC
<1.00
<1.00
NC
NC = not calculated.
-------
A-194
Table A20. SVOC field duplicates for Round 3 (November 2012): Raton Basin, CO.
(continued)
5xQL
RBDW03-1112
RBDW03-1112
Dup
RPD%
RBDW10-1112
RBDW10-1112
Dup
RPD%
11/5/2012
11/5/2012
11/8/2012
11/8/2012
10.0
<2.00
<2.00
NC
<2.00
<2.00
NC
5.0
<1.00
<1.00
NC
<1.00
<1.00
NC
10.0
<2.00
<2.00
NC
<2.00
<2.00
NC
5.0
<1.00
<1.00
NC
<1.00
<1.00
NC
10.0
<2.00
<2.00
NC
<2.00
<2.00
NC
25
<5.00
<5.00
NC
<5.00
<5.00
NC
5.0
<1.00
<1.00
NC
<1.00
<1.00
NC
15.0
<3.00
<3.00
NC
<3.00
<3.00
NC
10.0
<2.00
<2.00
NC
<2.00
<2.00
NC
5.0
<1.00
<1.00
NC
<1.00
<1.00
NC
10.0
<2.00
<2.00
NC
<2.00
<2.00
NC
NC = not calculated.
-------
A-195
Table A20. SVOC field duplicates for Round 3 (November 2012): Raton Basin, CO.
(continued)
5xQL
RBDW03-1112
RBDW03-1112
Dup
RPD%
RBDW10-1112
RBDW10-1112
Dup
RPD%
11/5/2012
11/5/2012
11/8/2012
11/8/2012
15.0
<3.00
<3.00
NC
<3.00
<3.00
NC
5.0
<1.00
<1.00
NC
<1.00
<1.00
NC
15.0
<3.00
<3.00
NC
<3.00
<3.00
NC
15.0
<3.00
<3.00
NC
<3.00
<3.00
NC
5.0
<1.00
<1.00
NC
<1.00
<1.00
NC
5.0
<1.00
<1.00
NC
<1.00
<1.00
NC
5.0
<1.00
<1.00
NC
<1.00
<1.00
NC
5.0
<1.00
<1.00
NC
<1.00
<1.00
NC
5.0
<1.00
<1.00
NC
<1.00
<1.00
NC
5.0
<1.00
<1.00
NC
<1.00
<1.00
NC
5.0
<1.00
<1.00
NC
<1.00
<1.00
NC
NC = not calculated.
-------
A-196
Table A20. SVOC field duplicates for Round 3 (November 2012): Raton Basin, CO.
(continued)
NC = not calculated.
-------
A-197
Table A20. SVOC field duplicates for Round 3 (November 2012): Raton Basin, CO.
(continued)
5xQL
5.0
15.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
RBDW03-1112
11/5/2012
<1.00
<3.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
RBDW03-1112
Pup
11/5/2012
<1.00
<3.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
RPD%
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
RBDW10-1112
11/8/2012
<1.00
<3.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
RBDW10-1112
Dup
11/8/2012
<1.00
<3.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
RPD%
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC = not calculated.
-------
A-198
Table A20. SVOC field duplicates for Round 3 (November 2012): Raton Basin, CO.
(continued)
Sample ID Collected 7700 Ł c ± *>
SxQ.1
RBDW03-1112
RBDW03-1112
Dup
RPD%
RBDW10-1112
RBDW10-1112
Dup
RPD%
11/5/2012
11/5/2012
11/8/2012
11/8/2012
5.0
<1.00
<1.00
NC
<1.00
<1.00
NC
5.0
<1.00
<1.00
NC
<1.00
<1.00
NC
5.0
<1.00
<1.00
NC
<1.00
<1.00
NC
5.0
<1.00
<1.00
NC
<1.00
<1.00
NC
5.0
<1.00
<1.00
NC
<1.00
<1.00
NC
5.0
<1.00
<1.00
NC
<1.00
<1.00
NC
5.0
<1.00
<1.00
NC
<1.00
<1.00
NC
5.0
<1.00
<1.00
NC
<1.00
<1.00
NC
5.0
<1.00
<1.00
NC
<1.00
<1.00
NC
5.0
<1.00
<1.00
NC
<1.00
<1.00
NC
5.0
<1.00
<1.00
NC
<1.00
<1.00
NC
NC = not calculated.
-------
A-199
Table A20. SVOC field duplicates for Round 3 (November 2012): Raton Basin, CO
(continued)
ample ID
5xQL
RBDW03-1112
RBDW03-1112
Dup
RPD%
RBDW10-1112
RBDW10-1112
Dup
RPD%
11/5/2012
11/5/2012
11/8/2012
11/8/2012
10.0
<2.00
<2.00
NC
<2.00
<2.00
NC
5.0
<1.00
<1.00
NC
<1.00
<1.00
NC
10.0
<2.00
<2.00
NC
<2.00
<2.00
NC
5.0
<1.00
<1.00
NC
<1.00
<1.00
NC
5.0
<1.00
<1.00
NC
<1.00
<1.00
NC
10.0
<2.00
<2.00
NC
<2.00
<2.00
NC
5.0
<1.00
<1.00
NC
<1.00
<1.00
NC
NC = not calculated.
-------
A-200
Table A20. SVOC field duplicates for Round 4 (April/May 2013): Raton Basin, CO
(continued)
5xQL
RBMW01-0413
RBMWOld-0413
RPD%
RBDW02-0413
RBDW02d-0413
RPD%
RBSW01-0413
RBSWOld-0413
RPD%
Hg/L ng/L ng/L ng/L ng/L ng/L ng/L ng/L ng/L ng/L ng/L
4/29/2013
4/29/2013
4/29/2013
4/29/2013
4/30/2013
4/30/2013
5.0
<1.00
<1.00
NC
<1.00
<1.00
NC
<1.00
<1.00
NC
5.0
<1.00
<1.00
NC
<1.00
<1.00
NC
<1.00
<1.00
NC
5.0
<1.00
<1.00
NC
<1.00
<1.00
NC
<1.00
<1.00
NC
5.0
<1.00
<1.00
NC
<1.00
<1.00
NC
<1.00
<1.00
NC
5.0
<1.00
<1.00
NC
<1.00
<1.00
NC
<1.00
<1.00
NC
5.0
<1.00
<1.00
NC
<1.00
<1.00
NC
<1.00
<1.00
NC
5.0
<1.00
<1.00
NC
<1.00
<1.00
NC
<1.00
<1.00
NC
5.0
<1.00
<1.00
NC
<1.00
<1.00
NC
<1.00
<1.00
NC
5.0
<1.00
<1.00
NC
<1.00
<1.00
NC
<1.00
<1.00
NC
5.0
<1.00
<1.00
NC
<1.00
<1.00
NC
<1.00
<1.00
NC
10.0
<2.00
<2.00
NC
<2.00
<2.00
NC
<2.00
<2.00
NC
NC = not calculated.
-------
A-201
Table A20. SVOC field duplicates for Round 4 (April/May 2013): Raton Basin, CO
(continued)
5xQL
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
15.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
RBMW01-0413
4/29/2013
<2.00
<2.00
<2.00
<2.00
<2.00
<3.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
RBMWOld-0413
4/29/2013
<2.00
<2.00
<2.00
<2.00
<2.00
<3.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
RPD%
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
RBDW02-0413
4/29/2013
<2.00
<2.00
<2.00
<2.00
<2.00
<3.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
RBDW02d-0413
4/29/2013
<2.00
<2.00
<2.00
<2.00
<2.00
<3.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
RPD%
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
RBSW01-0413
4/30/2013
<2.00
<2.00
<2.00
<2.00
<2.00
<3.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
RBSWOld-0413
RPD%
4/30/2013
<2.00
NC
<2.00
NC
<2.00
NC
<2.00
NC
<2.00
NC
<3.00
NC
<1.00
NC
<1.00
NC
<1.00
NC
<1.00
NC
<1.00
NC
-------
A-202
Table A20. SVOC field duplicates for Round 4 (April/May 2013): Raton Basin, CO
(continued)
5xQL
RBMW01-0413
RBMWOld-0413
RPD%
RBDW02-0413
RBDW02d-0413
RPD%
RBSW01-0413
RBSWOld-0413
RPD%
4/29/2013
4/29/2013
4/29/2013
4/29/2013
4/30/2013
4/30/2013
10.0
<2.00
<2.00
NC
<2.00
<2.00
NC
<2.00
<2.00
NC
5.0
<1.00
<1.00
NC
<1.00
<1.00
NC
<1.00
<1.00
NC
10.0
<2.00
<2.00
NC
<2.00
<2.00
NC
<2.00
<2.00
NC
5.0
<1.00
<1.00
NC
<1.00
<1.00
NC
<1.00
<1.00
NC
10.0
<2.00
<2.00
NC
<2.00
<2.00
NC
<2.00
<2.00
NC
25.0
<5.00
<5.00
NC
<5.00
<5.00
NC
<5.00
<5.00
NC
5.0
<1.00
<1.00
NC
<1.00
<1.00
NC
<1.00
<1.00
NC
15.0
<3.00
<3.00
NC
<3.00
<3.00
NC
<3.00
<3.00
NC
10.0
<2.00
<2.00
NC
<2.00
<2.00
NC
<2.00
<2.00
NC
5.0
<1.00
<1.00
NC
<1.00
<1.00
NC
<1.00
<1.00
NC
10.0
<2.00
<2.00
NC
<2.00
<2.00
NC
<2.00
<2.00
NC
-------
A-203
Table A20. SVOC field duplicates for Round 4 (April/May 2013): Raton Basin, CO
(continued)
5xQL
RBMW01-0413
RBMWOld-0413
RPD%
RBDW02-0413
RBDW02d-0413
RPD%
RBSW01-0413
RBSWOld-0413
RPD%
4/29/2013
4/29/2013
4/29/2013
4/29/2013
4/30/2013
4/30/2013
15.0
<3.00
<3.00
NC
<3.00
<3.00
NC
<3.00
<3.00
NC
mmm
5.0
<1.00
<1.00
NC
<1.00
<1.00
NC
<1.00
<1.00
NC
15.0
<3.00
<3.00
NC
<3.00
<3.00
NC
<3.00
<3.00
NC
15.0
<3.00
<3.00
NC
<3.00
<3.00
NC
<3.00
<3.00
NC
m
5.0
<1.00
<1.00
NC
<1.00
<1.00
NC
<1.00
<1.00
NC
mmm
5.0
<1.00
<1.00
NC
<1.00
<1.00
NC
<1.00
<1.00
NC
mmm
5.0
<1.00
<1.00
NC
<1.00
<1.00
NC
<1.00
<1.00
NC
mmm
5.0
<1.00
<1.00
NC
<1.00
<1.00
NC
<1.00
<1.00
NC
mmm
5.0
<1.00
<1.00
NC
<1.00
<1.00
NC
<1.00
<1.00
NC
5.0
<1.00
<1.00
NC
<1.00
<1.00
NC
<1.00
<1.00
NC
5.0
<1.00
<1.00
NC
<1.00
<1.00
NC
<1.00
<1.00
NC
NC = not calculated.
-------
A-204
Table A20. SVOC field duplicates for Round 4 (April/May 2013): Raton Basin, CO
(continued)
5xQL
5.0
5.0
5.0
15.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
10.0
RBMW01-0413
4/29/2013
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<3.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
5.28
RBMWOld-0413
4/29/2013
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<3.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
95.9
RPD%
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
RBDW02-0413
4/29/2013
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<3.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
9.56
RBDW02d-0413
4/29/2013
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<3.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<2.00
RPD%
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
RBSW01-0413
4/30/2013
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<3.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<2.00
RBSWOld-0413
RPD%
4/30/2013
<1.00
NC
<1.00
NC
<1.00
NC
<1.00
NC
<3.00
NC
<1.00
NC
<1.00
NC
<1.00
NC
<1.00
NC
<1.00
NC
<2.00
NC
-------
A-205
Table A20. SVOC field duplicates for Round 4 (April/May 2013): Raton Basin, CO
(continued)
5xQL
5.0
15.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
RBMW01-0413
4/29/2013
<1.00
<3.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
RBMWOld-0413
4/29/2013
<1.00
<3.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
RPD%
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
RBDW02-0413
4/29/2013
<1.00
<3.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
RBDW02d-0413
4/29/2013
<1.00
<3.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
RPD%
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
RBSW01-0413
4/30/2013
<1.00
<3.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
RBSWOld-0413
4/30/2013
<1.00
<3.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
L
RPD%
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC = not calculated.
-------
A-206
Table A20. SVOC field duplicates for Round 4 (April/May 2013): Raton Basin, CO
(continued)
5xQL
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
RBMW01-0413
4/29/2013
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
RBMWOld-0413
4/29/2013
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
RPD%
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
RBDW02-0413
4/29/2013
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
RBDW02d-0413
4/29/2013
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
RPD%
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
RBSW01-0413
4/30/2013
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
RBSWOld-0413
4/30/2013
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
RPD%
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC = not calculated.
-------
A-207
Table A20. SVOC field duplicates for Round 4 (April/May 2013): Raton Basin, CO.
(continued)
5xQL
10.0
10.0
5.0
5.0
10.0
5.0
RBMW01-0413
4/29/2013
<2.00
<1.00
<2.00
<1.00
<1.00
<2.00
<1.00
RBMWOld-0413
4/29/2013
<2.00
<1.00
<2.00
<1.00
<1.00
3.82
<1.00
RPD%
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
RBDW02-0413
4/29/2013
<2.00
<1.00
<2.00
<1.00
<1.00
<2.00
<1.00
RBDW02d-0413
4/29/2013
<2.00
<1.00
<2.00
<1.00
<1.00
<2.00
<1.00
RPD%
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
RBSW01-0413
4/30/2013
<2.00
<1.00
<2.00
<1.00
<1.00
<2.00
<1.00
RBSWOld-0413
4/30/2013
<2.00
<1.00
<2.00
<1.00
<1.00
<2.00
<1.00
RPD%
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC = not calculated
-------
A-208
Table A21. Diesel range organic (DRO) and Gasoline range organic (GRO) field
duplicates: Raton Basin, CO.
Units
October 2011
5xQL
RBDW05-1011
RBDW05d-1011
RPD%
RBDW10-1011
RBDWlOd-1011
RPD%
10/4/2011
10/4/2011
10/5/2011
10/5/2011
100
<20.0
<20.0
NC
23.9
25.2
NC
100
<20.0
<20.0
NC
21.1
<20.0
NC
May 2012
5xQL
RBDW06-0512
RBDW06d-0512
RPD%
RBDW11-0512
RBDWlld-0512
RPD%
5/16/2012
5/16/2012
5/15/2012
5/15/2012
100
21.5
22.3
NC
<20.0
<20.0
NC
100
89.7
105
NC
<20.0
<20.0
NC
November 2012
5xQL
RBDW03-1112
RBDW03-1112 Dup
RPD%
RBDW10-1112
RBDW10-1112 Dup
RPD%
11/5/2012
11/5/2012
11/8/2012
11/8/2012
100
<20.0
<20.0
NC
20.6
20.8
NC
100
<20.0
<20.0
NC
<20.0
<20.0
NC
NC = not calculated.
-------
A-209
Table A21. Diesel range organic (DRO) and Gasoline range organic (GRO) field
duplicates for Round 4 (April/May 2013): Raton Basin, CO.
(continued)
Sample ID
April/May 2013
5x CU-
RB M WO 1-04 13
RBMWOld-0413
RPD%
RBDW02-0413
RBDW02d-0413
RPD%
RBSW01-0413
RBSWOld-0413
RPD%
4/29/2013
4/29/2013
4/29/2013
4/29/2013
4/30/2013
4/30/2013
100
<20.0
<20.0
NC
<20.0
<20.0
NC
<20.0
<20.0
NC
100
29.8
45.6
NC
28.3
<20.0
NC
46.9
50.4
NC
NC = not calculated.
-------
A-210
Table A22. Oxygen and hydrogen stable isotopes of water - field duplicates: Raton
Basin, CO.
Sample ID
Date Collected
October 2011
RBDW05-1011
RBDW05d-1011
RPD%
RBDW10-1011
RBDWlOd-1011
RPD%
10/4/2011
10/4/2011
10/5/2011
10/5/2011
-67.06
-66.95
0.16
-97.28
-97.11
0.17
-8.73
-8.72
0.11
-12.35
-12.34
0.08
May 2012
RBDW06-0512
RBDW06d-0512
RPD%
RBDW11-0512
RBDWlld-0512
RPD%
5/16/2012
5/16/2012
5/15/2012
5/15/2012
-92.53
-92.43
0.10
-81.45
-81.34
0.13
-12.00
-12.04
0.29
-10.56
-10.52
0.37
November 2012
RBDW03-1112
RBDW03-1112 Dup
RPD%
RBDW10-1112
RBDW10-1112 Dup
RPD%
11/5/2012
11/5/2012
11/8/2012
11/8/2012
-76.72
-76.89
0.23
-98.34
-98.27
0.07
-10.30
-10.29
0.06
-12.67
-12.75
0.62
April/May 2013
RBMW01-0413
RBMWOld-0413
RPD%
RBDW02-0413
RBDW02d-0413
RPD%
RBSW01-0413
RBSWOld-0413
RPD%
4/29/2013
4/29/2013
4/29/2013
4/29/2013
4/30/2013
4/30/2013
-76.29
-76.40
0.15
-74.90
-74.97
0.08
-72.28
-72.21
0.10
-10.67
-10.58
0.81
-10.37
-10.28
0.89
-9.83
-9.82
0.04
-------
A-211
Table A23. Strontium isotope field duplicates: Raton Basin, CO.
^H^^^mHin
^^^uutit^K
Date
Collected
•CTwrl
October 2011
RBDW05-1011
RBDW05d-1011
RPD%
RBDW10-1011
RBDWlOd-1011
RPD%
10/4/2011
10/4/2011
10/5/2011
10/5/2011
97
97
0.00
88
87
1.14
0.68
0.69
1.46
0.24
0.23
2.99
0.713416
0.713562
0.02
0.707844
0.707843
0.00
0.0103
0.0103
0.00
0.0114
0.0115
1.14
0.0070
0.0071
1.46
0.0027
0.0027
1.84
May 2012
RBDW06-0512
RBDW06d-0512
RPD%
RBDW11-0512
RBDWlld-0512
RPD%
5/16/2012
5/16/2012
5/15/2012
5/15/2012
460
462
0.43
604
651
7.49
0.5
0.5
0.00
0.6
0.7
15.38
0.70728
0.70725
0.00
0.71106
0.71126
0.03
0.0022
0.0022
0.00
0.0017
0.0015
12.50
0.0011
0.0011
0.00
0.0010
0.0011
9.52
November 2012
RBDW03-1112
RBDW03-1112
Dup
RPD%
RBDW10-1112
RBDW10-1112
Dup
RPD%
11/5/2012
11/5/2012
11/8/2012
11/8/2012
580
581
0.17
87
86
1.16
0.5
0.5
0.00
<0.5
<0.5
NC
0.71331
0.71331
0.00
0.70783
0.70783
0.00
0.0017
0.0017
0.00
0.0115
0.0116
0.87
0.0009
0.0009
0.00
NR
NR
NC = not calculated. NR = not reported.
-------
A-212
Table A23. Strontium isotope field duplicates for Round 4 (April/May 2013): Raton
Basin, CO.
(continued)
Sample ID
April/May 2013
RBMW01-0413
RBMWOld-0413
RPD%
RBDW02-0413
RBDW02d-0413
RPD%
RBSW01-0413
RBSWOld-0413
RPD%
4/29/2013
4/29/2013
4/29/2013
4/29/2013
4/30/2013
4/30/2013
1220
1200
1.65
347
344
0.87
254
257
1.17
0.9
0.9
0.00
<0.5
<0.5
NC
1.7
1.9
11.1
0.712939
0.712928
0.00
0.713096
0.713093
0.00
0.712151
0.712058
0.01
0.00082
0.00083
1.21
0.00288
0.00291
1.04
0.00394
0.00389
1.28
0.00074
0.00075
1.34
NR
NR
0.00669
0.00739
9.94
NC = not calculated. NR = not reported.
-------
A-213
Table A24. Isotech gas field duplicates: Raton Basin, C(
ample ID Collec
RBDW05-1011
10/4/2011
NR
ND
1.71
13.31
0.34
84.6
0.023
0.0343
ND
ND
RBDW05d-1011
10/4/2011
NR
ND
1.68
12.91
0.35
85.0
0.062
0.0335
ND
ND
RPD%
NC
NC
1.77
3.05
2.90
0.45
91.76
2.36
NC
NC
RBDW10-1011
10/5/2011
NR
ND
0.60
0.013
0.025
30.9
ND
68.41
0.026
0.0002
RBDWlOd-1011
10/5/2011
NR
ND
0.61
0.036
0.024
31.5
ND
67.80
0.026
0.0002
RPD%
NC
NC
1.65
93.9
4.08
1.86
NC
0.90
1.14
0.00
RBDW05-1011
RBDW05d-1011
RPD%
RBDW10-1011
RBDWlOd-1011
RPD%
10/4/2011
10/4/2011
10/5/2011
10/5/2011
ND
ND
NC
0.0012
0.0011
8.70
ND
ND
NC
0.0002
0.0002
0.00
ND
ND
NC
0.0002
0.0002
0.00
ND
ND
NC
ND
ND
NC
ND
ND
NC
ND
ND
NC
ND
ND
NC
ND
ND
NC
0.994
0.994
0.00
0.687
0.690
0.44
0
1.00
NC
694
687
1.01
0.77
0.77
0.00
0.57
0.56
1.77
NC = not calculated. ND = not detected. NR = not reported.
-------
A-214
Table A24. Isotech isotope (carbon, hydrogen) field duplicates for Round 1 (October 2011): Raton Basin, CO.
(continued)
RBDW05-1011
RBDW05d-1011
RPD%
RBDW10-1011
RBDWlOd-1011
RPD%
10/4/2011
10/4/2011
10/5/2011
10/5/2011
NR
NR
NC
-39.08
-39.07
0.03
NR
NR
NC
-152.7
-149.3
2.25
NR
NR
NC
NR
NR
NC
-15.27
-15.14
0.85
-40.18
-40.24
0.15
NC = not calculated. NR = not reported.
-------
A-215
Table A24. Isotech gas field duplicates for Round 2 (May 2012): Raton Basin, CO.
(continued)
, ,_ _ „ , He H2 Ar O2
Sample ID Collected
^^f
RBDW06-0512
RBDW06d-0512
RPD%
RBDW11-0512
RBDWlld-0512
RPD%
5/16/2012
5/16/2012
5/15/2012
5/15/2012
NR
NR
NC
NR
NR
NC
ND
ND
NC
ND
ND
NC
1.100
1.100
0.00
1.600
1.620
1.24
0.0700
0.1200
52.63
8.250
7.580
8.46
0.4900
0.4900
0.00
1.930
1.920
0.52
56.30
55.31
1.77
83.59
84.26
0.80
ND
ND
NC
0.0720
0.0630
13.33
I
42.02
42.96
2.21
4.560
4.550
0.22
I
0.0225
0.0229
1.76
0.0023
0.0024
4.26
ND
ND
NC
ND
ND
NC
RBDW06-0512
RBDW06d-0512
RPD%
RBDW11-0512
RBDWlld-0512
RPD%
Collected
5/16/2012
5/16/2012
5/15/2012
5/15/2012
K9
0.0015
0.0015
0.00
ND
ND
NC
ND
ND
NC
ND
ND
NC
ND
ND
NC
ND
ND
NC
ND
ND
NC
ND
ND
NC
ND
ND
NC
ND
ND
NC
ND
ND
NC
ND
ND
NC
ND
ND
NC
ND
ND
NC
0.801
0.797
0.50
0.977
0.976
0.10
426
436
2.32
46
46
0.00
Helium
dilution
0.73
0.73
0.00
0.78
0.78
0.00
NC = not calculated. ND = not detected. NR = not reported.
-------
A-216
Table A24. Isotech isotope (carbon, hydrogen, sulfur, oxygen) field duplicates for Round 2 (May 2012): Raton Basin, CO.
(continued)
RBDW06-0512
5/16/2012
-46.87
-204.7
-24.87
35.9
9.9
-11.9
RBDW06d-0512
5/16/2012
-46.90
-206.3
-24.89
36.3
10.2
NR
RPD%
0.06
0.78
0.08
1.11
2.99
NC
RBDW11-0512
5/15/2012
-43.53
-136.0
-15.91
4.0
-0.4
NR
RBDWlld-0512
5/15/2012
-43.60
-138.0
-15.80
4.1
-1.0
NR
RPD%
0.16
1.46
0.69
2.47
85.71
NC
NC = not calculated. NR = not reported.
-------
A-217
Table A24. Isotech gas field duplicates for Round 3 (November 2012): Raton Basin, CO.
(continued)
, ,_ _ „ , He H2 Ar O2
Sample ID Collected
^^f
RBDW03-1112
RBDW03-1112
Dup
RPD%
RBDW10-1112
RBDW10 -1112
Dup
RPD%
11/5/2012
11/5/2012
11/8/2012
11/8/2012
NA
NA
NC
NA
NA
NC
ND
ND
NC
ND
ND
NC
0.735
1.34
58.31
0.780
0.781
0.13
11.30
14.88
27.35
0.077
0.038
67.83
3.84
3.55
7.85
ND
0.031
NC
83.96
80.09
4.72
40.07
39.38
1.74
ND
ND
NC
ND
ND
NC
I
0.165
0.138
17.82
59.05
59.74
1.16
I
ND
ND
NC
0.0248
0.0252
1.60
ND
ND
NC
ND
ND
NC
Sample ID
Units
RBDW03-1112
RBDW03-1112
Dup
RPD%
RBDW10-1112
RBDW10 -1112
Dup
RPD%
Date
Collected
11/5/2012
11/5/2012
11/8/2012
11/8/2012
ND
ND
NC
0.0009
0.0010
10.53
ND
ND
NC
ND
ND
NC
HIjH
ND
ND
NC
ND
ND
NC
ND
ND
NC
0.0006
ND
NC
D
ND
ND
NC
ND
ND
NC
ND
ND
NC
ND
ND
NC
ND
ND
NC
ND
ND
NC
Specific
Gravity
1.006
1.012
0.59
0.727
0.724
0.41
BTU
2
1
NC
599
606
1.16
Helium
dilution
0.80
0.79
1.26
0.68
0.69
1.46
NA = not analyzed. NC = not calculated. ND = not detected.
-------
A-218
Table A24. Isotech isotope (carbon, hydrogen, sulfur, oxygen) field duplicates for Round 3 (November 2012): Raton Basin,
CO.
(continued)
RBDW03-1112
11/5/2012
NR
NR
-13.52
-8.1
3.4
NA
RBDW03-1112Dup
11/5/2012
NR
NR
-13.85
-8.0
3.2
NA
RPD%
NC
NC
2.41
1.24
6.06
NC
RBDW10-1112
11/8/2012
-38.03
-150.9
-40.94
34.9
8.7
-9.9
RBDW10-1112Dup
11/8/2012
-38.04
-149.9
-41.00
34.8
8.7
-9.9
RPD%
0.03
0.66
0.15
0.29
0.00
0.00
NA = not analyzed. NC = not calculated. NR = data not reported.
-------
A-219
Table A24. Isotech gas field duplicates for Round 4 (April/May 2013): Raton Basin, CO.
(continued)
BSfrlimifJlTiM
RBMW01-0413
RBMWOld-0413
RPD%
RBDW02-0413
RBDW02d-0413
RPD%
RBSW01-0413
RBSWOld-0413
RPD%
^^^li^T^^I
4/29/2013
4/29/2013
4/29/2013
4/29/2013
4/30/2013
4/30/2013
NA
NA
NC
NA
NA
NC
NA
NA
NC
ND
ND
NC
ND
ND
NC
ND
ND
NC
^v*^9
1.74
1.74
0.00
1.44
1.45
0.69
1.36
1.34
1.48
2.78
2.80
0.72
27.66
27.86
0.72
30.70
30.56
0.46
2.34
2.35
0.43
0.71
0.78
9.40
0.54
0.46
16.00
92.93
92.90
0.03
70.18
69.89
0.41
67.33
67.56
0.34
ND
ND
NC
ND
ND
NC
0.060
0.066
9.52
0.2140
0.2130
0.47
0.0145
0.0151
4.05
0.0141
0.0092
42.06
ND
ND
NC
ND
ND
NC
ND
ND
NC
B
ND
ND
NC
ND
ND
NC
ND
ND
NC
NA = not analyzed. NC = not calculated. ND = not detected.
-------
A-220
Table A24. Isotech gas field duplicates for Round 4 (April/May 2013): Raton Basin, CO.
(continued)
RBMW01-0413
RBMWOld-0413
RPD%
RBDW02-0413
RBDW02d-0413
RPD%
RBSW01-0413
RBSWOld-0413
RPD%
T^B
Collected 3
4/29/2013
4/29/2013
4/29/2013
4/29/2013
4/30/2013
4/30/2013
ND
ND
NC
ND
ND
NC
ND
ND
NC
ND
ND
NC
ND
ND
NC
ND
ND
NC
ND
ND
NC
ND
ND
NC
ND
ND
NC
ND
ND
NC
ND
ND
NC
ND
ND
NC
^^9 ^n
ND
ND
NC
ND
ND
NC
ND
ND
NC
ND
ND
NC
ND
ND
NC
ND
ND
NC
ND
ND
NC
ND
ND
NC
ND
ND
NC
^Kjj^WlfT^B
0.990
0.990
0.00
1.015
1.016
0.10
1.018
1.017
0.10
2
2
0.00
0
0
0.00
0
0
0.00
Helium
dilution
0.79
0.79
0.77
0.77
0.79
0.79
NC = not calculated. ND = not detected.
-------
A-221
Table A24. Isotech isotope (carbon, hydrogen, sulfur, oxygen) field duplicates for Round 4 (April/May 2013): Raton Basin,
CO.
(continued)
RBMW01-0413
RBMWOld-0413
RPD%
RBDW02-0413
RBDW02d-0413
RPD%
RBSW01-0413
RBSWOld-0413
RPD%
*^^^^^M
4/29/2013
4/29/2013
4/29/2013
4/29/2013
4/30/2013
4/30/2013
NR
NR
NC
NR
NR
NC
NR
NR
NC
NR
NR
NC
NR
NR
NC
NR
NR
NC
-15.19
-15.11
0.53
-16.02
-15.99
0.19
4.47
4.68
4.59
-8.5
-8.8
3.47
-6.9
-6.7
2.94
0.5
0.7
33.33
•0VPQ
3.9
4.3
9.76
4.6
5.0
8.33
2.6
3.0
14.29
634SH2S
NA
NA
NC
NA
NA
NC
NA
NA
NC
NA = not analyzed. NC = not calculated. NR = not reported.
-------
A-222
Table A25. Data Usability Summary1.
Analysis/Lab
Summary of QA/QC Results
Impact on Data/Usability
Field Parameters/EPA
on-site
A midday check of a pH 4.00
performance standard on
10/3/2011 read 4.23, slightly above
the control range of 3.8 to 4.2; a pH
7.00 performance standard was
6.96, within the specified
acceptance criterion (Table A27).
End-of-day pH performance
standards on 10/4/2011 were 7.45
and 10.37, respectively, outside of
the control ranges (midday pH
check was acceptable).
An end-of-the-day performance
check of specific conductance on
10/3/2011 read low, outside of the
specified acceptance criterion. The
low value was likely related to cold
temperature of the calibration
solution. An end-of-the-day check
on 10/4/2011 of the zero-oxygen
solution was above the optimal
<0.25 mg/Lcriterion (0.59 mg/L);
the result was still <1 mg/L and
confirmed electrode performance
at low oxygen levels. In some cases
performance check readings for
ORP were not recorded and
evaluated (see Table A27).
Results for ferrous iron and sulfide
are considered screening values as
they were measured on site with
field kits.
Affected samples (RBPW01, RBPW02,
RBSW01, and RBDW01) were qualified
"J" for pH as estimated.The
performance deviations are minimal
and the pH data are considered to be
usable.
Data usability for specific conductance
and dissolved oxygen is considered to
be minimally affected. Data usability of
ORP measurements for samples
RBDW05, RBMW01, RBMW04, and
RBMW05 is considered to be minimally
impacted.
All detected results for ferrous iron and
sulfide were qualified "J" as estimated.
Data usability is unaffected.
-------
A-223
Table AZS.Data Usability Summary
(continued)
Analysis/Lab
Summary of QA/QC Results
mpact on Data/Usability
Dissolved gases/Shaw
Environmental
Trip blanks collected on 10/3/2011
and 10/4/2011 had dissolved gas
levels above the QL for methane,
ethane, propane, and butane, likely
due to laboratory contamination.
Affected samples (RBMW01, RBDW01,
RBDW03, RBDW05, RBDWOSd for
methane; RBMW03, RBDW04, RBPW01
for ethane; and RBSW01 for propane)
were qualified with "B". Methane data
for RBDW05 and RBDWOSd were near
the blank levels and are unusable but
indicative of low concentration levels;
other samples exceeded the blank
levels by ~3x and are usable with the
qualifier. Ethane and propane data in
the affected samples are unusable.
DOC/ORD/NRMRL-Ada
An equipment blank had a DOC
concentration above the QL.
Affected samples (RBMW04, RBMW05,
RBDW08, RBDW09, RBDW10,
RBDWIOd) were qualified with a "B".
Concentration levels in the affected
samples RBMW04, RBMW05, RBMW10,
and RBMWIOd were below the blank
level. However, low levels of DOC are
indicated in the sample results.
RBMW08 and RBMW09 concentrations
were above the blank level and are
usable with caution.
DIC/ORD/NRMRL-Ada
One matrix spike recovery was
outside of control limits at 66.7%.
Four other matrix spikes were
acceptable and the method blank
spike recovery was 96.5%.
All samples were qualified with a "]-",
but the data are considered to be
usable; the potential low bias is taken
into consideration.
Anions/Ammonia
ORD/NRMRL-Ada
Nitrate + Nitrite: One field blank
and one equipment blank were
above the QL.
Nitrate + Nitrite:Affected samples were
qualified with a "B." Data for affected
samples are usable with caution, for
RBDW01, RBDW02, RBDW03 which
were 2xthe associated equipment
blank; RBDW05, and RBDWOSd were
greater in concentration than in the
associated field blank and are usable
with caution; RBDW04 was less than
the associated blank and is unusable;
-------
A-224
Table AZS.Data Usability Summary
(continued)
Analysis/Lab
Summary of QA/QC Results
mpact on Data/Usability
Ammonia was detected in one
equipment blank.
low-levels of nitrate in all samples are
indicated.
Affected samples (RBDW08, RBDW09,
RBDW10, and RBDWIOd) were
qualified with a "B"; all concentrations
are greater than the associated blank.
Low levels of ammonia are indicated in
the field samples. Ammonia data for
affected samples are usable with
caution.
Dissolved Metals/Shaw
Environmental
ICP-MS:AII ICP-MS results were
rejected and replaced with ICP-OES
results.The reasons stated were
potential interferences and that
interference check standards were
not run.
ICP-OES:Dissolved Sb results were
rejected due to potential
spectralinterference.
Continuing calibration checks were
analyzed at appropriate intervals,
however, some metals (B, Ba, K,
Na, Ag, Si, S, P, and U) were not
always included in the check
standards at the required intervals.
ICP-MS:The ICP-MS data were replaced
with ICP-OES data.Detection and
quantitation limits are higher than
desirable. The ICP-OES data cannot be
compared with the subsequent ICP-MS
data for trace metals from the last
three sampling events.
ICP-OES: Sb results were qualified with
"R" and were rejected as unusable.
All samples with detected quantities for
these metals were qualified "J" as
estimated.
Data for B, Ba, K, Na, Ag, Si, S, P, and U
are usable as positive identifications
with estimated concentrations.
-------
A-225
Table AZS.Data Usability Summary
(continued)
Analysis/Lab
Summary of QA/QC Results
mpact on Data/Usability
Total Metals/Shaw
Environmental
ICP-MS:AII ICP-MS results were
rejected and replaced with ICP-OES
results.The reasons stated were
potential interferences and that
interference check standards were
not run.
ICP-OES: Total Sb results were
rejected due to potential spectral
interference.
Continuing calibration checks were
being analyzed at appropriate
intervals, however, some metals (B,
Ba, K, Na, Ag, Si, S, P, and U) were
not always included in the check
standards at the required intervals.
Digestion: it was determined that
all parameters were not adhered to
in EPA Method 3015A.
ICP-MS: The ICP-MS data were replaced
with ICP-OES data. Detection and
quantitation limits are higher than
desirable. The ICP-OES data cannot be
compared with the subsequent ICP-MS
data for trace metals from the last
three sampling events.
ICP-OES:Sb results were qualified with
"R" and rejected as unusable.
All samples with detected quantities for
these metals were qualified "J" as
estimated.
Data for B, Ba, K, Na, Ag, Si, S, P, and U
are usable as positive identifications
with estimated concentrations.
The "J" qualifier was applied to
detections above the QL for digested
samples. Data are usable as positive
identifications with estimated
concentrations.
Charge Balance
The calculated charge balance error
ranged from 0 to 7.5%, based on
the major cations (dissolved Na, K,
Ca, and Mg) and anions (Cl, F, SO4,
and DIG).
Meets project requirements.
The error in measured SPC versus
calculated SPC ranged from 0.1 to
13.6%.
Meets project requirements.
Measured versus calculated
values of Specific
Conductance (SPC)
-------
A-226
Table AZS.Data Usability Summary
(continued)
Analysis/Lab
Summary of QA/QC Results
mpact on Data/Usability
VOC/Shaw Environmental
The matrix spike results for 1,1-
dichloroethene and 1,1,2-
trichloroethane were significantly
outside of the control limits. These
compounds are known to be
affected by base hydrolysis. The
preservative, trisodium phosphate
(TSP), is a base and elevated
temperatures (heated headspace
sample introduction) will
accelerate the hydrolysis of 1,1,2-
trichloroethane to 1,1-
dichloroethene.
Toluene was detected in one field
blank, one equipment blank, and
two trip blanks.
All data for 1,1-dichloroethene and
1,1,2-trichloroethane were qualified
with "R" and rejected as unusable.
Carbon disulfide was outside of
control limits in matrix spike
samples.
The affected sample (RBDW06) was
qualified with a "B" for toluene. The
sample data are ~3x the blank level and
considered to be usable with caution.
All sample results for carbon disulfide
were qualified with a "J-" with a
potential negative bias.
Low-Molecular-Weight
Acids/Shaw Environmental
All field blanks for acetate were
greater than the QL. It was later
determined that the TSP
preservative was the source of the
acetate
contamination.
Low matrix spike recovery (0%) was
indicated for isobutyrate.
For acetate, the data were qualified
with "R" and rejected as unusable.
Due to 0% recovery of the matrix spike,
isobutyrate data are unusable.
The method for glycols was under
development.
Glycols/EPA Region 3
Laboratory
The QAPP stated that these data are to
be considered screening values until
the method was validated. Even though
the data are considered to be for
screening level evaluation, they are
usable as on-going QC checks provide
-------
A-227
Table AZS.Data Usability Summary
(continued)
Analysis/Lab
Summary of QA/QC Results
mpact on Data/Usability
One cooler arrived at the
laboratory at a temperature of 15
°C due to a delay in the shipment.
confidence that the method can detect
glycols.
Affected samples (RBMW02, RBDW04,
RBMW03, RBeqBlk02, RBDW02,
RBDW05, RBDWOSd, RBSW01,
RBFBIk02, RBMW04, RBDW08,
RBMW05, RBDW09, RBEqBlkOS,
RBDW10,RBDW10d, RBSW01) were
qualified with a "J-" due to the
temperature exceedance and the
potential negative bias is taken into
account for data usability.
SVOC/EPA Region 8
Laboratory
Bis-(2-ethylhexyl) adipate was
detected in a lab blank (1.1 u.g/L)
and was likely related to laboratory
contamination.
Bis-(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate was
detected in an equipment blank.
Several analytes had low recoveries
in a matrix spike/matrix spike
duplicate: R-(+)-limonene (49.8% &
40.8%), 1,3-dimethyladamantane
(49.8% & 41.2%, adamantane
(52.4% & 43.2%), benzo(a)pyrene
(73.2%* & 53.6%), and carbazole
(0%&109%*).
Affected samples (RBMW04, RBMW05,
RBDW06, RBDW07, RBDW08, RBDW09,
RBDW10, RBDWIOd, RBDW11, and
RBDW12) were qualified with "B" for
bis-(2-ethylhexyl) adipate. Detections
were likely due to laboratory
contamination and the data are
unusable.
None of the associated sample results
required qualification. RBMW03 was
>10x the blank result. RBSW01 was a
grab sample and not collected with the
sampling equipment; therefore, it was
not impacted. Data usability is
unaffected.
Affected samples (RBMW03, RBMW04,
RBMW05, RBDW02, RBDW06,
RBDW07, RBDW08, RBDW09, RBDW10,
RBDWIOd, RBDW11, and BRDW12)
were qualified with a "J-" and the
potential negative bias is taken into
account for data usability.
-------
A-228
Table AZS.Data Usability Summary
(continued)
Summary of QA/QC Results
''acceptable
mpact on Data/Usability
DRO/GRO/EPA Region 8
Laboratory
DRO: The surrogate recovery in
sample RBMW03 was outside of
control limits by 3%.
GRO was detected in two blank
samples above the QL.
DRO: the affected sample was qualified
as "J" as estimated. Impact on data
usability is minimal.
GRO results for sample RBMW03 are
used with caution.
O, H Stable Isotopes of
Water/Shaw Environmental
All QA/QC criteria were met.
Meets project requirements.
Sr Isotopes/USGS Laboratory
- Denver
All QA/QC criteria were met.
Meets project requirements.
Isotech Gas Isotopes
All QA/QC criteria were met.
Meets project requirements.
Field Parameters/EPA on-
site
Results for ferrous iron and sulfide
are considered screening values as
they were measured on site with
field kits.
In some cases performance check
readings for ORP were not
recorded and evaluated (see Table
A27).
All detected results were qualified "J"
as estimated. Data usability is
unaffected.
Data usability of ORP measurements for
samples RBSW02, RBSW03, RBDW03,
RBDW05, RBDW09, RBDW11, RBDW13,
and RBMW03 is considered to be
minimally impacted.
Dissolved gases/Shaw
Environmental
All QA/QC criteria were met.
Meets project requirements.
DOC/ORD/NRMRL-Ada
All QA/QC criteria were met.
Meets project requirements.
DIC/ORD/NRMRL-Ada
All QA/QC criteria were met.
Meets project requirements.
Anions/Ammonia
ORD/NRMRL-Ada
Nitrate+Nitrite: detected in field
and equipment blanks.
Nitrate+Nitrite: affected samples
(RBDW01, RBDW02, RBDW03,
RBDW05, RBDW11, RBDWlld,
RBDW13, RBSW01, and RBSW02) were
qualified "B." Sample concentrations
were equal to or greater than the
blanks and are therefore usable with
caution. All sample data are indicative
of low levels of Nitrate+Nitrite.
-------
A-229
Table AZS.Data Usability Summary
(continued)
Analysis/Lab
Dissolved Metals/Shaw
Environmental
Summary of QA/QC Results
ICP-MS: All ICP-MS results were
rejected due to potential
interferences and because
interference check standards were
not run. Samples were re-analyzed
using a CLP lab.
ICP-OES: continuing calibration
checks were analyzed at
appropriate intervals, however,
these metals (B, Ba, K, Na, Ag, Si, S,
and P) were not always included in
the check standards at the required
intervals.
Spike recoveries forNa and S were
outside of control limits.
mpact on Data/Usability
ICP-MS: CLP lab ICP-MS data were used.
ICP-OES: All samples with detected
quantities for these metals were
qualified "J" as estimated. Data for B,
Ba, K, Na, Ag, Si, S, P, and U are usable
as positive identifications with
estimated concentrations.
All samples were qualified with "J-" and
the potential negative bias is taken into
account for data usability.
Total Metals/Shaw
Environmental
ICP-MS: all ICP-MS results were
rejected due to potential
interferences and because
interference check standards were
not run. Samples were re-analyzed
using CLP lab.
Digestion: it was determined that
all parameters were not adhered to
in EPA Method 3015A.
ICP-MS: CLP ICP-MS data were used.
ICP-OES: continuing calibration
checks were analyzed at
appropriate intervals, however,
these metals (B, Ba, K, Na, Ag, Si, S,
and P) were are not always
included in the check standards at
the required intervals.
Digestion: the "J" qualifier was applied
to detections above the QL for digested
samples. Data are usable as positive
identifications with estimated
concentrations.
ICP-OES: All samples with detected
quantities for these metals were
qualified "J" as estimated. Data for B,
Ba, K, Na, Ag, Si, S, P, and U are usable
as positive identifications with
estimated concentrations.
-------
A-230
Table AZS.Data Usability Summary
(continued)
Analysis/Lab
Summary of QA/QC Results
mpact on Data/Usability
Spike recovery for Na was outside
of control limits. Spike recovery for
Ag on sample RBSW01 was low
(5.60%).
All samples for Na were qualified with
"J-" and the potential negative bias is
taken into account for data usability.
Sample RBSW01 was qualified with "J-"
for Ag and the potential negative bias is
taken into account for data usability.
Total and Dissolved Metals
by ICP-MS/CLP
The ICP-MS metal analytes, as
identified in the QAPP, that were
analyzed by the CLP lab, are total &
dissolved: Al, As, Cd, Cr, Cu, Pb, Ni,
Mo, Sb, Se, Th, Tl, and U.
Field blanks, equipment blanks, or
lab blanks had levels above the QL
for total Cu, dissolved Sb, and total
Sb.
Laboratory duplicate results and
matrix spike recoveries were
outside of control limits for total
Pb.
The CLP laboratory rejected results
for some samples for dissolved and
total Se (very low spike recoveries),
dissolved Th (interference check
standards well outside of control
limits), dissolved and total U
Total Cu: affected samples (RBDW02,
RBMW03, RBDW11, RBDWlld,
RBDW13, RBSW03) were qualified with
a "B". All sample data were above the
blank levels and are usable with
caution.
Total and dissolved Sb: RBMW03 were
qualified with a "B" and results are
usable with caution.
Total Pb: affected samples (RBMW03,
RBDW11, and RBPW03) were qualified
with an "*"; data are used with caution
and with the understanding there may
be a precision issue. Affected samples
(RBMW02, RBDW01, RBPW01,
RBSW01, RBSW02, EBSW03 and
RBFBIk02) were qualified with a "J-";
the potential negative bias is taken into
account for data usability.
Total and dissolved Se, U, and dissolved
Th: data for affected samples (see
Appendix B) for these parameters were
qualified with an "R" and are
considered to be unusable.
-------
A-231
Table AZS.Data Usability Summary
(continued)
Analysis/Lab
Summary of QA/QC Results
(interference check standards well
outside of control limits and/or
continuing calibration check
failures).
Low spike recovery was indicated
for total and dissolved Se, Th, and
U.
mpact on Data/Usability
Affected samples (see Appendix B)
were qualified with a "J-"; the potential
negative bias is taken into account for
data usability.
Charge Balance
The calculated charge balance error
ranged from 0 to 4.2%, based on
the major cations (dissolved Na, K,
Ca, and Mg) and anions (Cl, F, SO4,
and DIG).
Meets project requirements.
Measured versus calculated
values of Specific
Conductance (SPC)
The error in measured SPC versus
calculated SPC ranged from 0.6 to
13.8%.
Meets project requirements.
VOC/Shaw Environmental
The matrix spike results for 1,1-
dichloroethene and 1,1,2-
trichloroethane were significantly
outside of the control limits. These
compounds are known to be
affected by base hydrolysis. The
preservative, trisodium phosphate
(TSP), is a base and elevated
temperatures (heated headspace
sample introduction) will
accelerate the hydrolysis of 1,1,2-
trichloroethane to 1,1-
dichloroethene.
Carbon disulfide, acetone,
acrylonitrile, and tert butyl alcohol
were outside of control limits in
matrix spikes.
All data for 1,1-dichloroethene and
1,1,2-trichloroethane were qualified
with "R" and rejected as unusable.
For carbon disulfide, acetone,
acrylonitrile, and tert butyl alcohol,
affected samples were qualified "J-" as
a potential negative bias that is taken
into account for data usability.
-------
A-232
Table AZS.Data Usability Summary
(continued)
Analysis/Lab
Summary of QA/QC Results
mpact on Data/Usability
Low-Molecular-Weight
Acids/Shaw Environmental
Formate: All field and equipment
blank samples contained formate
above the QL. Formate was
determined to be present in
sample containers.
Propionate was detected above the
QL in one blank, but none of the
sample data were impacted.
Formate: all results were rejected and
qualified with an "R" as unusable.
Propionate: associated sample data are
unaffected and usable.
The method for glycols was under
development.
Glycols/EPA Region 3
Laboratory
The QAPP stated that these data are to
be considered screening values until
the method was validated. Even though
the data are considered to be for
screening level evaluation, they are
usable as on-going QC checks provide
confidence that the method can detect
glycols.
SVOC/EPA Region 8
Laboratory
Sample RBMW03 was lost during
the initial extraction due to
excessive foaming. The sample was
re-extracted one day past its
holding time.
Low matrix spike recoveries were
noted for limonene, 1,3-
dimethyladamantane,
adamantane, and 2-butoxyethanol.
Results for this sample are considered
to be estimated and the "H" qualifier
was applied. Impact on data usability is
considered minimal.
Affected samples were qualified with a
"J-" as a potential negative bias that is
taken into account for data usability.
-------
A-233
Table AZS.Data Usability Summary
(continued)
Analysis/Lab
Summary of QA/QC Results
mpact on Data/Usability
DRO: There was no recovery of the
surrogate in sample RBDW14.
DRO/GRO/EPA Region 8
Laboratory
The chromatogram for RBMW03
did not specifically match the diesel
standard.
GRO: low MS/MSD recovery for
sample RBDW14 was indicated
(63.3% and 59.7%, respectively).
DRO: the affected sample was qualified
with a "J" as estimated. This sample
likely contained residual chemicals used
for well treatment (lab noted it
"smelled strongly of acid or chlorine").
All results for organic chemicals for this
sample are used with caution, including
DRO and GRO.
RBMW03 was qualified with a "J" and is
usable as an estimate.
GRO: the affected sample RBDW14 was
qualified with a "J-" as a potential
negative bias that is taken into account
for data usability.
O, H Stable Isotopes of
Water/Shaw Environmental
All QA/QC criteria were met.
Meets project requirements.
Sr Isotopes/USGS
Laboratory- Denver
All QA/QC criteria were met.
Meets project requirements.
Isotech Gas Isotopes
Sample RBSW03 was compromised
during shipment; no analysis was
possible for gas isotopes for this
sample.
Samples were collected from this
location during the third and fourth
rounds of sampling.
November 201'
Field Parameters/EPA on-
site
Results for ferrous iron and sulfide
are considered screening values as
they were measured on-site with
field kits.
An end-of-the-day performance
check on 11/6/2012 for specific
conductance read high by 10%. In
some cases performance check
readings for ORP were not
All detected results were qualified with
"J" as estimated. Data usability is
unaffected.
Data usability of the specific
conductance data is minimally
impacted for sample RBDW07. Data
usability of ORP measurements for
samples RBDW02, RBDW03, and
-------
A-234
Table AZS.Data Usability Summary
(continued)
Analysis/Lab
Summary of QA/QC Results
mpact on Data/Usability
recorded and evaluated (see Table
A27).
RBDW05 is considered to be minimally
impacted.
Dissolved gases/Shaw
Methane was detected above the
QL in one field blank, one
equipment blank, and one trip
blank.
The field duplicate pair
RBDW03/RBDW03 exceeded the
30% RPD criterion (RPD = 45%).
The affected sample was qualified with
"B" (RBSW01); sample concentration is
less than the associated blanks and
methane data for this sample are
unusable.
The field duplicate pair,
RBDW03/RBDW03d, were qualified
with an "*". Methane concentrations in
these samples were 0.0328 mg/L and
0.0518 mg/L, respectively. Data may be
used with caution and with the
understanding that they do not meet
precision requirements.
DOC/ORD/NRMRL-Ada
DOC was present in an equipment
blank above the QL.
Affected samples (RBMW03, RBDW08,
RBDW11, and RBSW01) were qualified
with a "B." Sample concentrations for
RBDW08, RBDW11, and RBSW01 were
below the equipment blank
concentration and are unusable;
however, sample data reflect low
concentrations of DOC. RBMW03
sample concentration was slightly
greater than the blank and is usable
with caution.
DIC/ORD/NRMRL-Ada
All QA/QC criteria were met.
Meets project requirements.
Anions/Ammonia
ORD/NRMRL-Ada
Nitrate+Nitrite was detected in
most field and equipment blanks
above the QL.
Affected samples (RBDW02, RBDW03,
RBDW03d, RBDW04, RBDW05,
RBDW07, RBDW09, RBDW11, RBDW13,
and RBSW01 were qualified with a "B".
Qualified sample data for
Nitrate+Nitrite for RBDW02 RBDW03,
RBDW03d, RBDW04, RBDW07,
RBDW09, RBDW13, and RBSW01 were
less than their associated blanks and
-------
A-235
Table AZS.Data Usability Summary
(continued)
Analysis/Lab
Summary of QA/QC Results
mpact on Data/Usability
Anion data for RBFBIR03 were
rejected because the sample was
mistakenly acidified in the field.
are considered to be unusable, but are
indicative of low level concentrations.
RBDW05 and RBDW11 were greater
than their associated blanks and are
usable with caution.
Data for Br, Cl, SO4, and Ffor RBFBIkOS
were qualified with an "R" and are
rejected as unusable. There is no
suspected impact on sample data
quality; none of the other blank
samples showed anion levels above the
QL.
ICP-MS Dissolved Metals: field
and/or equipment blanks showed
concentrations above the QL for
Cu, Mo, and Ni.
Cold vapor AA for Hg: All QA/QC
criteria were met.
Dissolved Metals/
Southwest Research
Institute
For Cu, affected samples (RBMW03,
RBDW11, RBDW14, RBDW15, and
RBSW01) were qualified with a "B".
Dissolved Cu data for these samples are
considered to be unusable, but are
indicative of low concentration levels.
For Mo, affected samples (RBDW09,
RBDW10, RBDWIOdup, RBDW14) were
qualified with a "B". Data for RBDW09,
RBDW10, RBDWIOdup are considered
to be usable with caution; data for
RBDW14 are usable since the sample
concentration is 8.5xthe blank
detection.
For Ni, affected samples (RBMW02,
RBMW03, RBDW04, RBDW08,
RBDW11, RBDW13, RBSW01, RBSW02,
and RBSW03) were qualified with a "B".
Data for RBSW01 and RBWM03 are
considered to be usable since sample
data are >9x blank levels; all other
dissolved Ni data are used with caution
(RBDW04, RBDW13, and RBSW02 are
greater than blanks) or are unusable
(RBMW02, RBDW08, RBDW11, and
-------
A-236
Table AZS.Data Usability Summary
(continued)
Analysis/Lab
Summary of QA/QC Results
mpact on Data/Usability
RBSW03 are less than blanks).
Cold vapor AAfor Hg:Meets project
requirements.
ICP-MSand ICP-OES Total Metals:
field, equipment, and/or lab blanks
showed concentrations above the
QL for Al, Cu, Fe, Mo, Ni, and Zn.
Laboratory and field duplicates
were outside of control limits for
total Cu and Ni.
Total Metals/Southwest
Research Institute
For total Al, affected samples
(RBMW03, RBDW06, RBDW09,
RBDW10, RBDWIOdup, RBDW14,
RBDW15, RBSW01) were qualified with
a "B". Data for samples RBDW06,
RBDW10, RBDWIOdup, RBDW14, and
RBDW15 are considered to be unusable
because sample data are close to the
blank levels.
For total Cu, affected samples
(RBMW03, RBDW06, RBDW08,
RBDW09, RBDWIOdup, RBDW11,
RBDW14, RBDW15, and RBSW01) were
qualified with a "B". Because of the
blank issues and reproducibility issues
(qualified with "*"), none of these data
for total Cu are usable.
For total Fe, sample RBSW01 was
qualified with a "B". Data for this
sample are usable with caution since
the sample data are ~3x the value in
the blank.
For total Mo, affected samples
(RBMW02, RBDW04, RBDW07,
RBDW13, RBSW02, and RBSW03) were
qualified with a "B". With the exception
of sample RBMW02, total Mo data for
the affected samples are unusable.
For total Ni, all sample data are
unusable because of blank issues
(qualified with "B") and reproducibility
issues (qualified with "*").
For total Zn, affected samples
(RBMW03, RBDW04, RBDW08, and
-------
A-237
Table AZS.Data Usability Summary
(continued)
Analysis/Lab
Summary of QA/QC Results
mpact on Data/Usability
Cold vapor AA for Hg: All QA/QC
criteria were met.
RBDW11) were qualified with a "B". All
sample data are above the blank levels
and these data are used with caution.
Cold vapor AA for Hg:Meets project
requirements.
Charge Balance
The calculated charge balance error
ranged from 0.3 to 4.3%, based on
the major cations (dissolved Na, K,
Ca, and Mg) and anions (Cl, F, SO4,
and DIG).
Meets project requirements.
Measured versus calculated
values of Specific
Conductance (SPC)
The error in measured SPC versus
calculated SPC ranged from 0.0 to
18.5%.
Sample RBMW03 was outside of the
acceptance criterion of 15%; SPC data
for this sample are used with caution
(may be biased high).
VOC/Southwest Research
Institute
One of the shipment coolers was
received at 15°C. A double lab
comparison of VOC results was
conducted in this round between
SwRI and Shaw (see section A7).
The SwRI data set is used as the
primary datasource for VOCs.
Affected samples (RBDW06, RBDW09,
RBDW10, RBDWIOdup, RBDW14,
RBDW15, RBFBIk04, RBEqBlk04, and
RBTripBlk04) were qualified with a "J-"
and are potentially biased low.
Low-Molecular-Weight
Acids/Shaw Environmental
Low matrix spike recovery for
butyrate and isobutyrate was
noted.
Affected samples were qualified with a
"J-" and are potentially biased low.
The method for glycols was under
development.
Glycols/EPAORDNERL, Las
Vegas
One of the shipment coolers was
received at 19°C due to a delayed
shipment.
The QAPP stated that these data are to
be considered screening values until
the method was validated. Even though
the data are considered to be for
screening level evaluation, they are
usable as on-going QC checks provide
confidence that the method can detect
glycols.
Affected samples (RBFBIk04,
RBEqBlk04, RBDW10, RBDWIOdup,
RBDW06, RBDW14, RBDW15, and
RBDW09) were qualified with a "J-" for
-------
A-238
Table AZS.Data Usability Summary
(continued)
Analysis/Lab
Summary of QA/QC Results
2-butoxyethanol was low in a LCS
and was below control limits in two
MS/MSD pairs.
mpact on Data/Usability
possible negative bias.
All sample results for 2-butoxyethanol
were qualified with a "J-" for possible
negative bias. None of the glycol
analytes were detected above QLs.
Matrix spike recoveries were
outside of control limits for 3,3'-
dichlorobenzidine (0%), and
squalene (48.5%).
Bis-(2-ethylhexl) phthalate and
squalene were detected in blank
samples collected in the field.
SVOC/EPA Region 8
Laboratory
Bis-(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate in
sample RBDW04 was outside the
quantitiation range.
3,3'-dichlorobenzidine and squalene in
all samples were given the "J-" qualifier
for potential low bias.
Affected samples for bis-(2-ethylhexyl)
phthalate were qualified with "B"
(RBPW01 and RBPW03); data for these
samples are unusable. Data for this
compound in sample RBDW11 are
usable with caution.
Squalene was not detected in any of
the sample data and no "B" qualifiers
were necessary.
Bis-(2-ethylhexl) phthalate in sample
RBDW04 was qualified with a "J" as
estimated. The data are usable as
estimated.
-------
A-239
Table AZS.Data Usability Summary
(continued)
Analysis/Lab
Summary of QA/QC Results
mpact on Data/Usability
DRO/GRO/EPA Region 8
Laboratory
DRO: the MSD for DRO sample
RBPW03 was below the recovery
control limits of 60-120% (50.1%).
The RPD for the MS/MSD pair for
this sample was also outside of
control limits.
DRO was detected in one
equipment blank above the QL
DRO: sample RBPW03 was given the"J-"
and "*" qualifiers; the DRO
concentration is considered to be an
estimated value with a negative bias.
GRO: All QA/QC criteria were met.
Affected samples (RBDW08 and
RBSW01) were given the "B" qualifier.
DRO concentration data for these
samples are used with caution.
GRO: Meets project requirements.
O, H Stable Isotopes of
Water/Shaw Environmental
Lab report indicated possible
methanol contamination in 4
samples.
Affected samples (RBDW09, RBDW11,
RBDW14, and RBSW03) were given the
"J" qualifier as estimated, but these
data are considered to be usable.
Sr Isotopes/USGS
Laboratory- Denver
All QA/QC criteria were met.
Meets project requirements.
Isotech Gas Isotopes
All QA/QC criteria were met.
Meets project requirements.
Field Parameters/EPA on-
site
End-of-the-day checks of pH 7.00
and pH 10.01 performance
standards on 4/29/2013 read 7.41
and 10.31, slightly above the
control ranges (the midday check
was acceptable). A series of zero-
oxygen solution checks were above
the optimal <0.25 mg/Lcriterion;
the performance check results
were still <1 mg/L and confirmed
electrode performance at low
oxygen levels.
Results for ferrous iron and sulfide
are considered screening values as
they were measured on-site with
pH results for samples RBMW01 and
RBMWOld were qualified with a "J" as
estimated; data usability is minimally
affected. Data usability of DO
measurements is considered to be
minimally affected.
All detected results were qualified with
"J" as estimated. Data usability is
unaffected.
-------
A-240
Table AZS.Data Usability Summary
(continued)
Summary of QA/QC Results
field kits.
mpact on Data/Usability
Dissolved gases/CB&l
Field duplicate pair
RBMWOl/RBMWOld exceeded the
RPD criterion of 30% for methane.
Sample results for RBMW01 and
RBMWOld were 1.040 mg/L and 0.4940
mg/L, respectively. These samples, and
other samples collected on 4/29/2013
were given the "*" qualifier; the data
are considered to be usable with the
qualifiers applied indicating some
imprecision in the sample results.
DOC/ORD/NRMRL-Ada
Two coolers containing samples for
DOC were received at 8.0° and
6.8°C.
The temperature blank readings were
below the average ambient ground
water temperature of 12°C and samples
were acid preserved; data quality are
not expected to be impacted.
DIC/ORD/NRMRL-Ada
Two coolers containing samples for
DIG were received at 8.0° and
6.8°C.
The temperature blank readings were
below the average ambient ground
water temperature of 12°C; data quality
are not expected to be impacted.
Anions/Ammonia
ORD/NRMRL-Ada
Two coolers containing samples for
ammonia and nitrate+nitrite were
received at 8.0° and 6.8°C.
The temperature blank readings were
below the average ambient ground
water temperature of 12°C; samples
were acid preserved for ammonia and
nitrate+nitrite; data quality are not
expected to be impacted.
Dissolved Metals/
Southwest Research
Institute
ICP-MS Dissolved Metals: field
and/or equipment blanks showed
concentrations above the QL for Al,
Cu, Ni, and Th.
For Al, affected samples were qualified
with a "B". Dissolved Al data for these
affected samples are considered to be
unusable, but are indicative of low
concentration levels.With the exception
of sample RBDW11, all qualified
samples for Cu are considered to be
unusable.
For Ni, all affected samples were
qualified with a "B." Blank issues were
not noted for total Ni concentrations;
-------
A-241
Table AZS.Data Usability Summary
(continued)
Analysis/Lab
Summary of QA/QC Results
ICP-OES and Cold vapor AA for Hg:
All QA/QC criteria met.
mpact on Data/Usability
the low concentrations indicated for
dissolved Ni and similar concentrations
to total Ni suggest that these data are
usable with caution.
Dissolved Th concentration in RBDW08
was less than the blank and is unusable.
In these cases for Al, Cu, Ni, and Th,
sample concentrations are low (i.e.,
near QLs).
ICP-OES and Cold vapor AA for Hg:
Meets project requirements.
Total Metals/Southwest
Research Institute
ICP-MSand ICP-OES Total Metals:
field, equipment, and/or lab blanks
showed concentrations above the
QL for Al, As, Cr, Cu, Th, V, and Zn.
Reproducibility issues for lab and
field duplicates were noted for
total Mn, Cu, and Th. The field
duplicate pair for Mn
RBDW02/RBDW02d was slightly
outside of the 30% criterion
(31.2%); however, the field
duplicate pair RBMWOl/RBMWOld
was well within the RPD criterion.
The lab duplicate pair for total Mn
was above the RPD criterion at
29.5%. The lab duplicate pair for
total Cu was above the RPD
criterion at 53.4%. The lab
duplicate pair for total Th were
<5xQL, therefore the control limit
of the QL (0.2) is applied, which
was exceeded.
Total B results were qualified due
to exceeded control limits of serial
For total Al, affected samples were
qualified with a "B". With the
exceptions of samples RBMW03 and
RBSW01, that have sample
concentrations that exceed blank levels
by >7x, qualified sample data are not
usable. All qualified sample data for
total As are unusable with exception of
RBMW03 and RBDW05 which are about
7x and almost lOx their associated
blank value, respectively; data for these
samples are usable.
Total Cr is qualified with a "B" for
samples RBDW07 and RBDW10; these
sample are usable with caution.
Field blank detections (qualified "B")
and reproducibility issues (qualified
"*") indicate that qualified total Cu
results are suspect and they are not
usable.
The total Th concentration reported for
sample RBDW08 is unusable due to a
detection with a similar concentration
in an equipment blank.
-------
A-242
Table AZS.Data Usability Summary
(continued)
Analysis/Lab
Summary of QA/QC Results
mpact on Data/Usability
dilution analyses.
Cold vapor AA for Hg: All QA/QC
criteria were met.
All total V results are unusable.
For total Zn, samples RBDW04,
RBDW09, RBDW11, and RBDW13, for
which sample data are >5x blank levels,
are usable with caution. With the
exception of RBDW05, which is less
than the blank value, all other qualified
sample datafor total Zn are greater
than blank values and also are usable
with caution.
Affected data (see Appendix B) for Mn
are qualified "*". Data should be used
with caution as not meeting precision
requirements.
For total Th, affected samples (RBDW02
and RBDW08) were qualified with an
"*". Data should be used with caution
as not meeting precision requirements.
Results for total B were qualified with
"J" as estimated for some samples due
to high % differences for serial dilution
analyses. Qualified data are considered
to be estimated concentrations.
Cold vapor AAfor Hg: Meets project
requirements.
Charge Balance
The calculated charge balance error
ranged from 0.1 to 13.2%, based on
the major cations (dissolved Na, K,
Ca, and Mg) and anions (Cl, F, SO4,
and DIG).
All samples except RBDW03 and
RBDW13 met project requirements.
Charge imbalance in sample RBDW03
(13.2%) appears to be due to a deficit
of bicarbonate, based on comparisons
with concentration data from previous
sampling rounds. Data from this well
are used with caution. The charge
balance error for sample RBDW13
-------
A-243
Table AZS.Data Usability Summary
(continued)
Analysis/Lab
Summary of QA/QC Results
mpact on Data/Usability
(10.1%) was just outside of the control
range (10%); the data for this sample
are considered to be usable.
Measured versus calculated
values of Specific
Conductance (SPC)
The error in measured SPC versus
calculated SPC ranged from 0.3 to
11.3%.
Meets project requirements.
VOC/Southwest Research
Institute
Sample RBMW03 required re-
analysis for tert-butyl alcohol,
because the initial analysis was
outside of the calibration range.
Re-analysis after dilution was
performed after the 14-day holding
time.
Sample results for RBMW03 were
qualified with the "H" qualifier and are
potentially biased low. The
concentration of tert-butyl alcohol prior
to dilution, but determined outside of
the calibration range, was in reasonable
agreement with the analysis within
calibration requirements but after the
holding time expired. Data quality are
not expected to be impacted.
Low Molecular Weight
Acids/Shaw Environmental
Propionate was detected in several
blank samples. Low recovery for
isobutyrate matrix spikes were
noted.
Propionate was not detected in any of
the samples, so there are no data
usability issues.
For isobutyrate, affected samples were
qualified with a "J-" with possible
negative bias to the data.
The method for glycols was under
development.
Glycols/EPA Region 3
Laboratory
The LCS recovery for triethylene
glycol was high (129%). One sample
had a detection of triethylene
glycol.
The QAPP stated these data are to be
considered screening values until the
method was validated. Even though the
data are considered to be for screening
level evaluation, they are usable as on-
going QC checks provide confidence
that the method can detect glycols.
Sample RBPW03 was qualified with the
"J+" due to the high spike recovery.
Diethylene glycol in this same sample
was detected at a concentration below
the QL and was qualified as "J" as an
estimated concentration.
-------
A-244
Table AZS.Data Usability Summary
(continued)
Analysis/Lab
Summary of QA/QC Results
mpact on Data/Usability
SVOC/EPA Region 8
Laboratory
Various analytes were outside of
laboratory control limits for matrix
spikes. Affected analytes were:l,3-
dimethyladamantane, bis-(2-
ethylhexl) phthalate, and squalene.
Squalene was detected in a field
blank.
Affected samples were given the "J-"
qualifier for potential low bias.
Samples RBDW11 and RBMWOld were
qualified with a "B"; sample detections
for squalene are suspect but considered
usable with caution.
DRO was detected above the QL in
one equipment blank.
DRO/GRO/EPA Region 8
Laboratory
Low surrogate in RBDW07.
GRO: all QA/QC criteria were met.
DRO: affected samples (RBDW08,
RBDW09, RBDW14) were given the "B"
qualifier and are greater than the blank.
DRO concentration data for these
samples are usable with caution.
RBDW07 was qualified with a "J-" for
potential negative bias.
GRO: meets project requirements.
O, H Stable Isotopes of
Water/Shaw Environmental
All QA/QC criteria were met.
Meets project requirements.
Sr Isotopes/USGS
Laboratory- Denver
All QA/QC criteria were met.
Meets project requirements.
Isotech Gas Isotopes
One sample for sulfur isotope
analysis of sulfate was outside of
the requirement for agreement of
laboratory duplicates for 618O. The
control limit is <0.50 permil
difference.The difference for the
duplicate was 0.57 permil.
Sample RBDW05 was given the "*"
qualifier. The exceedance is not
significant; the data are usable.
1 QA/QC criteria and project requirements were met with exceptions as listed.
-------
A-245
Table A26. Results of double-lab VOC analyses for November 2012 sampling event.
Analyte
Chloroform
67-66-3
Tert-butyl alcohol 75-65-0
Methylene
chloride
Benzene
Toluene
75-09-2
71-43-2
108-88-3
MW03
DW06
DW15
MW02
MW03
DW11
DW06
PW03
SW03
DW06
DW10
DW10
Dup
0.09
0.09
0.09
2.66
2.66
2.66
0.17
0.11
0.11
0.09
0.09
0.09
0.5
0.5
0.5
5.0
5.0
5.0
1.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
3.56
2.85
0.98
34.8
958
36.7
1.5
0.39
0.61
1.83
2.71
3.17
0.05
0.05
0.05
4.9
4.9
4.9
0.1
0.05
0.05
0.07
0.07
0.07
0.5
0.5
0.5
10
10
10
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
4.1
3.0
1.3
29
1000
32
2.1
0.48
0.84
0.36
1.8
0.66
14.1
5.1
28.1
18.2
4.3
13.7
33.3
20.7
31.7
134.2
40.4
131.1
-------
A-246
Table A27. Field QC Data for YSI Electrode Measurements.
October 2011
Parameter1
Acceptance
YSI - Unit 1
YSI - Unit 2
1
October 3, 2011
Calibration Verification: Start-of-Day
pH = 4
pH = 7
pH = 10
SPC
ORP
Zero-DO
3.80-4.20
6.80-7.20
9.81-10.21
1.272-1.554
184 - 224
<0.25
4.00
7.00
9.85
1.413
207.9
0.08
Acceptable
Acceptable
Acceptable
Acceptable
Acceptable
Acceptable
4.01
7.00
NR3
1.413
204.0
NR
Acceptable
Acceptable
Not evaluated
Acceptable
Acceptable
Not evaluated
Midday
pH = 4
pH = 7
pH = 10
SPC
ORP
Zero-DO
3.80-4.20
6.80-7.20
9.81-10.21
1.272-1.554
184 - 224
<0.25
4.23
6.96
NR
NR
NR
NR
Out of range
Acceptable
Not Evaluated
Not Evaluated
Not Evaluated
Not Evaluated
NR
7.05
NR
1.499
NR
NR
Not evaluated
Acceptable
Not evaluated
Acceptable
Not evaluated
Not evaluated
End-of-Day
pH = 4
pH = 7
pH = 10
SPC
ORP
Zero-DO
3.80-4.20
6.80-7.20
9.81-10.21
1.272-1.554
184 - 224
<0.25
3.81
NR
NR
1.043
NR
NR
Acceptable
Not Evaluated
Not Evaluated
Out of range
Not Evaluated
Not Evaluated
4.09
7.00
NR
1.370
203.3
0.06
Acceptable
Acceptable
Not evaluated
Acceptable
Acceptable
Acceptable
October 4, 2011
Calibration Verification: Start-of-Day
pH = 7
pH = 10
SPC
ORP
Zero-DO
6.80-7.20
9.81-10.21
1.272-1.554
184 - 224
<0.25
7.00
10.01
1.413
205.0
0.15
Acceptable
Acceptable
Acceptable
Acceptable
Acceptable
7.00
NR
1.413
204.0
0.04
Acceptable
Not evaluated
Acceptable
Acceptable
Acceptable
-------
A-247
Table A27. Field QC Data for YSI Electrode Measurements.
(continued)
October 2011
Parameter1
2^H
^^S
October '
I, 2011 (cont'd)
^^S
nm
Calibration Verification: Midday
pH = 7
pH = 10
SPC
ORP
Zero-DO
6.80-7.20
9.81-10.21
1.272-1.554
184 - 224
<0.25
NR
10.17
NR
NR
NR
Not Evaluated
Acceptable
Not Evaluated
Not Evaluated
Not Evaluated
7.02
NR
1.425
NR
NR
Acceptable
Not evaluated
Acceptable
Not evaluated
Not evaluated
End-of-Day
pH = 7
pH = 10
SPC
ORP
Zero-DO
6.80-7.20
9.81-10.21
1.272-1.554
184 - 224
<0.25
7.45
10.37
1.369
203.0
0.59
Out of range
Out of range
Acceptable
Acceptable
Out of range
7.11
NR
1.440
NR
0.05
Acceptable
Not evaluated
Acceptable
Not evaluated
Acceptable
October 5, 2011
Calibration Verification: Start-of-Day
pH = 7
pH = 10
SPC
ORP
Zero-DO
6.80-7.20
9.81-10.21
1.272-1.554
184 - 224
<0.25
7.00
10.01
1.413
NR
0.14
Acceptable
Acceptable
Acceptable
Not Evaluated
Acceptable
7.01
NR
1.413
204
0.04
Acceptable
Not evaluated
Acceptable
Acceptable
Acceptable
Midday
pH = 7
pH = 10
SPC
ORP
Zero-DO
6.80-7.20
9.81-10.21
1.272-1.554
184 - 224
<0.25
6.94
10.16
NR
NR
NR
Acceptable
Acceptable
Not Evaluated
Not Evaluated
Not Evaluated
7.11
NR
1.435
NR
NR
Acceptable
Not evaluated
Acceptable
Not evaluated
Not evaluated
End-of-Day
pH = 7
pH = 10
6.80-7.20
9.81-10.21
6.99
9.98
Acceptable
Acceptable
7.03
NR
Acceptable
Not evaluated
-------
A-248
Table A27. Field QC Data for YSI Electrode Measurements.
(continued)
October 2011
Parameter
Ik^TjjK^I
^^S
October 5, 2011
^^S
Calibration Verification: End-of-Day
SPC
ORP
Zero-DO
1.272-1.554
184 - 224
<0.25
1.408
NR
0.24
Acceptable
Not Evaluated
Acceptable
1.489
203.3
0.07
Acceptable
Acceptable
Acceptable
October 6, 2011
Calibration Verification: Start-of-Day
pH = 7
pH = 10
SPC
ORP
Zero-DO
6.80-7.20
9.81-10.21
1.272-1.554
184 - 224
<0.25
7.00
10.01
1.413
204.3
0.22
Acceptable
Acceptable
Acceptable
Acceptable
Acceptable
7.00
NR
1.416
204
0.05
Acceptable
Not evaluated
Acceptable
Acceptable
Acceptable
End-of-Day
pH = 7
pH = 10
SPC
ORP
Zero-DO
6.80-7.20
9.81-10.21
1.272-1.554
184 - 224
<0.25
6.95
10.09
1.383
202.3
0.24
Acceptable
Acceptable
Acceptable
Acceptable
Acceptable
7.14
NR
1.483
198
0.08
Acceptable
Not evaluated
Acceptable
Acceptable
Acceptable
Parameters: SPC = Specific Conductance; ORP = Oxidation - Reduction Potential; DO = Dissolved Oxygen
(checked using a Zero-Oxygen solution).
2lf pH received an "Unacceptable" performance evaluation, all wells sampled between the last passing calibration
check and the "failed" calibration check received a "J" qualifier.
NR = Not Recorded
-------
A-249
Table 27. Field QC Data for YSI Electrode Measurements.
(continued)
May 2012
Parameter1
2^H
^^S
May
14, 2012
^^S
BlH
Calibration Verification: Start-of-Day
pH = 7
pH = 10
SPC
ORP
Zero-DO
6.82-7.22
9.86-10.26
1.272-1.554
194 - 237
<0.25
7.02
10.06
1.413
215.0
0.02
Acceptable
Acceptable
Acceptable
Acceptable
Acceptable
7.02
10.06
1.413
215.1
0.02
Acceptable
Acceptable
Acceptable
Acceptable
Acceptable
Mid-day
pH = 7
pH = 10
SPC
ORP
Zero-DO
6.82-7.22
9.86-10.26
7.630-8.010
212-242
<0.25
7.04
NR2
7.878
224.9
NR
Acceptable
Not Evaluated
Acceptable
Acceptable
Not Evaluated
6.99
NR
1.422
NR
NR
Acceptable
Not Evaluated
Acceptable
Not Evaluated
Not Evaluated
End-of-Day
pH = 7
pH = 10
SPC
ORP
Zero-DO
6.82-7.22
9.81-10.21
1.272-1.554
194 - 237
<0.25
7.02
10.04
1.418
NR
0.03
Acceptable
Acceptable
Acceptable
Not Evaluated
Acceptable
7.16
NR
1.420
NR
NR
Acceptable
Not Evaluated
Acceptable
Not Evaluated
Not Evaluated
May 15, 2012
Calibration Verification: Start-of-Day
pH = 7
pH = 10
SPC
ORP
Zero-DO
± 0.2 of CAL3
±0.2 of CAL
1.272-1.554
194 - 237
<0.25
7.02
10.06
1.413
NR
NR
Acceptable
Acceptable
Acceptable
Not Evaluated
Not Evaluated
7.03
10.10
1.413
NR
0.03
Acceptable
Acceptable
Acceptable
Not Evaluated
Acceptable
Mid-day
pH = 7
pH = 10
± 0.2 of CAL5
±0.2 of CAL
7.10
NR
Not Evaluated
Not Evaluated
7.04
NR
Acceptable
Not Evaluated
-------
A-250
Table A27. Field QC Data for YSI Electrode Measurements.
(continued)
May 2012
Parameter
Acceptance
Range
^^S
BaOnnKnijiii
^^S
May 15, 2012 (cont'd)
Calibration Verification: Mid-day
SPC
ORP
Zero- DO
7.630-8.010
212-242
<0.25
7.841
227.2
0.03
Acceptable
Acceptable
Acceptable
1.402
NR
NR
Acceptable
Not Evaluated
Not Evaluated
End-of-Day
pH = 7
pH = 10
SPC
ORP
Zero- DO
+ 0.2ofCAL
+ 0.2ofCAL
1.272-1.554
194-237
<0.25
7.07
10.10
1.437
NR
0.02
Acceptable
Acceptable
Acceptable
Not Evaluated
Acceptable
7.09
NR
1.393
NR
NR
Acceptable
Not Evaluated
Acceptable
Not Evaluated
Not Evaluated
May 16, 2012
Calibration Verification: Start-of-Day
pH = 7
pH = 10
SPC
ORP
Zero- DO
+ 0.2ofCAL
+ 0.2ofCAL
1.272-1.554
194-237
<0.25
7.02
10.06
1.435
213.8
0.02
Acceptable
Acceptable
Acceptable
Acceptable
Acceptable
7.03
10.06
1.413
NR
0.06
Acceptable
Acceptable
Acceptable
Not Evaluated
Acceptable
Mid-day
pH = 7
pH = 10
SPC
ORP
Zero- DO
+ 0.2ofCAL
+ 0.2ofCAL
1.272-1.554
194-237
<0.25
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
Not Evaluated
Not Evaluated
Not Evaluated
Not Evaluated
Not Evaluated
7.06
NR
1.416
NR
NR
Acceptable
Not Evaluated
Acceptable
Not Evaluated
Not Evaluated
End-of-Day
pH = 7
pH = 10
SPC
ORP
Zero- DO
+ 0.2ofCAL
+ 0.2ofCAL
1.272-1.554
194-237
<0.25
7.04
10.00
1.409
213.3
0.02
Acceptable
Acceptable
Acceptable
Acceptable
Acceptable
7.08
NR
1.410
NR
NR
Acceptable
Not Evaluated
Acceptable
Not Evaluated
Not Evaluated
-------
A-251
Table A27. Field QC Data for YSI Electrode Measurements.
(continued)
May 2012
Parameter
^o^fiuT^i
^^S
May 17, 2012
^^S
Calibration Verification: Start-of-Day
pH = 7
pH = 10
SPC
ORP
Zero-DO
6.82-7.22
9.86-10.26
1.272-1.554
194 - 237
<0.25
7.02
10.06
1.413
NR
0.05
Acceptable
Acceptable
Acceptable
Not Evaluated
Acceptable
NA4
NA
NA
NA
NA
—
—
—
—
—
End-of-Day
pH = 7
pH = 10
SPC
ORP
Zero-DO
6.82-7.22
9.86-10.26
1.272-1.554
194 - 237
<0.25
7.03
10.03
1.433
214.3
0.05
Acceptable
Acceptable
Acceptable
Acceptable
Acceptable
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
—
—
—
—
—
Parameters: SPC = Specific Conductance; ORP = Oxidation - Reduction Potential; DO = Dissolved Oxygen
(checked using a Zero-Oxygen solution).
2NR = Not Recorded.
3 ±0.2 of CAL = Instruments were calibrated on-site; the calibration value of the buffer was adjusted using current
temperature values.
4NA = Not applicable; the instrument was not used that day.
-------
A-252
Table A27. Field QC Data for YSI Electrode Measurements.
(continued)
November 5, 2012
Calibration Verification: Start-of-Day
pH = 7
6.83-7.23
NA"
7.03
Acceptable
7.08
Acceptable
pH = 10
9.89-10.29
NA
10.08
Acceptable
10.04
Acceptable
SC
1.272-1.554
NA
1.411
Acceptable
1.533
Acceptable
ORP
197 - 241
NA
219.8
Acceptable
NR4
Not Evaluated
Zero-DO
<0.25
NA
0.10
Acceptable
0.03
Acceptable
Mid-day
pH = 7
6.83-7.23
NA
6.94
Acceptable
7.08
Acceptable
pH = 10
9.89-10.29
NA
10.08
Acceptable
10.09
Acceptable
SC
1.272-1.554
NA
1.395
Acceptable
1.287
Acceptable
ORP
197 - 241
NA
222.8
Acceptable
NR
Not Evaluated
Zero-DO
<0.25
NA
0.06
Acceptable
0.08
Acceptable
End-of-Day
pH = 7
6.83-7.23
NA
7.07
Acceptable
7.07
Acceptable
pH = 10
9.89-10.29
NA
10.14
Acceptable
10.02
Acceptable
SC
1.272-1.554
NA
1.384
Acceptable
1.424
Acceptable
ORP
197 - 241
NA
218.4
Acceptable
NR
Not Evaluated
Zero-DO
<0.25
NA
0.10
Acceptable
NR
Not Evaluated
-------
A-253
Table A27. Field QC Data for YSI Electrode Measurements.
(continued)
November 2012
Arrontanro
YSI - Unit 1
Poi-fni-manro
Parameter „ _ .. _ ,
Range Reading Evaluation
ReX tSZr
November 6, 2012
RHIfflfl
•rmance
nation
Calibration Verification: Start-of-Day
pH = 7
pH = 10
SC
ORP
Zero-DO
6.81-7.21
9.86-10.26
1.272-1.554
197 - 241
<0.25
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
—
—
—
—
—
6.97
10.06
1.405
218.3
0.10
Acceptable
Acceptable
Acceptable
Acceptable
Acceptable
7.02
10.07
1.406
220.1
0.04
Acceptable
Acceptable
Acceptable
Acceptable
Acceptable
Mid-day
pH = 7
pH = 10
SC
ORP
Zero-DO
6.83-7.23
9.89-10.29
1.272-1.554
197 - 241
<0.25
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
—
—
—
—
—
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
Not Evaluated
Not Evaluated
Not Evaluated
Not Evaluated
Not Evaluated
7.02
10.06
1.521
219.9
0.06
Acceptable
Acceptable
Acceptable
Acceptable
Acceptable
End-of-Day
pH = 7
pH = 10
SC
ORP
Zero-DO
6.83-7.23
9.89-10.29
1.272-1.554
197 - 241
<0.25
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
—
—
—
—
—
7.00
10.06
1.386
218.8
0.05
Acceptable
Acceptable
Acceptable
Acceptable
Acceptable
6.99
10.00
1.711
213.5
NR
Acceptable
Acceptable
Out of range
Acceptable
Not Evaluated
-------
A-254
Table A27. Field QC Data for YSI Electrode Measurements.
(continued)
November 2012
Arrontanro
YSI - Unit 1
Poi-fni-manro
Parameter „ _ .. _ ,
Range Reading Evaluation
ReX tSZr
November 7, 2012
RHIfflfl
•rmance
nation
Calibration Verification: Start-of-Day
pH = 7
pH = 10
SC
ORP
Zero-DO
6.81-7.21
9.86-10.26
1.272-1.554
197 - 241
<0.25
6.92
10.04
1.460
221.0
0.02
Acceptable
Acceptable
Acceptable
Acceptable
Acceptable
6.97
10.08
1.407
220.9
0.08
Acceptable
Acceptable
Acceptable
Acceptable
Acceptable
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
—
—
—
—
—
Mid-day
pH = 7
pH = 10
SC
ORP
Zero-DO
6.83-7.23
9.89-10.29
1.272-1.554
197 - 241
<0.25
7.02
10.08
1.433
NR
0.04
Acceptable
Acceptable
Acceptable
Not Evaluated
Acceptable
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
Not Evaluated
Not Evaluated
Not Evaluated
Not Evaluated
Not Evaluated
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
—
—
—
—
—
End-of-Day
pH = 7
pH = 10
SC
ORP
Zero-DO
6.83-7.23
9.89-10.29
1.272-1.554
197 - 241
<0.25
7.06
10.08
1.426
219.8
0.02
Acceptable
Acceptable
Acceptable
Acceptable
Acceptable
6.93
9.93
1.417
221.0
0.04
Acceptable
Acceptable
Acceptable
Acceptable
Acceptable
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
—
—
—
—
—
-------
A-255
Table A27. Field QC Data for YSI Electrode Measurements.
(continued)
November 2012
ameter
Acceptance
Unitl
Evaluatio
November 8, 2012
Calibration Verification: Start-of-Day
pH = 7
6.81-7.21
7.02
Acceptable
7.03
Acceptable
NA
pH = 10
9.86-10.26
10.08
Acceptable
10.05
Acceptable
NA
SC
1.272-1.554
1.412
Acceptable
1.401
Acceptable
NA
ORP
197 - 241
219.0
Acceptable
218.9
Acceptable
NA
Zero-DO
<0.25
0.02
Acceptable
0.08
Acceptable
NA
Mid-day
pH = 7
6.83-7.23
6.99
Acceptable
NR
Not Evaluated
NA
pH = 10
9.89-10.29
10.04
Acceptable
NR
Not Evaluated
NA
SC
1.272-1.554
1.538
Acceptable
NR
Not Evaluated
NA
ORP
197 - 241
219.7
Acceptable
NR
Not Evaluated
NA
Zero-DO
<0.25
0.10
Acceptable
0.12
Acceptable
NA
End-of-Day
pH = 7
6.83-7.23
6.97
Acceptable
7.02
Acceptable
NA
pH = 10
9.89-10.29
10.06
Acceptable
10.02
Acceptable
NA
SC
1.272-1.554
1.499
Acceptable
1.422
Acceptable
NA
ORP
197 - 241
220.4
Acceptable
220.0
Acceptable
NA
Zero-DO
<0.25
0.05
Acceptable
0.10
Acceptable
NA
-------
A-256
Table A27. Field QC Data for YSI Electrode Measurements.
(continued)
April/May 2013
Arrontanro
YSI - Unit 1
• d^Rl ff^l
Poi-fni-manro
Parameter _ r _ .. _ , . 2
Range Reading Evaluation
^ad™? ^lo"
RHIfflfl
^eadin?
Kmance
ation2
April 29, 2013
Calibration Verification: Start-of-Day
pH = 7
pH = 10
SC
ORP
Zero-DO
6.81-7.21
9.86-10.26
1.272-1.554
197 - 241
<0.25
7.01
NR
1.413
216.0
0.09
Acceptable
Not Evaluated
Acceptable
Acceptable
Acceptable
6.98
10.06
1.492
219.0
0.43
Acceptable
Acceptable
Acceptable
Acceptable
Out of range
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
—
—
—
—
—
Mid-day
pH = 7
pH = 10
SC
ORP
Zero-DO
6.81-7.21
9.86-10.26
1.272-1.554
197 - 241
<0.25
6.83
NR
1.395
215.0
0.15
Acceptable
Not Evaluated
Acceptable
Acceptable
Acceptable
7.10
10.01
1.446
206.8
0.33
Acceptable
Acceptable
Acceptable
Acceptable
Out of range
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
—
—
—
—
—
End-of-Day
pH = 7
pH = 10
SC
ORP
Zero-DO
6.81-7.21
9.86-10.26
1.272-1.554
197 - 241
<0.25
6.98
NR
1.400
216.0
0.15
Acceptable
Not Evaluated
Acceptable
Acceptable
Acceptable
7.41
10.31
1.396
204.3
0.33
Out of range
Out of range
Acceptable
Acceptable
Out of range
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
—
—
—
—
—
-------
A-257
Table A27. Field QC Data for YSI Electrode Measurements.
(continued)
April 30, 2013
Calibration Verification: Start-of-Day
pH = 7
6.80-7.20
7.00
Acceptable
7.08
Acceptable
NA
pH = 10
9.86-10.26
NR
Not Evaluated
10.13
Acceptable
NA
SC
1.272-1.554
1.413
Acceptable
1.349
Acceptable
NA
ORP
197 - 241
216.0
Acceptable
232.2
Acceptable
NA
Zero-DO
<0.25
0.05
Acceptable
0.35
Out of range
NA
Mid-day
pH = 7
6.80-7.20
NR
Not Evaluated
7.08
Acceptable
NA
pH = 10
9.86-10.26
NR
Not Evaluated
10.18
Acceptable
NA
SC
1.272-1.554
NR
Not Evaluated
1.392
Acceptable
NA
ORP
197 - 241
NR
Not Evaluated
NR
Not Evaluated
NA
Zero-DO
<0.25
NR
Not Evaluated
0.21
Acceptable
NA
End-of-Day
pH = 7
6.80-7.20
7.08
Acceptable
7.16
Acceptable
NA
pH = 10
9.86-10.26
NR
Not Evaluated
10.19
Acceptable
NA
SC
1.272-1.554
1.425
Acceptable
1.383
Acceptable
NA
ORP
197 - 241
213.0
Acceptable
208.8
Acceptable
NA
Zero-DO
<0.25
0.15
Acceptable
0.21
Acceptable
NA
-------
A-258
Table A27. Field QC Data for YSI Electrode Measurements.
(continued)
May 1, 2013
Calibration Verification: Start-of-Day
pH = 7
6.81-7.21
NA
7.01
Acceptable
7.01
Acceptable
pH = 10
9.86-10.26
NA
9.93
Acceptable
NR
Not Evaluated
SC
1.272-1.554
NA
1.320
Acceptable
1.413
Acceptable
ORP
197 - 241
NA
219.0
Acceptable
214.0
Acceptable
Zero-DO
<0.25
NA
NR
Not Evaluated
0.20
Acceptable
Mid-day
pH = 7
6.81-7.21
NA
NR
Not Evaluated
NR
Not Evaluated
pH = 10
9.86-10.26
NA
10.12
Acceptable
NR
Not Evaluated
SC
1.272-1.554
NA
1.387
Acceptable
NR
Not Evaluated
ORP
197 - 241
NA
NR
Not Evaluated
NR
Not Evaluated
Zero-DO
<0.25
NA
0.58
Out of range
NR
Not Evaluated
End-of-Day
pH = 7
6.81-7.21
NA
7.09
Acceptable
7.06
Acceptable
pH = 10
9.86-10.26
NA
10.19
Acceptable
NR
Not Evaluated
SC
1.272-1.554
NA
1.417
Acceptable
1.398
Acceptable
ORP
197 - 241
NA
216.6
Acceptable
214.0
Acceptable
Zero-DO
<0.25
NA
0.57
Out of range
0.05
Acceptable
-------
A-259
Table A27. Field QC Data for YSI Electrode Measurements.
(continued)
May 2, 2013
Calibration Verification: Start-of-Day
pH = 7
6.80-7.20
NA
NA
7.00
Acceptable
pH = 10
9.86-10.26
NA
NA
NR
Not Evaluated
SC
1.272-1.554
NA
NA
1.413
Acceptable
ORP
197 - 241
NA
NA
215.0
Acceptable
Zero-DO
<0.25
NA
NA
0.09
Acceptable
End-of-Day
pH = 7
6.81-7.21
NA
NA
NR
Not Evaluated
pH = 10
9.81-10.21
NA
NA
10.03
Acceptable
SC
1.272-1.554
NA
NA
1.461
Acceptable
ORP
197 - 241
NA
NA
217.0
Acceptable
Zero-DO
<0.25
NA
NA
0.15
Acceptable
Parameters: SC = Specific Conductance; ORP = Oxidation - Reduction Potential; DO = Dissolved Oxygen (checked using a Zero-Oxygen solution).
2lf pH received an "Unacceptable" performance evaluation, all wells sampled between the last passing calibration check and the "failed" calibration
check received a "J" qualifier.
3NA = Not applicable; the instrument was not used that day.
4NR = Not Recorded.
-------
A-260
Table A28. Data Qualifiers and Data Descriptors.
Qualifier Dpfinitinn
U
J
J+
J-
B
H
*
R
The analyte was analyzed for, but was not detected above the reported quantitation limit (QL).
The analyte was positively identified. The associated numerical value is the approximate concentration of the analyte
to the quality of the data generated because certain quality control criteria were not met, or the concentration of the
QL).
in the sample (due either
analyte was below the
The result is an estimated quantity, but the result may be biased high.
For both detected and non-detected results, there may be a low bias due to low spike recoveries or sample preservation issues.
The analyte is found in a blank sample above the QL and the concentration found in the sample is less than 10 times the concentration found
in the blank.
The sample was prepared or analyzed beyond the specified holding time. Sample results may be biased low.
Relative percent difference of a field or lab duplicate is outside acceptance criteria.
The data are unusable. The sample results are rejected due to serious deficiencies in the ability to analyze the sample
control criteria. Sample results are not reported. The analyte may or may not be present in the sample.
and/or meet quality
Data Descriptors
• *2
NA
NR
ND
NS
Definition
Not Applicable (See QAPP)
Not Reported by Laboratory or Field Sampling Team
Not Detected
Not Sampled
-------
A-261
Table A29. Tentatively Identified Compounds (TICs) for SVOCs.
Compound (CAS Number)
Estimated
Concentration
fiiP/M
|
RBFBIkOl-1011
RBEqBlkOl-1011
RBFBIk02-1011
RBEqBlk02-1011
RBMW03-1011
RBDW01-1011
RBDW03-1011
RBPW01-1011
RBPW02-1011
RBSW01-1011
RBFBIk03-1011
RBEqBlk03-1011
RBDW06-1011
RBDW07-1011
RBDW08-1011
2-Undecanone (112-12-9)
Toluene (108-88-3)
Butanoic acid (107-92-6)
2-Nonanone (821-55-6)
2-Undecanone (112-12-9)
2,4-bis(l,l-dimethylethyl)phenol (96-76-4)
2-Undecanone (112-12-9)
Carbamic acid, methyl ester (598-55-0)
2-Undecanone (112-12-9)
Phenol, 2,5-bis(l,l-dimethylethyl) (5875-45-6)
1 H-benzyltriazole (95-14-7)
4-tert-Butylbenzoic acid (98-73-70)
6-ethoxy-l,2,3,4-tetrahydro-2,2,4-trimethylquinoline (16489-90-0)
Bisphenol A (80-05-7)
Bis(3,5,5-trimethylhexyl) phthalate (20548-62-3)
Mono(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (4376-20-9)
P-tert-octylphenol (140-66-9)
Phthalic acid isobutyl octyl ester (1000309-04-5)
2-ethyl-l-hexanol (104-76-7)
Naphthalene (91-20-3)
4-methyl-benzoic acid (99-94-5)
1-methyl-naphthalene (90-12-0)
2-methyl-naphthalene (91-57-6)
p-tolylacetic acid (622-47-9)
(2,4-xylyl)-acetic acid (6331-04-0)
2,6-dimethyl-naphthalene (581-42-0)
2,5-dimethylphenylacetic acid (1000342-65-5)
N-methyl-aniline (100-61-8)
Sulfur (13798-23-7)
Bisphenol A (80-05-7)
2-Undecanone (112-12-9)
2-Undecanone (112-12-9)
Dibutyl phthalate (84-74-2)
Bisphenol A (80-05-7)
2-ethyl-l-hexanol (104-76-7)
Triphenyl phosphate (115-86-6)
Mono(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (4376-20-9)
3-methyl-2-cyclohexen-l-one (1193-18-6)
Cyclic octaatomic sulfur (10544-50-0)
Bisphenol A (80-05-7)
1.16
0.31
0.39
0.35
1.33
0.66
1.71
0.25
1.35
0.50
0.87
11.72
5.06
13.54
15.85
0.31
0.30
1.00
0.38
0.31
0.26
0.51
0.46
0.75
0.60
0.31
0.42
0.33
0.46
0.43
1.31
1.29
0.28
2.08
0.77
0.84
0.34
0.37
2.03
1.29
-------
A-262
Table A29. Tentatively Identified Compounds (TICs) for SVOCs.
(continued)
Sample
RBDW09-1011
Compound (CAS Number)
Cyclohexanol (108-93-0)
Phthalic anhydride (85-44-9)
Sulfur (13798-23-7)
Bisphenol A (80-05-7)
0.42
0.38
0.80
4.16
RBDW10-1011
Toluene (108-88-3)
Sulfur (13798-23-7)
Bisphenol A (80-05-7)
2.22
1.50
1.47
RBDWlOd-1011
Toluene (108-88-3)
Sulfur (13798-23-7)
Bisphenol A (80-05-7)
Butyl citrate (77-94-1)
2.06
2.19
1.31
0.30
RBDW11-1011
Bisphenol A (80-05-7)
0.46
RBDW12-1011
2-ethyl-l-hexanol (104-76-7)
Diisobutyl phthalate (84-69-5)
Bisphenol A (80-05-7)
Terephthalic acid, di(4,octyl) e... (1000323-74-2)
0.77
0.30
1.39
3.33
RBMW04-1011
Phthalic acid, decyl isobutyl ester (1000308-94-2)
0.33
RBMW05-1011
RBPW01-0512
Sulfur (13798-23-7)
2-mercaptobenzothiazole (149-30-4)
Bisphenol A (80-05-7)
lay 2012 Sampling Event
4-Methyl-Benzoic acid (99-94-5)
p-Tolyacetic acid (622-47-9)
Tributyl phosphate (126-73-8)
1.24
1.17
0.93
0.64
2.34
0.87
RBPW03-0512
4-Cyanocyclohexene (100-45-8)
N-Formymorpholine (4394-85-8)
Benzothiazole (95-16-9)
Phthalic anhydride (85-44-9)
1,2-Ethanediol, monobenzoate (94-33-7)
2-Mercaptobenzothiazole (149-30-4)
Cyclic octaatomic sulfur (10544-50-0)
0.67
0.78
1.08
2.17
6.10
0.83
2.26
RBDW05-0512
Cyclic octaatomic sulfur (10544-50-0)
1.17
RBFBIk02-0512
2-Nonanone (821-55-6)
2-Undecanone (112-12-9)
3,5-Di-tert-butyl-4-hydrtoxybenzaldehyde (1620-98-0)
0.59
1.75
0.89
RBEqBlk02-0512
2-Undecanone (112-12-9)
3,5-Di-tert-butyl-4-hydrtoxybenzaldehyde (1620-98-0)
1.67
0.85
RBMW01-0512
n-hexadecanoic acid (57-10-3)
Octadecanoic acid (57-11-4)
Octacosane (630-02-4)
1.34
1.21
0.54
RBMW03-0512
Bisphenol A (80-05-7)
Hexadecanoic acid, butyl ester (111-06-8)
Phthalic acid, bis(7-methyloctyl) (20548-62-3)
31.02
7.77
>50
RBDW03-0512
Diisobutyl phpthalate (84-69-5)
0.66
-------
A-263
Table A29. Tentatively Identified Compounds (TICs) for SVOCs.
(continued)
RBDW06-0512
RBDW06d-0512
RBDW09-0512
RBDW10-1512
RBDW14-0512
^^^g
Cyclic octaatomic sulfur (10544-50-0)
Cyclic octaatomic sulfur (10544-50-0)
Cyclic octaatomic sulfur (10544-50-0)
Toluene (108-88-3)
Cyclic octaatomic sulfur (10544-50-0)
l-Chloro-3-methyl-2-butene (503-60-6)
l,2-Dichloro-2-methyl-butane (23010-04-0)
Estimated
Concentration
(Hg/D
36.07
14.36
»3.4
2.76
Too high
4.01
5.16
November 2012
RBEQBLK01-1112
RBPW01-1112
PBPW03-1112
RBDW02-1112
RBFBLK02-1112
RBEqBLK02-1112
RBMW02-1112
RBSW03-1112
RBDW04-1112
RBDW07-1112
RBFBLK03-1112
RBMW03-1112
RBEqBLK03-1112
RBDW08-1112
RBDW10-1112
2-undecanone (112-12-9)
l-(2-Methoxy-l-methylethyl)... (1000210-02-1)
Benzeneaceticacid, .alpha.... (000492-37-5)
Benzoicacid, 2-methylpropy... (000120-50-3)
Phthalic anhydride (000085-44-9)
1,2-Benzenedicarboxylicaci. ..(000084-69-5)
2-Undecanone (112-12-9)
2-Undecanone (112-12-9)
Ethane, 1,1,2,2-tetrachloro- (000079-34-5)
1-Propene, 1,1,2-trichloro- (021400-25-9)
Cyclic octaatomic sulfur (010544-50-0)
Ethane, 1,1,2-trichloro- (000079-00-5)
Ethane, 1,1,2,2-tetrachloro- (01) (000079-34-5)
Phthalic acid, decyl isobut... (1000308-94-2)
2-Undecanone (000112-12-9)
IH-Benzotriazole (027556-51-0)
Benzoic acid, p-tert-butyl- (000098-73-7)
Phenol, 4,4'-(l-methylethyl...
Phthalic acid, bis(7-methyl... (03) (020548-62-3)
Phthalic acid, dodecyl nony... (1000308-92-6)
1-Propene, 1,2,3-trichloro-... (013116-57-9)
Phenol, 4,4'-(l-methylethyl... (000080-05-7)
Toluene (000108-88-3)
Phthalic acid, decyl isobut... (1000308-94-2)
0.64
1.01
1.49
2.43
1.23
0.92
0.74
0.61
0.86
0.52
0.99
8.11
103
0.97
0.71
6.87
3.89
13.4
18.6
5.47
0.91
0.60
0.70
2.79
April 2013 Sampling Event
RBFBIkOl-0413
RBEqBlkOl-0413
RBPW03-0413
RBPW01-0413
RBMWOld-0413
RBDW02d-0413
1-Propene, 1,2,3-trichloro- (000096-19-5)
3,5-di-tert-Butyl-4-hydroxy... (001620-98-0)
2-Undecanone (000112-12-9)
2-Undecanone (000112-12-9)
Phthalic anhydride (000085-44-9)
2-Mercaptobenzothiazole (000149-30-4)
1,4-Benzenediamine, N-(l-me... (000101-72-4)
p-Tolylacetic acid (000622-47-9)
Acetic acid, (2,4-xylyl)- (006331-04-0)
Dodecanoic acid (000143-07-7)
Di-n-octyl phthalate (000117-84-0)
1-Propene, 1,2,3-trichloro-... (013116-57-9)
0.78
0.69
1.32
1.20
2.73
1.02
0.97
1.61
0.89
1.57
70.6
3.65
-------
A-264
Table A29. Tentatively Identified Compounds (TICs) for SVOCs.
(continued)
Sample
RBEqBlk02-0413
Compound (CAS Number)
3,5-di-tert-Butyl-4-hydroxy... (001620-98-0)
2-Undecanone (000112-12-9)
Estimated
Concentration
0.67
1.11
RBFBIR02-0413
3,5-di-tert-Butyl-4-hydroxy... (001620-98-0)
2-Undecanone (000112-12-9)
0.56
1.35
RBDW04-0413
PropanoicAcid (000079-09-4)
2-Propanol, l,l'-oxybis- (000110-98-5)
0.62
1.14
RBDW13-0413
Dodecanoic acid (000143-07-7)
1.12
RBSW03-0413
p-Tolylacetic acid (000622-47-9)
2-Propanol, l,l'-oxybis- (000110-98-5)
0.57
0.53
RBEqBlk03-0413
3,5-di-tert-Butyl-4-hydroxy... (001620-98-0)
2-Undecanone (000112-12-9)
0.96
1.04
RBFBIk03-0413
3,5-di-tert-Butyl-4-hydroxy... (001620-98-0)
2-Undecanone (000112-12-9)
1.12
1.28
RBDW07-0413
2-Propanol, l,l'-oxybis- (000110-98-5)
3.07
RBDW09-0413
Sulfur (013798-23-7)
Phenol, 4,4'-(l-methylethyl... (000080-05-7)
2.19
0.91
RBDW14-0413
Cumarin-3-carboxylicacid,... (020300-59-8)
0.57
RBMW03-0413
Phthalic acid, bis(7-methyl... (03) (020548-62-3)
Phenol, 4,4'-(l-methylethyl... (000080-05-7)
IH-Benzotriazole (000095-14-7)
18.9
23.7
13.2
RBEqBlk04-0413
p-Xylene (000106-42-3)
Benzene, 1,3-dimethyl- (000108-38-3)
9-Octadecenamide, (Z)- (000301-02-0)
0.68
0.55
0.91
RBFBIk04-0413
p-Xylene (000106-42-3)
o-Xylene (000095-47-6)
0.98
0.73
RBDW06-0413
Cyclic octaatomic sulfur (010544-50-0)
0.69
RBDW08-0413
Sulfur (013798-23-7)
Methane, tribromo- (000075-25-2)
Methane, dibromochloro- (000124-48-1)
2(5H)-Furanone (000497-23-4)
2.66
1.84
0.83
0.94
-------
Appendix B Sample Results, Retrospective Case Study in the Raton Basin, Colorado May 2015
Appendix B
Sample Results
Retrospective Case Study in the Raton Basin, Colorado
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Research and Development
Washington, DC
May 2015
EPA/600/R-14/091
B-l
-------
Appendix B Sample Results, Retrospective Case Study in the Raton Basin, Colorado May 2015
Table of Contents
Tables
Table B-l Sample Results - Field Parameters (Raton Basin, Colorado) B-6
Table B-2 Sample Results - Anions and Ammonia (Raton Basin, Colorado) B-17
Table B-3 Sample Results - Dissolved and Total Metals (Raton Basin, Colorado) B-28
Table B-4 Sample Results - Volatile Organic Compounds (Raton Basin, Colorado) B-61
Table B-5 Sample Results - Dissolved Gases, Diesel and Gasoline Range Organics, Glycols,
and Low Molecular Weight Acids (Raton Basin, Colorado) B-83
Table B-6 Sample Results - Semivolatile Organic Compounds (Raton Basin, Colorado) B-94
Table B-7 Sample Results - Water Isotopes and Strontium Isotopes (Raton Basin, Colorado) B-127
Table B-8 Sample Results - Isotech Gas Isotopes (Raton Basin, Colorado) B-136
B-2
-------
B-3
Appendix B. Sample Results - Legend (Raton Basin, Colorado)
Data Qualifiers
< The analyte concentration is less than the quantitation limit (QL).
U The analyte was analyzed for, but was not detected above the reported QL.
The analyte was positively identified. The associated numerical value is the approximate concentration of the analyte in the sample (due either to the quality of the data
generated because certain quality control criteria were not met, or the concentration of the analyte was below the QL).
J+ The result is an estimated quantity, but the result may be biased high.
J- For both detected and non-detected results, the result is estimated but may be biased low.
B The analyte is found in a blank sample above the QL and the concentration found in the sample is less than 10 times the concentration found in the blank.
H The sample was prepared or analyzed beyond the specified holding time. Sample results may be biased low.
* Relative percent difference of a field or lab duplicate is outside acceptance criteria.
The data are unusable. The sample results are rejected due to serious deficiencies in the ability to analyze the sample and/or meet quality control criteria. Sample results are not
reported. The analyte may or may not be present in the sample.
Notes
Table B-l Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) is estimated based on Specific Conductance (SPC): TDS(mg/L) = SPC(mS/cm) * 650.
Field-determined concentrations of ferrous iron and hydrogen sulfide are screening values.
Round 1 and 4 - J flag: pH failed end-of-day calibration check.
Table B-2 Round 3 - R qualifier for RBFBIk03-1112 is applied because the sample was mistakenly acidified, this affects Br, Cl, SC4, and F.
Table B-3 R. Data rejected. Potential spectral (mass or emission) interference (Sb) or interference check sample problem reported by laboratory.
Round 2 - R qualifiers for total and dissolved Se are due to matrix spike analyses outside of acceptance criteria.
Round 2 - R qualifiers for dissolved Th are due to interference check samples outside of acceptance criteria.
R qualifiers for total and dissolved U are due to interference check samples and/or continuing calibration verification checks outside of acceptance criteria.
Table B-4 R. Data rejected. 1,1,2-trichloroethane is subject to alkaline hydrolysis to 1,1-dichloroethene. This reaction could be supported by the sample preservative (trisodium
phosphate). This applies to samples collected in Round 1 and 2.
Table B-5 Round 1 - R. Data rejected. Acetate contamination in samples and blanks is due to the sample preservative (trisodium phosphate).
Round 2 - R. Data Rejected. Formate contamination in sample vials.
The method used for glycol analysis is under development.
Table B-6 Round 1 - The method used for analysis of aniline, hexachlorocylcopentadiene, and pyridine is under development.
Table B-8 Round 2 - RBSW03-0512: Dissolved gas bottle compromised in transit.
-------
B-4
Appendix B. Sample Results - Legend (Raton Basin, Colorado)
Acronyms Units
CAS Chemical Abstracts Service BTU
DIC Dissolved Inorganic Carbon °C
DO Dissolved Oxygen [ig/L
DOC Dissolved Organic Carbon mg/L
DRO Diesel Range Organics mS/cm
GRO Gasoline Range Organics
NA Not Applicable (See QAPP)
ND Not Detected
NR Not Reported by Laboratory or Field Sampling Team
NS Not Sampled
ORP Oxidation reduction potential
SPC Specific Conductance
IDS Total Dissolved Solids
TPH Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons
Key
MW
PW
DW
SW
04
d
British thermal unit
Degrees Celsius
Micrograms per liter
Milligrams per liter
Millisiemens per centimeter at 25°C
Monitoring Well sample
Production Well sample
Drinking water sample
Surface water sample
Sampling location
Field Duplicate
-------
B-5
Appendix B. Sample Results - Legend (Raton Basin, Colorado)
Metals and Isotopes
Ag
Al
As
B
Ba
Be
Ca
Cd
Co
Cr
Cu
Fe
Silver
Aluminum
Arsenic
Boron
Barium
Beryllium
Calcium
Cadmium
Cobalt
Chromium
Copper
Iron
K
Li
Mg
Mn
Mo
Na
Ni
P
Pb
Rb
S
Sb
Potassium
Lithium
Magnesium
Manganese
Molybdenum
Sodium
Nickel
Phosphorus
Lead
Rubidium
Sulfur
Antimony
Se
Si
Sr
Th
Ti
Tl
U
V
Zn
Selenium
Silicon
Strontium
Thorium
Titanium
Thallium
Uranium
Vanadium
Zinc
62H [(2H/H) Sample/(2H/H) Standard] * 1000
61S0 [(1S0/160) Sample/(180/160) Standard] * 1000
613C [(1BC/12C) Sample/(13C/12C) Standard] * 1000
634S [34S/B2S) Sample/(34S/B2S) Standard] * 1000
-------
B-6
Table B-l Sample Results - Field Parameters (Raton Basin, Colorado)
Parameter
Sample MW01 MW01 MW01 MW01 MW02 MW02 MW02 MW02
Sample Date 10/3/11 5/15/12 11/5/12 4/29/13 10/4/11 5/15/12 11/6/12 4/30/13
Unit Round 1 Round 2 Round 3 Round 4 Round 1 Round 2 Round 3 Round 4
Temperature
SPC
IDS
DO
PH
ORP
Turbidity
Alkalinity
Ferrous Iron
Hydrogen Sulfide
°C
mS/cm
mg/L
mg/L
mV
NTU
mg CaCO3/L
mg Fe2+/L
mgS/L
8.8
0.340
221
0.47
6.71
-72
1.7
146
0.13J
0.03 J
8.8
0.507
330
0.23
7.35
-71
0.47
161
0.18 J
0.01 J
9.1
0.491
319
0.19
7.10
-86
0.53
144
0.13J
0.01 J
9.0
0.469
305
0.49
7.47 J
-57
0.57
144
0.21 J
<0.01 U
10.6
0.430
279
1.80
8.39
52
0.8
162
0.11J
0.24J
10.5
0.476
309
0.96
8.47
-138
0.44
164
<0.03 U
0.26 J
10.5
0.443
288
0.92
8.21
-160
0.99
153
<0.03 U
0.37 J
10.7
0.347
225
1.27
8.50
-122
0.76
160
0.06 J
0.40 J
-------
B-7
Table B-l Sample Results - Field Parameters (Raton Basin, Colorado)
Parameter
Sample MW03 MW03 MW03 MW03 MW04 MW05 DW01 DW01
Sample Date 10/4/11 5/15/12 11/7/12 5/1/13 10/5/11 10/5/11 10/3/11 5/15/12
Unit Round 1 Round 2 Round 3 Round 4 Round 1 Round 1 Round 1 Round 2
Temperature
SPC
IDS
DO
PH
ORP
Turbidity
Alkalinity
Ferrous Iron
Hydrogen Sulfide
°C
mS/cm
mg/L
mg/L
mV
NTU
mg CaCO3/L
mg Fe2+/L
mgS/L
13.4
0.743
483
1.83
8.36
96
30
112
0.89 J
0.01 J
14.3
0.827
538
1.39
7.70
152
37.1
212
0.09 J
<0.01 U
13.2
1.041
677
0.10
7.80
-75
12.4
119
0.04 J
0.02 J
6.7
0.771
501
1.51
7.30
194
8.4
131
0.18 J
0.01 J
18.6
0.506
329
0.41
8.96
-5
0.7
84
0.19 J
0.77 J
16.9
0.356
231
0.22
9.00
-268
19
164
0.32 J
13.9 J
12.5
0.362
235
2.73
7.10 J
445
0.9
170
<0.03 U
0.01 J
17.6
0.364
237
4.13
7.15
160
2.90
198
<0.03 U
0.02 J
-------
B-8
Table B-l Sample Results - Field Parameters (Raton Basin, Colorado)
Parameter
Sample DW02 DW02 DW02 DW02 DW03 DW03 DW03 DW03
Sample Date 10/3/11 5/14/12 11/5/12 4/29/13 10/3/11 5/15/12 11/5/12 4/30/13
Unit Round 1 Round 2 Round 3 Round 4 Round 1 Round 2 Round 3 Round 4
Temperature
SPC
IDS
DO
PH
ORP
Turbidity
Alkalinity
Ferrous Iron
Hydrogen Sulfide
°C
mS/cm
mg/L
mg/L
mV
NTU
mg CaCO3/L
mg Fe2+/L
mgS/L
10.4
0.428
278
4.77
7.64
218
1.6
146
<0.03 U
0.01 J
9.7
0.440
288
0.81
7.91
229
0.65
220
0.04 J
<0.01 U
9.7
0.462
300
0.90
8.05
-2
0.48
185
<0.03 U
<0.01U
10.7
0.448
291
7.21
7.70
98
1.40
164
<0.03 U
<0.01 U
11.4
0.405
264
2.01
7.11
-102
2.6
154
<0.03 U
<0.01 U
10.0
0.441
286
3.57
6.91
125
17.1
163
<0.03 U
<0.01 U
10.4
0.446
290
1.22
7.23
32
0.67
158
<0.03 U
<0.01 U
10.3
0.438
285
1.62
6.51
157
0.76
163
<0.03 U
<0.01 U
-------
B-9
Table B-l Sample Results - Field Parameters (Raton Basin, Colorado)
Parameter
Sample DW04 DW04 DW04 DW05 DW05 DW05 DW05
Sample Date 10/4/11 11/6/12 4/30/13 10/4/11 5/14/12 11/5/12 4/29/13
Unit Round 1 Round 3 Round 4 Round 1 Round 2 Round 3 Round 4
Temperature
SPC
IDS
DO
PH
ORP
Turbidity
Alkalinity
Ferrous Iron
Hydrogen Sulfide
°C
mS/cm
mg/L
mg/L
mV
NTU
mg CaCO3/L
mg Fe2+/L
mgS/L
14.4
0.413
269
1.83
7.76
-89
0.5
156
<0.03 U
<0.01 U
10.7
0.413
268
0.50
7.96
-46
0.20
157
0.03 J
0.01 J
13.5
0.415
270
1.05
7.64
125
1.38
167
<0.03 U
<0.01 U
12.2
0.522
339
1.94
8.46
40
0.7
196
<0.03 U
0.01 J
11.8
0.486
316
1.39
8.62
42
0.59
221
0.01 J
<0.01 U
11.6
0.555
361
4.03
8.63
-53
2.78
218
0.05 J
<0.01 U
11.6
0.506
329
0.62
8.26
35
0.93
208
<0.03 U
<0.01 U
-------
B-10
Table B-l Sample Results - Field Parameters (Raton Basin, Colorado)
Parameter
Sample DW06 DW06 DW06 DW06 DW07 DW07 DW07 DW07
Sample Date 10/6/11 5/16/12 11/8/12 5/2/13 10/6/11 5/16/12 11/6/12 5/1/13
Unit Round 1 Round 2 Round 3 Round 4 Round 1 Round 2 Round 3 Round 4
Temperature
SPC
IDS
DO
PH
ORP
Turbidity
Alkalinity
Ferrous Iron
Hydrogen Sulfide
°C
mS/cm
mg/L
mg/L
mV
NTU
mg CaCO3/L
mg Fe2+/L
mgS/L
13.0
0.441
286
0.35
7.74
-67
2.7
199
0.06 J
5.90 J
14.2
0.500
325
0.05
7.99
-304
24.8
197
0.06 J
1.79 J
13.7
0.475
309
3.49
7.86
-274
1.20
160
0.03 J
1.50 J
12.7
0.520
338
1.27
7.93
-74
0.84
190
<0.03 U
3.00J
14.9
0.524
340
0.28
8.52
85
0.7
205
0.06 J
0.02 J
15.1
0.525
341
0.19
9.08
66
18.0
214
0.06 J
NR
14.8
0.508
330
5.71
9.07
1
0.39
197
<0.03 U
0.06 J
14.5
0.499
324
0.50
8.90
-109
0.76
244
<0.03 U
0.06 J
-------
B-ll
Table B-l Sample Results - Field Parameters (Raton Basin, Colorado)
Parameter
Sample DW08 DW08 DW08 DW08 DW09 DW09 DW09 DW09
Sample Date 10/5/11 5/16/12 11/7/12 5/1/13 10/5/11 5/16/12 11/8/12 5/1/13
Unit Round 1 Round 2 Round 3 Round 4 Round 1 Round 2 Round 3 Round 4
Temperature
SPC
IDS
DO
PH
ORP
Turbidity
Alkalinity
Ferrous Iron
Hydrogen Sulfide
°C
mS/cm
mg/L
mg/L
mV
NTU
mg CaCO3/L
mg Fe2+/L
mgS/L
16.2
0.627
407
0.04
8.48
-297
3.1
152
<0.03 U
3.80 J
17.2
0.627
408
0.71
8.50
-317
20.5
159
0.07 J
2.47 J
14.5
0.639
415
0.10
8.36
-306
6.79
140
<0.03 U
0.70 J
10.6
0.636
414
1.19
8.87
-145
3.71
166
0.03 J
0.44 J
NR
1.101
715
0.31
7.41
-144
3.1
99
<0.03 U
1.23 J
18.6
0.717
466
0.14
8.35
-305
2.28
147
<0.03 U
6.33 J
18.2
0.652
424
1.15
8.19
-242
0.55
159
0.06 J
15. 3 J
17.6
0.829
540
0.81
8.31
-312
12.8
138
<0.03 U
8.00 J
-------
B-12
Table B-l Sample Results - Field Parameters (Raton Basin, Colorado)
Parameter
Sample DW10 DW10 DW10 DW10 DW11 DW11 DW11 DW11 DW12
Sample Date 10/5/11 5/17/12 11/8/12 5/1/13 10/6/11 5/15/12 11/7/12 4/29/13 10/6/11
Unit Round 1 Round 2 Round 3 Round 4 Round 1 Round 2 Round 3 Round 4 Round 1
Temperature
SPC
IDS
DO
PH
ORP
Turbidity
Alkalinity
Ferrous Iron
Hydrogen Sulfide
°C
mS/cm
mg/L
mg/L
mV
NTU
mg CaCO3/L
mg Fe2+/L
mgS/L
16.4
0.469
305
0.10
8.89
-208
1.0
129
<0.03 U
36.6 J
17.7
0.509
331
0.06
9.01
-316
3.72
131
<0.03 U
33.9 J
17.0
0.505
328
1.42
9.03
-193
1.20
123
0.05 J
22.6 J
16.7
0.506
329
0.68
9.21
-324
4.48
114
<0.03 U
24.50 J
14.0
0.414
269
0.45
7.71
-133
NS
NS
NS
NS
14.5
0.429
279
0.80
7.81
-143
5.67
209
0.27 J
<0.01 U
16.1
0.466
303
2.12
8.00
8
0.82
220
<0.03 U
0.01 J
10.4
0.451
293
0.82
7.83
132
1.88
256
<0.03 U
<0.01 U
13.1
0.350
227
0.07
8.64
-62
1.1
196
<0.03 U
0.11 J
-------
B-13
Table B-l Sample Results - Field Parameters (Raton Basin, Colorado)
Parameter
Sample DW13 DW13 DW13 DW14 DW14 DW14 DW15
Sample Date 5/15/12 11/6/12 4/30/13 5/17/12 11/8/12 5/1/13 11/8/12
Unit Round 2 Round 3 Round 4 Round 2 Round 3 Round 4 Round 3
Temperature
SPC
IDS
DO
PH
ORP
Turbidity
Alkalinity
Ferrous Iron
Hydrogen Sulfide
°C
mS/cm
mg/L
mg/L
mV
NTU
mg CaCO3/L
mg Fe2+/L
mgS/L
14.8
0.314
204
2.00
7.17
126
6.31
152
0.12J
0.03 J
12.2
0.301
195
5.02
7.12
80
11.8
145
<0.03 U
<0.01 U
9.5
0.327
213
1.67
6.82
55
19.7
148
0.30 J
<0.01U
14.2
1.214
789
5.21
8.82
710
3.72
85
<0.03 U
<0.01 U
13.4
1.108
720
0.10
8.51
43
0.47
99
<0.03 U
<0.01 U
9.6
0.971
631
2.53
8.32
-49
50.9
78
0.33 J
0.03 J
14.5
0.491
319
0.19
7.44
-14
0.92
160
<0.03 U
0.14 J
-------
B-14
Table B-l Sample Results - Field Parameters (Raton Basin, Colorado)
Parameter
Sample PW01 PW01 PW01 PW01 PW02 PW03 PW03 PW03
Sample Date 10/3/11 5/14/12 11/5/12 4/29/13 10/3/11 5/14/12 11/5/12 4/29/13
Unit Round 1 Round 2 Round 3 Round 4 Round 1 Round 2 Round 3 Round 4
Temperature
SPC
IDS
DO
PH
ORP
Turbidity
Alkalinity
Ferrous Iron
Hydrogen Sulfide
°C
mS/cm
mg/L
mg/L
mV
NTU
mg CaCO3/L
mg Fe2+/L
mgS/L
15.9
1.202
781
0.24
8.34 J
-338
3.6
836
0.27 J
0.03 J
15.7
1.929
1254
1.67
8.55
-160
3.67
887
0.20 J
0.01 J
15.1
1.952
1269
0.96
8.49
-183
2.91
903
0.09 J
0.02 J
15.1
1.894
1231
0.89
8.22
-234
3.39
946
0.13 J
<0.01 U
15.3
0.666
434
0.20
8.49 J
-353
9.0
478
0.20 J
0.04 J
12.2
1.365
887
0.02
8.32
-368
55.1
530
1.04 J
<0.01 U
14.0
1.393
906
0.70
7.87
-226
94.9
501
1.32 J
<0.01 U
14.4
1.125
730
0.37
7.69
-211
12.3
596
0.31 J
<0.01 U
-------
B-15
Table B-l Sample Results - Field Parameters (Raton Basin, Colorado)
Parameter
Round 1 Round 2 Round 3 Round 4 Round 2 Round 3
Sample SW01 SW01 SW01 SW01 SW02 SW02 SW02
Sample Date 10/4/11 5/14/12 11/7/12 4/30/13 5/14/12 11/6/12 4/30/13
Round 4
Temperature
SPC
IDS
DO
PH
ORP
Turbidity
Alkalinity
Ferrous Iron
Hydrogen Sulfide
°C
mS/cm
mg/L
mg/L
mV
NTU
mg CaCO3/L
mg Fe2+/L
mgS/L
14.8
1.187
111
7.84
9.26 J
119
3.2
639
0.12J
0.02 J
16.7
1.178
744
8.33
8.86
216
20.0
639
0.04 J
<0.01 U
3.0
1.409
916
10.19
8.34
313
3.70
697
<0.03 U
<0.01U
18.2
1.233
801
6.60
8.66
61
9.47
659
0.14J
0.02 J
16.8
1.541
1002
5.65
8.33
60
16.9
717
0.09 J
<0.01 U
8.4
1.724
1121
5.87
7.92
82
1.62
799
<0.03 U
<0.01 U
13.5
1.489
968
4.91
7.90
65
2.86
111
0.05 J
<0.01 U
-------
B-16
Table B-l Sample Results - Field Parameters (Raton Basin, Colorado)
Parameter
Sample SW03 SW03 SW03
Sample Date 5/15/12 11/6/12 4/30/13
Unit Round 2 Round 3 Round 4
Temperature
SPC
IDS
DO
PH
ORP
Turbidity
Alkalinity
Ferrous Iron
Hydrogen Sulfide
°C
mS/cm
mg/L
mg/L
mV
NTU
mg CaCO3/L
mg Fe2+/L
mgS/L
19.1
1.427
935
0.03
8.42
-292
2.00
111
0.12J
0.01 J
27.0
1.474
957
0.05
8.32
-332
2.68
691
0.05 J
0.03 J
22.4
1.135
738
0.40
8.20
-294
1.17
694
0.06 J
0.03 J
-------
B-17
Table B-2 Sample Results - Anions and Ammonia (Raton Basin, Colorado)
Parameter
Sample MW01 MW01 MW01 MW01 MW02 MW02 MW02 MW02
Sample Date 10/3/11 5/15/12 11/5/12 4/29/13 10/4/11 5/15/12 11/6/12 4/30/13
Unit Round 1 Round 2 Round 3 Round 4 Round 1 Round 2 Round 3 Round 4
Anion-Cation
Balance
DOC
DIG
Nitrate + Nitrite
Ammonia
Bromide
Chloride
Sulfate
Fluoride
%
mg/L
mg/L
mgN/L
mgN/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
7.5
1.54
36.9 J-
<0.05 U
0.09
<1.00U
4.38
94.2
0.44
0.6
1.62
36.3
<0.10 U
<0.10 U
<1.00 U
4.32
101
0.45
2.7
1.46
37.4
<0.10U
<0.10U
<1.00U
4.36
104
0.36
1.0
1.48
38.7
<0.10 U
0.09 J
0.36 J
4.50
94.6
0.44
1.6
0.73
37.1J-
<0.05 U
<0.05 U
<1.00U
8.97
62.7
2.79
0.8
0.70
36.9
<0.10 U
<0.10 U
<1.00 U
10.3
58.6
2.93
1.0
0.67
36.5
<0.10U
<0.10U
<1.00U
9.17
61.2
2.46
2.0
0.71
36.7
<0.10 U
<0.10 U
<1.00 U
9.94
56.5
2.48
-------
B-18
Table B-2 Sample Results - Anions and Ammonia (Raton Basin, Colorado)
Parameter
Sample MW03 MW03 MW03 MW03 MW04 MW05 DW01 DW01
Sample Date 10/4/11 5/15/12 11/7/12 5/1/13 10/5/11 10/5/11 10/3/11 5/15/12
Unit Round 1 Round 2 Round 3 Round 4 Round 1 Round 1 Round 1 Round 2
Anion-Cation
Balance
DOC
DIG
Nitrate + Nitrite
Ammonia
Bromide
Chloride
Sulfate
Fluoride
%
mg/L
mg/L
mgN/L
mgN/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
2.8
4.63
32.2J-
<0.05 U
<0.05 U
<1.00U
159
2.08
7.91
0.2
3.18
30.8
<0.10 U
<0.10 U
<1.00 U
159
0.84 J
8.50
1.6
2.86 B
30.7
<0.10U
<0.10U
<1.00U
158
0.31J
8.72
1.5
3.42
30.5
<0.10 U
<0.10 U
<3.00 U
160
0.56 J
8.29
2.3
0.66 B
18.4 J-
<0.05 U
<0.05 U
<1.00U
15.1
141
5.24
6.8
0.82 B
26.9 J-
<0.05 U
<0.05 U
<1.00 U
18.2
5.93
9.41
0.3
0.66
49.8 J-
0.33 B
<0.05 U
<1.00 U
1.80
21.9
0.20
2.1
0.65
50.0
0.24 B
<0.10 U
0.71 J
2.07
23.2
0.23
-------
B-19
Table B-2 Sample Results - Anions and Ammonia (Raton Basin, Colorado)
Parameter
Sample DW02 DW02 DW02 DW02 DW03 DW03 DW03 DW03
Sample Date 10/3/11 5/14/12 11/5/12 4/29/13 10/3/11 5/15/12 11/5/12 4/30/13
Unit Round 1 Round 2 Round 3 Round 4 Round 1 Round 2 Round 3 Round 4
Anion-Cation
Balance
DOC
DIG
Nitrate + Nitrite
Ammonia
Bromide
Chloride
Sulfate
Fluoride
%
mg/L
mg/L
mgN/L
mgN/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
0.7
1.12
36.4 J-
0.32 B
<0.05 U
<1.00U
9.75
60.9
0.89
0.3
1.25
37.1
0.18 B
<0.10 U
<1.00 U
11.8
76.7
0.68
1.0
1.14
36.5
0.24B
<0.10U
<1.00U
9.57
64.3
1.03
0.7
1.15
37.0
<0.10 U
<0.10 U
<1.00 U
9.54
62.3
1.03
0.9
1.11
40.2 J-
0.30 B
<0.05 U
<1.00U
7.31
65.0
0.28
4.2
1.07
38.4
0.16 B
<0.10 U
<1.00 U
7.33
66.4
0.21
1.2
0.93
41.0
0.59 B
<0.10 U
<1.00 U
7.11
67.0
0.17J
13.2
0.92
41.6
0.17
<0.10 U
0.37 J
7.15
66.3
0.24
-------
B-20
Table B-2 Sample Results - Anions and Ammonia (Raton Basin, Colorado)
Parameter
Sample DW04 DW04 DW04 DW05 DW05 DW05 DW05
Sample Date 10/4/11 11/6/12 4/30/13 10/4/11 5/14/12 11/5/12 4/29/13
Unit Round 1 Round 3 Round 4 Round 1 Round 2 Round 3 Round 4
Anion-Cation
Balance
DOC
DIG
Nitrate + Nitrite
Ammonia
Bromide
Chloride
Sulfate
Fluoride
%
mg/L
mg/L
mgN/L
mgN/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
1.0
0.78
42.0 J-
0.25B
0.10
<1.00U
7.03
39.8
0.66
1.6
0.65
40.0
0.96 B
0.12
<1.00 U
6.51
39.4
0.59
1.8
0.64
38.8
<0.10U
0.09 J
<1.00U
7.07
42.5
0.71
0.4
<0.50 U
49.0 J-
0.35 B
<0.05 U
<1.00 U
9.53
55.8
0.57
0.2
<0.50 U
48.7
0.16 B
<0.10U
<1.00U
8.10
52.2
0.44
3.5
0.53
49.9
1.15 B
<0.10 U
<1.00 U
9.37
57.7
0.46
0.1
<0.50 U
49.8
<0.10 U
<0.10U
<1.00U
6.89
48.3
0.58
-------
B-21
Table B-2 Sample Results - Anions and Ammonia (Raton Basin, Colorado)
Parameter
Sample DW06 DW06 DW06 DW06 DW07 DW07 DW07 DW07
Sample Date 10/6/11 5/16/12 11/8/12 5/2/13 10/6/11 5/16/12 11/6/12 5/1/13
Unit Round 1 Round 2 Round 3 Round 4 Round 1 Round 2 Round 3 Round 4
Anion-Cation
Balance
DOC
DIG
Nitrate + Nitrite
Ammonia
Bromide
Chloride
Sulfate
Fluoride
%
mg/L
mg/L
mgN/L
mgN/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
1.6
1.22
43. 2 J-
<0.05 U
0.02 J
<1.00U
9.37
80.9
1.17
0.0
1.16
42.7
<0.10 U
<0.10 U
<1.00 U
10.9
62.8
1.65
0.3
1.35
38.8
<0.10U
<0.10U
<1.00U
11.3
60.8
1.63
2.1
1.05
40.7
<0.10 U
<0.10 U
<1.00 U
12.2
65.5
1.60
2.4
0.65
43. 9 J-
<0.05 U
0.10
<1.00U
9.47
72.7
1.39
0.5
0.80
43.9
0.14
0.12
<1.00 U
9.65
71.9
1.30
3.4
0.56
44.4
1.14 B
<0.10 U
<1.00 U
8.73
64.4
1.53
1.5
0.68
43.9
<0.10 U
0.10
<1.00 U
8.66
62.7
1.49
-------
B-22
Table B-2 Sample Results - Anions and Ammonia (Raton Basin, Colorado)
Parameter
Sample DW08 DW08 DW08 DW08 DW09 DW09 DW09 DW09
Sample Date 10/5/11 5/16/12 11/7/12 5/1/13 10/5/11 5/16/12 11/8/12 5/1/13
Unit Round 1 Round 2 Round 3 Round 4 Round 1 Round 2 Round 3 Round 4
Anion-Cation
Balance
DOC
DIG
Nitrate + Nitrite
Ammonia
Bromide
Chloride
Sulfate
Fluoride
%
mg/L
mg/L
mgN/L
mgN/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
2.2
0.92 B
31.6 J-
<0.05 U
0.22 B
<1.00 U
28.1
122
4.15
0.0
1.15
32.7
<0.10 U
<0.10 U
<1.00 U
30.0
104
3.74
4.3
1.05 B
32.4
<0.10 U
<0.10 U
<1.00 U
29.7
110
4.22
0.5
1.17
32.3
<0.10 U
<0.10 U
<1.00 U
33.0
118
3.98
0.0
1.44 B
23. 7 J-
<0.05 U
0.22 B
<1.00 U
26.8
445
5.26
1.6
0.88
28.3
<0.10 U
0.19
<1.00 U
27.1
171
6.33
3.6
0.89
32.5
0.16 B
0.81
<1.00 U
25.7
151
7.28
1.9
1.07
29.7
<0.10 U
0.02 J
0.26 J
27.2
224
6.06
-------
B-23
Table B-2 Sample Results - Anions and Ammonia (Raton Basin, Colorado)
Parameter
Sample DW10 DW10 DW10 DW10 DW11 DW11 DW11 DW11 DW12
Sample Date 10/5/11 5/17/12 11/8/12 5/1/13 10/6/11 5/15/12 11/7/12 4/29/13 10/6/11
Unit Round 1 Round 2 Round 3 Round 4 Round 1 Round 2 Round 3 Round 4 Round 1
Anion-Cation
Balance
DOC
DIG
Nitrate + Nitrite
Ammonia
Bromide
Chloride
Sulfate
Fluoride
%
mg/L
mg/L
mgN/L
mgN/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
7.0
0.58 B
21.5 J-
<0.05 U
0.20 B
<1.00 U
12.0
93.5
5.95
3.5
0.66
20.8
<0.10 U
0.24
<1.00 U
12.4
89.6
5.90
3.2
0.67
20.9
<0.10 U
0.56
<1.00 U
12.0
100
6.23
1.9
0.72
20.1
<0.10 U
0.04 J
<1.00 U
12.7
110
5.55
1.0
0.59
55. 7 J-
0.24
0.01 J
<1.00 U
11.1
2.80
1.67
0.8
0.83
54.1
0.17 B
<0.10 U
<1.00 U
13.6
4.37
1.34
1.2
0.70 B
52.7
0.98 B
<0.10 U
<1.00 U
14.5
2.41
2.04
1.2
0.64
54.6
<0.10 U
<0.10 U
<1.00 U
12.8
2.08
1.65
2.0
0.49 J
42.4 J-
0.18
0.12
<1.00 U
8.68
6.33
2.36
-------
B-24
Table B-2 Sample Results - Anions and Ammonia (Raton Basin, Colorado)
Parameter
Sample DW13 DW13 DW13 DW14 DW14 DW14 DW15
Sample Date 5/15/12 11/6/12 4/30/13 5/17/12 11/8/12 5/1/13 11/8/12
Unit Round 2 Round 3 Round 4 Round 2 Round 3 Round 4 Round 3
Anion-Cation
Balance
DOC
DIG
Nitrate + Nitrite
Ammonia
Bromide
Chloride
Sulfate
Fluoride
%
mg/L
mg/L
mgN/L
mgN/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
0.2
<0.50 U
40.8
0.20 B
<0.10 U
0.78 J
1.85
26.0
0.20
1.6
<0.50 U
38.1
0.82 B
<0.10 U
0.21 J
1.16
22.2
0.15 J
10.1
<0.50 U
39.6
0.08 J
<0.10 U
0.74 J
1.70
26.4
0.23
0.1
0.68
17.6
0.33
<0.10 U
<1.00 U
77.8
351
2.75
2.1
0.65
20.7
<0.10 U
<0.10 U
<1.00 U
18.7
349
2.34
0.4
1.82
19.7
<0.10 U
<0.10 U
<1.00 U
20.2
352
2.46
0.8
0.79
38.7
<0.10 U
<0.10 U
<1.00 U
15.2
70.1
1.44
-------
B-25
Table B-2 Sample Results - Anions and Ammonia (Raton Basin, Colorado)
Parameter
Sample PW01 PW01 PW01 PW01 PW02 PW03 PW03 PW03
Sample Date 10/3/11 5/14/12 11/5/12 4/29/13 10/3/11 5/14/12 11/5/12 4/29/13
Unit Round 1 Round 2 Round 3 Round 4 Round 1 Round 2 Round 3 Round 4
Anion-Cation
Balance
DOC
DIG
Nitrate + Nitrite
Ammonia
Bromide
Chloride
Sulfate
Fluoride
%
mg/L
mg/L
mgN/L
mgN/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
0.7
1.00
197 J-
<0.05 U
0.61
<1.00 U
79.4
<1.00 U
3.48
0.1
1.24
187
<0.10 U
0.58
<1.00 U
110
<1.00 U
3.12
2.2
0.98
209
<0.10 U
0.71
<1.00 U
122
<1.00 U
4.63
0.6
1.08
213
<0.10 U
0.53
<1.00 U
138
<1.00 U
3.02
1.6
0.97
121 J-
<0.05 U
0.31
<1.00 U
27.5
<1.00 U
2.56
2.2
1.30
121
<0.10 U
0.43
<1.00 U
144
<1.00 U
3.03
3.9
1.00
120
<0.10 U
0.51
<1.00 U
148
0.75 J
3.29
0.2
1.31
120
<0.10 U
0.38
<1.00 U
190
0.76 J
2.57
-------
B-26
Table B-2 Sample Results - Anions and Ammonia (Raton Basin, Colorado)
Parameter
Round 1 Round 2 Round 3 Round 4 Round 2 Round 3
Sample SW01 SW01 SW01 SW01 SW02 SW02 SW02
Sample Date 10/4/11 5/14/12 11/7/12 4/30/13 5/14/12 11/6/12 4/30/13
Round 4
Anion-Cation
Balance
DOC
DIG
Nitrate + Nitrite
Ammonia
Bromide
Chloride
Sulfate
Fluoride
%
mg/L
mg/L
mgN/L
mgN/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
2.9
1.52
147 J-
<0.05 U
<0.05 U
<1.00 U
46.5
4.33
3.03
1.1
1.92
145
0.19 B
<0.10 U
<1.00 U
43.6
5.38
2.90
3.7
1.48 B
162
0.51 B
<0.10 U
<1.00 U
51.5
2.45
3.19
0.4
2.57
153
0.01 J
<0.10 U
0.60 J
40.1
2.37
3.15
2.3
3.14
166
0.14 B
<0.10 U
<1.00 U
81.6
23.6
2.43
2.6
1.91
194
<0.10 U
<0.10 U
<1.00 U
89.7
20.2
2.55
0.1
2.84
178
0.02 J
<0.10 U
<1.00 U
90.8
19.7
2.46
-------
B-27
Table B-2 Sample Results - Anions and Ammonia (Raton Basin, Colorado)
Parameter
Sample SW03 SW03 SW03
Sample Date 5/15/12 11/6/12 4/30/13
Unit Round 2 Round 3 Round 4
Anion-Cation
Balance
DOC
DIG
Nitrate + Nitrite
Ammonia
Bromide
Chloride
Sulfate
Fluoride
%
mg/L
mg/L
mgN/L
mgN/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
2.1
1.54
162
<0.10U
0.36
<1.00U
41.6
0.55 J
4.10
2.5
0.83
166
<0.10 U
0.41
<1.00 U
48.0
<1.00 U
3.82
5.7
1.72
183
<0.10U
0.28
<1.00U
51.4
<1.00U
4.61
-------
B-28
Table B-3 Sample Results - Dissolved and Total Metals (Raton Basin, Colorado)
Parameter
Round 1 Round 2 Round 3 Round 4 Round 1 Round 2 Round 3
Sample MW01 MW01 MW01 MW01 MW02 MW02 MW02 MW02
Sample Date 10/3/11 5/15/12 11/5/2012 4/29/13 10/4/11 5/15/12 11/6/2012 4/30/13
Round 4
Dissolved Ag
Total Ag
Dissolved Al
Total Al
Dissolved As
Total As
Dissolved B
Total B
Dissolved Ba
Total Ba
Dissolved Be
Total Be
Dissolved Ca
Total Ca
Dissolved Cd
Total Cd
Dissolved Co
Total Co
Dissolved Cr
Total Cr
Dissolved Cu
Total Cu
Dissolved Fe
Total Fe
Dissolved Hg
Total Hg
Dissolved K
Total K
Dissolved Li
Total Li
Dissolved Mg
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
mg/L
mg/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
mg/L
mg/L
ug/L
ug/L
mg/L
<14U
<16U
<494U
<548U
<20U
<22U
<333U
<370U
29 J
30 J
<10U
<11U
52.6
53.8 J
<4U
<4U
<4U
<4U
<7U
<8U
<20U
13 J
189
212 J
NR
NR
1.07 J
1.08 J
NA
NA
4.24
<14U
<16U
<20.0 U
<20.0 U
<1.0U
<1.0U
<333 U
<370U
28.5 J
29.0 J
<10U
<11U
54.0
53.4 J
<1.0U
<1.0U
<4U
<4U
<2.0U
<2.0U
<2.0U
<2.0U
175
184
NR
NR
1.06 J
1.05 J
NR
NR
4.41
<10U
<10U
<20U
<20U
<0.2U
<0.2U
<40U
14 J
31
27
<5 U
<2.5 U
54.9
49.6
<0.2U
<0.2U
<5 U
<2.5 U
<2U
<2U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
180
153
<0.2U
<0.2U
1.1
1.1
13
12
4.4
<10U
<10U
<20U
39 B
0.07 J
0.31 B
<40U
<20U
32
30
<5.0U
<2.5 U
54.4
52.6
<0.20 U
<0.20 U
<5.0U
<2.5 U
<2.0U
<2.0U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
175
143
<0.20 U
<0.20 U
1.1
1.0
13
12
4.2
<14U
<16U
<494U
<548U
<20U
<22U
<333U
<370U
47 J
47 J
<10U
<11U
9.00
9.18 J
<4U
<4U
<4U
<4U
<7U
<8U
<20U
<22U
<67U
39 J
NR
NR
0.48 J
0.57 J
NA
NA
1.35
<14U
<16U
<20.0 U
<20.0 U
1.9
1.6
<333 U
<370U
42.7 J
44. 1J
<10U
<11U
7.89
7.83 J
<1.0U
<1.0U
<4U
<4U
<2.0U
<2.0U
<2.0U
<2.0U
<67U
25 J
NR
NR
0.51 J
0.69 J
NR
NR
1.09
<10U
<10U
4J
<20U
1.6
1.7
<40U
7J
46
42
<5U
<2.5 U
7.2
6.8
<0.2U
<0.2U
<5 U
<2.5 U
<2U
<2U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<100U
NRZ
<0.2U
<0.2U
0.44 J
0.45
3J
3J
0.91
<10U
<10U
<20U
<20U
2.2
2.4
<40U
3.3J
47
44
<5.0U
<2.5 U
6.6
6.3
<0.20 U
<0.20 U
<5.0U
1.0 J
<2.0U
<2.0U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<100U
NRZ
<0.20 U
<0.20 U
0.44 J
0.45
<10U
3J
0.78
-------
B-29
Table B-3 Sample Results - Dissolved and Total Metals (Raton Basin, Colorado)
Parameter
Round 1 Round 2 Round 3 Round 4 Round 1 Round 1 Round 1
Sample MW03 MW03 MW03 MW03 MW04 MW05 DW01 DW01
Sample Date 10/4/11 5/15/12 11/7/2012 5/1/13 10/5/11 10/5/11 10/3/11 5/15/12
Round 2
Dissolved Ag
Total Ag
Dissolved Al
Total Al
Dissolved As
Total As
Dissolved B
Total B
Dissolved Ba
Total Ba
Dissolved Be
Total Be
Dissolved Ca
Total Ca
Dissolved Cd
Total Cd
Dissolved Co
Total Co
Dissolved Cr
Total Cr
Dissolved Cu
Total Cu
Dissolved Fe
Total Fe
Dissolved Hg
Total Hg
Dissolved K
Total K
Dissolved Li
Total Li
Dissolved Mg
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
mg/L
mg/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
mg/L
mg/L
ug/L
ug/L
mg/L
<14U
<16U
<494U
1350 J
<20U
<22U
<333U
<370U
318J
363 J
<10U
<11U
6.82
7.19 J
<4U
<4U
<4U
<4U
<7U
5J
<20U
41 J
60 J
1480 J
NR
NR
0.55 J
0.84 J
NA
NA
0.19
<14U
<16U
577
695
1.2
1.2
<333 U
<370U
294 J
334 J
<10U
<11U
6.17
6.55 J
<1.0U
<1.0U
<4U
<4U
<2.0U
2.4
19.5 J
15.3 J, B
379
516 J
NR
NR
0.75 J
0.75 J
NR
NR
0.19
<10U
<10U
12 J
757 B
1.1
1.2
<40U
<20U
383
323
0.3 J
<2.5 U
6.2
5.8
<0.2U
<0.2U
<5 U
<2.5 U
0.7 J
2.9
0.7 B
14 B
<100U
710
<0.2U
<0.2U
0.58
0.66
10
9
0.15
<10U
<10U
28 B
265 B
1.3
1.4 B
<40U
7.0 J
366
347
<5.0U
<2.5 U
6.6
6.2
<0.20 U
<0.20 U
<5.0U
0.9 J
<2.0U
<2.0U
1.1 B
11.4 B
<100U
270
<0.20 U
<0.20 U
0.53
0.57
<10U
9
0.15
<14U
<16U
<494U
<548U
<20U
<22U
<333U
<370U
37 J
38 J
<10U
<11U
3.89
4.05 J
<4U
<4U
<4U
<4U
<7U
<8U
<20U
<22U
<67U
92 J
NR
NR
0.25 J
0.32 J
NA
NA
0.03 J
<14U
<16U
<494U
2290 J
<20U
<22U
<333 U
<370U
11 J
34 J
<10U
<11U
1.99
2.87 J
<4U
<4U
<4U
<4U
<7U
5J
<20U
8J
32 J
4280 J
NR
NR
0.21J
0.60 J
NA
NA
<0.10U
<14U
<16U
<494U
<548U
<20U
<22U
<333 U
<370U
274 J
283 J
<10U
<11U
53.8
54.9 J
<4U
<4U
<4U
<4U
<7U
<8U
<20U
<22U
<67U
36 J
NR
NR
0.89 J
1.05 J
NA
NA
9.64
<14U
<16U
<20.0 U
24.0
<1.0U
<1.0U
<333 U
<370U
227 J
233 J
<10U
<11U
58.9
57.5 J
<1.0U
<1.0U
<4U
<4U
<2.0U
<2.0U
<2.0U
<2.0U
<67U
37 J
NR
NR
0.84 J
0.93 J
NR
NR
10.6
-------
B-30
Table B-3 Sample Results - Dissolved and Total Metals (Raton Basin, Colorado)
Parameter
Round 1 Round 2 Round 3 Round 4 Round 1 Round 2 Round 3
Sample DW02 DW02 DW02 DW02 DW03 DW03 DW03 DW03
Sample Date 10/3/11 5/14/12 11/5/2012 4/29/13 10/3/11 5/15/12 11/5/2012 4/30/13
Round 4
Dissolved Ag
Total Ag
Dissolved Al
Total Al
Dissolved As
Total As
Dissolved B
Total B
Dissolved Ba
Total Ba
Dissolved Be
Total Be
Dissolved Ca
Total Ca
Dissolved Cd
Total Cd
Dissolved Co
Total Co
Dissolved Cr
Total Cr
Dissolved Cu
Total Cu
Dissolved Fe
Total Fe
Dissolved Hg
Total Hg
Dissolved K
Total K
Dissolved Li
Total Li
Dissolved Mg
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
mg/L
mg/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
mg/L
mg/L
ug/L
ug/L
mg/L
<14U
<16U
<494U
<548U
<20U
<22U
<333U
<370U
86 J
96 J
<10U
<11U
15.4
17 .4 J
<4U
<4U
<4U
<4U
<7U
<8U
<20U
14 J
36 J
36 J
NR
NR
0.59 J
0.67 J
NA
NA
1.36
<14U
<16U
<20.0 U
<20.0 U
<1.0U
<1.0U
<333 U
<370U
106 J
103 J
<10U
<11U
21.1
19.3 J
<1.0U
<1.0U
<4U
<4U
<2.0U
<2.0U
3.7 J
6.2 J, B
<67U
30 J
NR
NR
0.81 J
0.75 J
NR
NR
1.91
<10U
<10U
<20U
<20U
<0.2U
<0.2U
<40U
17 J
85
85
<5 U
<2.5 U
17.0
17.6
<0.2U
<0.2U
<5 U
<2.5 U
<2U
<2U
1.9
9.2*
<100U
<50U
<0.2U
<0.2U
0.65
0.66
5J
5
1.4
<10U
<10U
<20U
22 B
0.07 J
0.36 B
<40U
<20U
102
105
<5.0U
<2.5 U
17.2
16.9
<0.20 U
<0.20 U
<5.0U
<2.5 U
<2.0U
<2.0U
1.8 B
5.5*
<100U
27 J
<0.20 U
<0.20 U
0.67
0.69
<10U
<5 U
1.5
<14U
<16U
<494U
<548U
<20U
<22U
<333U
<370U
57 J
57 J
<10U
<11U
44.2
44.2 J
<4U
<4U
<4U
<4U
<7U
<8U
16 J
26 J
<67U
130 J
NR
NR
1.04 J
1.11 J
NA
NA
11.9
<14U
<16U
<20.0 U
38.2
<1.0U
<1.0U
<333 U
<370U
41.5 J
45. 7 J
<10U
<11U
45.2
45. 1J
<1.0U
<1.0U
<4U
<4U
<2.0U
<2.0U
11.9 J
18.3 J
<67U
165 J
NR
NR
1.04 J
1.00 J
NR
NR
12.7
<10U
<10U
<20U
25
<0.2U
<0.2U
<40U
23
60
55
<5U
<2.5 U
43.4
41.1
<0.2U
<0.2U
<5 U
<2.5 U
<2U
<2U
1.2
2.0*
51J
<50U
<0.2U
<0.2U
1.1
1.1
<10U
0.7 J
12
<10U
<10U
<20U
<20U
0.06 J
0.30 B
<40U
22
58
53
<5.0U
<2.5U
47.7
45.9
<0.20 U
<0.20 U
<5.0U
<2.5 U
<2.0U
<2.0U
6.9
9.3*
105
22 J
<0.20 U
<0.20 U
1.1
1.1
<10U
<5 U
13
-------
B-31
Table B-3 Sample Results - Dissolved and Total Metals (Raton Basin, Colorado)
Parameter
Sample DW04 DW04 DW04 DW05 DW05 DW05 DW05
Sample Date 10/4/11 11/6/2012 4/30/13 10/4/11 5/14/12 11/5/2012 4/29/13
Unit Round 1 Round 3 Round 4 Round 1 Round 2 Round 3 Round 4
Dissolved Ag
Total Ag
Dissolved Al
Total Al
Dissolved As
Total As
Dissolved B
Total B
Dissolved Ba
Total Ba
Dissolved Be
Total Be
Dissolved Ca
Total Ca
Dissolved Cd
Total Cd
Dissolved Co
Total Co
Dissolved Cr
Total Cr
Dissolved Cu
Total Cu
Dissolved Fe
Total Fe
Dissolved Hg
Total Hg
Dissolved K
Total K
Dissolved Li
Total Li
Dissolved Mg
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
mg/L
mg/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
mg/L
mg/L
ug/L
ug/L
mg/L
<14U
<16U
<494U
<548U
<20U
<22U
<333U
<370U
268 J
263 J
<10U
<11U
35.1
34.5 J
<4U
<4U
<4U
<4U
<7U
<8U
30
33 J
<67U
<74U
NR
NR
1.25 J
1.27 J
NA
NA
6.15
<10U
<10U
<20U
<20U
<0.2U
<0.2U
<40U
13 J
195
173
<5 U
<2.5 U
22.9
21.8
<0.2U
<0.2U
<5 U
<2.5 U
<2U
<2U
11
15*
<100U
<50U
<0.2U
<0.2U
1.3
1.3
5J
4J
4.4
<10U
<10U
<20U
<20U
0.08 J
0.37 B
<40U
<20U
201
203
<5.0U
<2.5 U
24.0
24.1
<0.20 U
<0.20 U
<5.0U
<2.5 U
<2.0U
<2.0U
6.3
18*
<100U
<50U
<0.20 U
<0.20 U
1.3
1.4
<10U
<5 U
4.7
<14U
<16U
<494U
<548U
<20U
<22U
<333 U
<370U
39 J
39 J
<10U
<11U
4.18
4.27 J
<4U
<4U
<4U
<4U
<7U
<8U
<20U
<22U
<67U
<74U
NR
NR
0.63 J
0.68 J
NA
NA
0.27
<14U
<16U
<20.0 U
<20.0 U
1.3
1.3
<333U
<370U
31.3 J
31.9 J
<10U
<11U
3.69
3.63J
<1.0U
<1.0U
<4U
<4U
<2.0U
<2.0U
<2.0U
2.5 J
<67U
<74U
NR
NR
0.80 J
0.81 J
NR
NR
0.23
<10U
<10U
8J
79
1.8
2.0
<40U
17 J
34
49
<5 U
<2.5 U
4.1
3.8
<0.2U
<0.2U
<5 U
2.1 J
<2U
<2U
<0.5 U
14*
<100U
109
<0.2U
<0.2U
0.62
0.64
5J
4J
0.25
<10U
<10U
44 B
<20U
1.6
2.0 B
<40U
9.3 J
28
27
<5.0U
<2.5 U
3.4
3.4
<0.20 U
<0.20 U
<5.0U
<2.5 U
<2.0U
<2.0U
<0.50 U
1.0
<100U
33 J
<0.20 U
<0.20 U
0.57
0.64
<10U
4J
0.21
-------
B-32
Table B-3 Sample Results - Dissolved and Total Metals (Raton Basin, Colorado)
Parameter
Round 1 Round 2 Round 3 Round 4 Round 1 Round 2 Round 3
Sample DW06 DW06 DW06 DW06 DW07 DW07 DW07 DW07
Sample Date 10/6/11 5/16/12 11/8/2012 5/2/13 10/6/11 5/16/12 11/6/2012 5/1/13
Round 4
Dissolved Ag
Total Ag
Dissolved Al
Total Al
Dissolved As
Total As
Dissolved B
Total B
Dissolved Ba
Total Ba
Dissolved Be
Total Be
Dissolved Ca
Total Ca
Dissolved Cd
Total Cd
Dissolved Co
Total Co
Dissolved Cr
Total Cr
Dissolved Cu
Total Cu
Dissolved Fe
Total Fe
Dissolved Hg
Total Hg
Dissolved K
Total K
Dissolved Li
Total Li
Dissolved Mg
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
mg/L
mg/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
mg/L
mg/L
ug/L
ug/L
mg/L
<14U
<16U
<494U
<548U
<20U
<22U
<333U
<370U
41 J
31J
<10U
<11U
20.5
16. 1J
<4U
<4U
<4U
<4U
<7U
<8U
<20U
<22U
<67U
79 J
NR
NR
0.56 J
0.55 J
NA
NA
3.85
<14U
<16U
<20.0 U
<20.0 U
<1.0U
<1.0U
<333 U
<370U
17.1 J
18.3 J
<10U
<11U
12.1
12.4 J
<1.0U
<1.0U
<4U
<4U
<2.0U
<2.0U
<2.0U
<2.0U
<67U
26 J
NR
NR
0.56 J
0.56 J
NR
NR
2.24
<10U
<10U
11 J
49 B
<0.2U
<0.2U
51
48
19
20
<5 U
<2.5 U
14.6
14.1
<0.2U
<0.2U
<5 U
<2.5 U
<2U
<2U
<0.5 U
16 B
<100U
<50U
<0.2U
<0.2U
0.50
0.54
6J
6
2.3
1.1J
<10U
<20U
39 B
<0.20 U
0.29 B
61
54
18
18
0.1 J
<2.5 U
12.9
12.7
<0.20 U
<0.20 U
<5.0U
<2.5 U
<2.0U
<2.0U
<0.50 U
3.8*
<100U
31J
<0.20 U
<0.20 U
0.49 J
0.56
<10U
7
2.4
<14U
<16U
<494U
<548U
<20U
<22U
<333U
<370U
54 J
56 J
<10U
<11U
2.43
2.68 J
<4U
1J
<4U
<4U
<7U
<8U
<20U
8J
<67U
<74U
NR
NR
0.50 J
0.56 J
NA
NA
0.13
<14U
<16U
<20.0 U
<20.0 U
<1.0U
<1.0U
<333 U
<370U
54.7 J
56.0 J
<10U
<11U
2.57
2.55 J
<1.0U
<1.0U
<4U
<4U
<2.0U
<2.0U
<2.0U
<2.0U
<67U
<74U
NR
NR
0.60 J
0.51J
NR
NR
0.15
<10U
<10U
4J
<20U
<0.2U
<0.2U
89
59
50
45
<5U
<2.5 U
2.2
2.2
<0.2U
<0.2U
<5 U
<2.5 U
<2U
<2U
<0.5 U
0.5*
<100U
<50U
<0.2U
<0.2U
0.49 J
0.49
1J
1J
0.11
<10U
<10U
<20U
31 B
<0.20 U
0.28 B
67
66
48
47
<5.0U
<2.5U
2.0
1.9
<0.20 U
<0.20 U
<5.0U
<2.5 U
<2.0U
2.3 B
<0.50 U
4.4 *, B
<100U
<50U
<0.20 U
<0.20 U
0.46 J
0.52
<10U
<5 U
0.08
-------
B-33
Table B-3 Sample Results - Dissolved and Total Metals (Raton Basin, Colorado)
Parameter
Round 1 Round 2 Round 3 Round 4 Round 1 Round 2 Round 3
Sample DW08 DW08 DW08 DW08 DW09 DW09 DW09 DW09
Sample Date 10/5/11 5/16/12 11/7/2012 5/1/13 10/5/11 5/16/12 11/8/2012 5/1/13
Round 4
Dissolved Ag
Total Ag
Dissolved Al
Total Al
Dissolved As
Total As
Dissolved B
Total B
Dissolved Ba
Total Ba
Dissolved Be
Total Be
Dissolved Ca
Total Ca
Dissolved Cd
Total Cd
Dissolved Co
Total Co
Dissolved Cr
Total Cr
Dissolved Cu
Total Cu
Dissolved Fe
Total Fe
Dissolved Hg
Total Hg
Dissolved K
Total K
Dissolved Li
Total Li
Dissolved Mg
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
mg/L
mg/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
mg/L
mg/L
ug/L
ug/L
mg/L
<14U
<16U
<494U
<548U
<20U
<22U
<333U
<370U
20 J
20 J
<10U
<11U
6.55
6.52 J
<4U
<4U
<4U
<4U
<7U
<8U
<20U
<22U
<67U
<74U
NR
NR
0.26 J
0.35 J
NA
NA
0.15
<14U
<16U
<20.0 U
<20.0 U
<1.0U
<1.0U
<333 U
<370U
23. 6 J
23. 9 J
<10U
<11U
6.63
6.54 J
<1.0U
<1.0U
<4U
<4U
<2.0U
<2.0U
<2.0U
<2.0U
<67U
<74U
NR
NR
0.29J
0.32 J
NR
NR
0.15
<10U
<10U
5J
<20U
<0.2U
<0.2U
<40U
<20U
22
20
<5 U
<2.5 U
8.1
7.7
<0.2U
<0.2U
<5 U
<2.5 U
<2U
<2U
<0.5 U
1.6 *, B
<100U
<50U
<0.2U
<0.2U
0.56
0.56
4J
4J
0.12
<10U
<10U
41 B
66 B
0.05 J
0.28 B
42
39
21
20
<5.0U
<2.5 U
6.9
6.7
<0.20 U
<0.20 U
<5.0U
<2.5 U
<2.0U
<2.0U
0.9 B
17.3 *, B
<100U
8J
<0.20 U
<0.20 U
0.48 J
0.54
<10U
<5 U
0.13
<14U
<16U
<494U
361 J
<20U
<22U
<333U
<370U
49 J
69 J
<10U
<11U
73.9
75.7 J
<4U
<4U
<4U
<4U
<7U
<8U
<20U
<22U
21 J
412 J
NR
NR
0.58 J
0.70 J
NA
NA
1.07
<14U
<16U
<20.0 U
125
<1.0U
<1.0U
<333 U
<370U
31.4J
38.9 J
<10U
<11U
23.4
23. 5 J
<1.0U
<1.0U
<4U
<4U
<2.0U
<2.0U
<2.0U
<2.0U
<67U
108 J
NR
NR
0.51J
0.44 J
NR
NR
0.34
<10U
<10U
9J
101 B
<0.2U
<0.2U
56
54
34
47
<5U
<2.5 U
20.7
22.0
<0.2U
<0.2U
<5 U
<2.5 U
<2U
0.4 J
<0.5 U
0.5 B
<100U
120
<0.2U
<0.2U
0.42 J
0.46
4J
5
0.24
<10U
<10U
36 B
39 B
<0.20 U
0.31 B
52
52
46
45
<5.0U
<2.5U
34.7
32.8
<0.20 U
<0.20 U
<5.0U
<2.5 U
<2.0U
<2.0U
0.7 B
2.1 *, B
<100U
<50U
<0.20 U
<0.20 U
0.51
0.49
<10U
6
0.48
-------
B-34
Table B-3 Sample Results - Dissolved and Total Metals (Raton Basin, Colorado)
Parameter
Round 1 Round 2 Round 3 Round 4 Round 1 Round 2 Round 3
Sample DW10 DW10 DW10 DW10 DW11 DW11 DW11 DW11
Sample Date 10/5/11 5/17/12 11/8/2012 5/1/13 10/6/11 5/15/12 11/7/2012 4/29/13
Round 4
Dissolved Ag
Total Ag
Dissolved Al
Total Al
Dissolved As
Total As
Dissolved B
Total B
Dissolved Ba
Total Ba
Dissolved Be
Total Be
Dissolved Ca
Total Ca
Dissolved Cd
Total Cd
Dissolved Co
Total Co
Dissolved Cr
Total Cr
Dissolved Cu
Total Cu
Dissolved Fe
Total Fe
Dissolved Hg
Total Hg
Dissolved K
Total K
Dissolved Li
Total Li
Dissolved Mg
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
mg/L
mg/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
mg/L
mg/L
ug/L
ug/L
mg/L
<14U
<16U
<494U
<548U
<20U
<22U
<333U
<370U
25 J
26 J
<10U
<11U
3.94
4.03 J
<4U
<4U
<4U
<4U
<7U
<8U
<20U
<22U
<67U
36 J
NR
NR
0.22 J
0.29 J
NA
NA
0.05 J
<14U
<16U
69.9
287
<1.0U
<1.0U
<333 U
<370U
24. 2 J
27.9 J
<10U
<11U
3.76
3.86 J
<1.0U
<1.0U
<4U
<4U
<2.0U
<2.0U
<2.0U
<2.0U
38 J
231 J
NR
NR
0.29J
0.29J
NR
NR
0.04 J
<10U
<10U
8J
24 B
<0.2U
<0.2U
<40U
37
20
23
<5 U
<2.5 U
3.9
3.8
<0.2U
<0.2U
<5 U
2.2 J
<2U
0.6 J
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<100U
<50U
<0.2U
<0.2U
0.23 J
0.27
2J
2J
0.03 J
<10U
<10U
45 B
153 B
0.05 J
0.38 B
<40U
35
26
27
<5.0U
<2.5 U
4.2
4.1
<0.20 U
<0.20 U
<5.0U
<2.5 U
<2.0U
2.9 B
<0.50 U
15.1*, B
<100U
110
<0.20 U
<0.20 U
0.26J
0.33
<10U
<5 U
0.04 J
<14U
<16U
<494U
<548U
<20U
<22U
<333U
<370U
224 J
230 J
<10U
<11U
14.3
14.8 J
<4U
1J
<4U
<4U
<7U
<8U
<20U
9J
32 J
496 J
NR
NR
0.90 J
0.98 J
NA
NA
1.97
<14U
<16U
<20.0 U
<20.0 U
<1.0U
<1.0U
<333 U
<370U
275 J
282 J
<10U
<11U
18.0
17.7 J
<1.0U
<1.0U
<4U
<4U
<2.0U
<2.0U
3.7 J
4.7 J, B
534
744 J
NR
NR
1.13 J
1.03 J
NR
NR
2.62
<10U
<10U
3J
<20U
<0.2U
<0.2U
<40U
<20U
207
191
<5U
<2.5 U
13.3
12.7
<0.2U
<0.2U
<5 U
<2.5 U
<2U
<2U
2.6 B
3.5 *, B
<100U
<50U
<0.2U
<0.2U
0.88
0.87
5J
6
1.8
<10U
<10U
47 B
45 B
0.09 J
0.37 B
<40U
<20U
214
210
<5.0U
<2.5U
13.0
12.7
<0.20 U
<0.20 U
<5.0U
<2.5 U
<2.0U
<2.0U
7.6 B
8.5*
<100U
19 J
<0.20 U
<0.20 U
0.89
0.90
<10U
6
1.8
-------
B-35
Table B-3 Sample Results - Dissolved and Total Metals (Raton Basin, Colorado)
Parameter
Sample DW12 DW13 DW13 DW13 DW14 DW14 DW14
Sample Date 10/6/11 5/15/12 11/6/2012 4/30/13 5/17/12 11/8/2012 5/1/13
Unit Round 1 Round 2 Round 3 Round 4 Round 2 Round 3 Round 4
Dissolved Ag
Total Ag
Dissolved Al
Total Al
Dissolved As
Total As
Dissolved B
Total B
Dissolved Ba
Total Ba
Dissolved Be
Total Be
Dissolved Ca
Total Ca
Dissolved Cd
Total Cd
Dissolved Co
Total Co
Dissolved Cr
Total Cr
Dissolved Cu
Total Cu
Dissolved Fe
Total Fe
Dissolved Hg
Total Hg
Dissolved K
Total K
Dissolved Li
Total Li
Dissolved Mg
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
mg/L
mg/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
mg/L
mg/L
ug/L
ug/L
mg/L
<14U
<16U
<494U
<548U
<20U
<22U
<333U
<370U
140 J
138 J
<10U
<11U
6.94
6.93 J
<4U
<4U
<4U
<4U
<7U
<8U
<20U
<22U
28 J
28 J
NR
NR
0.68 J
0.73 J
NA
NA
0.45
<14U
<16U
<20.0 U
36.2
<1.0U
<1.0U
<333 U
<370U
90.1 J
93. 9 J
<10U
<11U
50.7
50.2 J
<1.0U
<1.0U
<4U
<4U
<2.0U
<2.0U
<2.0U
6.1 J, B
<67U
430 J
NR
NR
0.58J
0.65 J
NR
NR
8.88
<10U
<10U
<20U
46
<0.2U
<0.2U
<40U
8J
90
85
<5 U
<2.5 U
47.2
45.4
<0.2U
<0.2U
1.8 J
<2.5 U
<2U
<2U
0.6
5.9*
102
1400
<0.2U
<0.2U
0.69
0.69
1J
1J
8.0
1.0 J
<10U
46 B
69 B
<0.20 U
0.33 B
<40U
<20U
94
131
<5.0U
<2.5 U
52.7
48.6
<0.20 U
<0.20 U
1.2J
<2.5 U
<2.0U
78
3.5
3.1*
172
8190
<0.20 U
<0.20 U
0.67
0.84
<10U
<5 U
9.1
<14U
<16U
<20.0 U
29.0
<1.0U
<1.0U
<333U
<370U
26. 2 J
27.5 J
<10U
<11U
12.9
12.8 J
<1.0U
<1.0U
<4U
<4U
2.1
3.8
14.6 J
10.7 J
<67U
71 J
NR
NR
0.82 J
0.60 J
NR
NR
0.08 J
<10U
<10U
7J
36 B
<0.2U
0.3
<40U
34
24
26
<5 U
<2.5 U
13.1
12.6
<0.2U
<0.2U
<5 U
<2.5 U
0.5 J
1.1 J
1.8 B
2.6 B
<100U
<50U
<0.2U
<0.2U
0.65
0.68
4J
3J
0.07
<10U
<10U
40 B
53 B
0.12 J
0.44 B
<40U
34
29
29
<5.0U
<2.5 U
13.2
13.2
<0.20 U
<0.20 U
<5.0U
<2.5 U
<2.0U
<2.0U
1.5 B
3.3 *, B
<100U
41 J
<0.20 U
<0.20 U
0.63
0.63
<10U
<5 U
0.10
-------
B-36
Table B-3 Sample Results - Dissolved and Total Metals (Raton Basin, Colorado)
Parameter
Round 3 Round 1 Round 2 Round 3 Round 4 Round 1 Round 2 Round 3
Sample DW15 PW01 PW01 PW01 PW01 PW02 PW03 PW03 PW03
Sample Date 11/8/2012 10/3/11 5/14/12 11/5/2012 4/29/13 10/3/11 5/14/12 11/5/2012 4/29/13
Round 4
Dissolved Ag
Total Ag
Dissolved Al
Total Al
Dissolved As
Total As
Dissolved B
Total B
Dissolved Ba
Total Ba
Dissolved Be
Total Be
Dissolved Ca
Total Ca
Dissolved Cd
Total Cd
Dissolved Co
Total Co
Dissolved Cr
Total Cr
Dissolved Cu
Total Cu
Dissolved Fe
Total Fe
Dissolved Hg
Total Hg
Dissolved K
Total K
Dissolved Li
Total Li
Dissolved Mg
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
mg/L
mg/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
mg/L
mg/L
ug/L
ug/L
mg/L
<10U
<10U
16 J
26 B
<0.2U
0.2
<40U
26
34
38
<5 U
<2.5 U
22.9
22.4
<0.2U
<0.2U
<5 U
<2.5 U
<2U
<2U
3. IB
6.4 B
<100U
NRZ
<0.2U
<0.2U
2.4
2.4
7J
7
3.4
<14U
<16U
<494U
<548U
<20U
<22U
<333 U
<370U
485 J
486 J
<10U
<11U
2.37
2.47 J
<4U
<4U
<4U
<4U
<7U
<8U
<20U
<22U
2110
2270 J
NR
NR
2.25 J
2.36 J
NA
NA
<0.10 U
<14U
<16U
<20.0 U
<20.0 U
<1.0U
<1.0U
<333U
<370U
561 J
589 J
<10U
<11U
2.53
2.56 J
<1.0U
<1.0U
<4U
<4U
<2.0U
<2.0U
5.7J
6.4 J
2040
2270 J
NR
NR
3.38J
2.97 J
NR
NR
0.75
<10U
<10U
<20U
20
0.3
0.4
<40U
37
632
572
<5 U
<2.5 U
2.7
2.5
<0.2U
<0.2U
2.3 J
<2.5 U
<2U
0.9 J
<0.5 U
2.2*
1900.00
2070
<0.2U
<0.2U
2.6
2.6
32
31
0.79
<10U
<10U
<20U
25 B
0.27
0.63 B
43
33 J
635
630
<5.0U
<2.5 U
2.7
2.7
<0.20 U
0.16 J
<5.0U
0.8 J
<2.0U
<2.0U
<0.50 U
2.5
1950.0
2180
<0.20 U
<0.20 U
2.6
2.7
33
33
0.82
<14U
<16U
<494U
<548U
<20U
<22U
219 J
217 J
53 J
53 J
<10U
<11U
3.30
3.36 J
<4U
<4U
<4U
<4U
<7U
3J
<20U
21 J
2690
3820 J
NR
NR
0.43 J
0.54 J
NA
NA
0.07 J
<14U
<16U
<20.0 U
<20.0 U
<1.0U
1.1
291 J
292 J
243 J
244 J
<10U
<11U
7.50
7.38 J
<1.0U
<1.0U
<4U
<4U
<2.0U
3.8
11.5 J
20.5 J
11300
12200 J
NR
NR
1.37 J
1.32 J
NR
NR
0.32
<10U
<10U
<20U
<20
0.6
0.8
290
280
300
281
<5 U
<2.5U
7.6
7.3
<0.2U
<0.2U
1.7 J
<2.5 U
<2U
1.1 J
<0.5 U
6.9
9760.00
NRZ
<0.2U
<0.2U
0.81
0.81
49
48
0.32
<10U
<10U
<20U
<20U
0.38
0.70 B
310
300 J
103
100
<5.0U
<2.5 U
6.5
6.5
<0.20 U
<0.20 U
<5.0U
<2.5 U
<2.0U
<2.0U
<0.50 U
13.9
2040.00
2240
<0.20 U
<0.20 U
0.88
0.98
45
46
0.28
-------
B-37
Table B-3 Sample Results - Dissolved and Total Metals (Raton Basin, Colorado)
Parameter
Sample SW01 SW01 SW01 SW01 SW02 SW02 SW02
Sample Date 10/4/11 5/14/12 11/7/2012 4/30/13 5/14/12 11/6/2012 4/30/13
Unit Round 1 Round 2 Round 3 Round 4 Round 2 Round 3 Round 4
Dissolved Ag
Total Ag
Dissolved Al
Total Al
Dissolved As
Total As
Dissolved B
Total B
Dissolved Ba
Total Ba
Dissolved Be
Total Be
Dissolved Ca
Total Ca
Dissolved Cd
Total Cd
Dissolved Co
Total Co
Dissolved Cr
Total Cr
Dissolved Cu
Total Cu
Dissolved Fe
Total Fe
Dissolved Hg
Total Hg
Dissolved K
Total K
Dissolved Li
Total Li
Dissolved Mg
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
mg/L
mg/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
mg/L
mg/L
ug/L
ug/L
mg/L
<14U
<16U
<494U
204 J
<20U
<22U
135 J
139 J
58 J
60 J
<10U
<11U
9.42
9.58 J
<4U
<4U
2J
<4U
<7U
<8U
<20U
<22U
52J
159 J
NR
NR
1.42 J
1.58 J
NA
NA
5.77
<14U
<16U,J-
<20.0 U
810
<1.0U
<1.0U
114 J
116 J
95. 9 J
123 J
<10U
<11U
13.9
14.7 J
<1.0U
<1.0U
<4U
<4U
<2.0U
<2.0U
7.9 J
5.5 J
22 J
1450 J
NR
NR
2.01 J
2.33 J
NR
NR
5.37
<10U
<10U
19 J
144 B
0.4
0.4
127
131
105
119
<5 U
<2.5 U
14.8
14.5
<0.2U
<0.2U
<5 U
<2.5 U
0.3 J
<2U
1.6 B
0.9 B
<100U
187 B
<0.2U
<0.2U
1.7
1.7
43
43
4.4
<10U
<10U
<20U
329 B
0.47
0.64 B
117
118 J
117
123
<5.0U
<2.5 U
12.7
12.8
<0.20 U
<0.20 U
<5.0U
<2.5 U
<2.0U
<2.0U
0.5
0.98
76 J
476
<0.20 U
<0.20 U
1.5
1.7
36
36
4.7
<14U
<16U
<20.0 U
693
<1.0U
<1.0U
<333U
<370U
116 J
135 J
<10U
<11U
25.9
27. 1J
<1.0U
<1.0U
<4U
<4U
<2.0U
<2.0U
11.0 J
5.3J
<67U
1020 J
NR
NR
2.73 J
2.84 J
NR
NR
10.9
<10U
<10U
7J
72
0.3
0.4
95
90
121
112
<5 U
<2.5 U
33.8
31.9
<0.2U
<0.2U
1.7 J
<2.5 U
<2U
<2U
0.6
3.5*
136
150
<0.2U
<0.2U
2.4
2.4
26
25
12
<10U
<10U
<20U
57 B
0.43
0.58 B
114
98 J
124
118
<5.0U
<2.5 U
32.3
32.3
<0.20 U
<0.20 U
<5.0U
<2.5 U
<2.0U
<2.0U
0.5 J
0.74
<100U
163
<0.20 U
<0.20 U
2.3
2.4
22
23
12
-------
B-38
Table B-3 Sample Results - Dissolved and Total Metals (Raton Basin, Colorado)
Parameter
Round 2 Round 3
Sample SW03 SW03 SW03
Sample Date 5/15/12 11/6/2012 4/30/13
Round 4
Dissolved Ag
Total Ag
Dissolved Al
Total Al
Dissolved As
Total As
Dissolved B
Total B
Dissolved Ba
Total Ba
Dissolved Be
Total Be
Dissolved Ca
Total Ca
Dissolved Cd
Total Cd
Dissolved Co
Total Co
Dissolved Cr
Total Cr
Dissolved Cu
Total Cu
Dissolved Fe
Total Fe
Dissolved Hg
Total Hg
Dissolved K
Total K
Dissolved Li
Total Li
Dissolved Mg
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
mg/L
mg/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
mg/L
mg/L
ug/L
ug/L
mg/L
<14U
<16U
<20.0 U
29.0
2.1
1.5
176 J
179 J
281 J
287 J
<10U
<11U
2.91
2.64 J
<1.0U
<1.0U
<4U
<4U
<2.0U
<2.0U
7.6 J
5.7 J, B
647
645 J
NR
NR
2.05 J
1.74 J
NR
NR
0.33
<10U
<10U
3J
31
0.4
0.5
134
138
264
257
<5 U
<2.5 U
2.4
2.3
<0.2U
<0.2U
2.7 J
<2.5 U
0.4 J
4.8
<0.5 U
1.4*
423.00
111
<0.2U
<0.2U
1.6
1.7
51
54
0.31
<10U
<10U
<20U
<20U
0.26
0.26 B
176
92 J
352
249
<5.0U
<2.5 U
2.5
2.1
<0.20 U
<0.20 U
<5.0U
0.8 J
<2.0U
<2.0U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
594.00
413
<0.20 U
<0.20 U
2.0
1.9
81
45
0.34
-------
B-39
Table B-3 Sample Results - Dissolved and Total Metals (Raton Basin, Colorado)
Parameter
Round 1 Round 2 Round 3 Round 4 Round 1 Round 2 Round 3
Sample MW01 MW01 MW01 MW01 MW02 MW02 MW02 MW02
Sample Date 10/3/11 5/15/12 11/5/2012 4/29/13 10/4/11 5/15/12 11/6/2012 4/30/13
Round 4
Total Mg
Dissolved Mn
Total Mn
Dissolved Mo
Total Mo
Dissolved Na
Total Na
Dissolved Ni
Total Ni
Dissolved P
Total P
Dissolved Pb
Total Pb
Dissolved S
Total S
Dissolved Sb
Total Sb
Dissolved Se
Total Se
Dissolved Si
Total Si
Dissolved Sr
Total Sr
Dissolved Th
Total Th
Dissolved Ti
Total Ti
Dissolved TI
Total TI
Dissolved U
Total U
mg/L
Mg/L
MgA
MgA
MgA
mg/L
mg/L
Mi/L
Mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
4.34 J
281
292 J
5J
<19U
44 J
45 J
<84U
<93 U
<0.06 U
<0.07 U
<17U
<19U
34.2 J
31.7 J
R
R
<30U
<33 U
4.38 J
4.41 J
1160
1250 J
NA
NA
<7U
<8U
<17U
<19U
<50U
<56U
4.40 J
282
286
<1.0U
<1.0U
45. 6 J-
45. 6 J-
<1.0U
<1.0U
<0.06 U
<0.07 U
<1.0U
<1.0U
33. 6 J-
31.7 J
<2.0U
<2.0U
<5.0U, J-
R
4.47 J
4.19J
1190
1240 J
R
0.06 J
<7U
<8U
<1.0U
<1.0U
R
<1.0U
4.0
287
260
0.8
0.8
48
46
1.3
1.7*
<0.05 U
<0.03 U
<0.2U
<0.2U
NR
NR
<0.2U
<0.2U
<2U
<2U
4.5
4.4
1270
1120
<0.2U
<0.2U
<5 U
<2.5 U
<0.2U
<0.2U
<0.2U
<0.2U
4.3
260
278*
0.78
0.82
48
45
1.2 B
1.8
<0.05 U
<0.03 U
<0.20 U
<0.20 U
NR
NR
<0.20 U
<0.20 U
<2.0U
<2.0U
4.3
4.1
1170
1220
<0.20 U
<0.20 U
0.2 J
<2.5 U
<0.20 U
<0.20 U
<0.20 U
<0.20 U
1.35 J
26
27 J
13 J
16 J
98 J
95 J
<84U
<93 U
<0.06 U
<0.07 U
<17U
<19U
25. 1J
19.9 J
R
R
<30U
<33 U
3.00J
3.19J
185
183 J
NA
NA
<7U
<8U
<17U
<19U
<50U
<56U
1.10 J
25
26 J
13.6
13.0
96.4 J-
97.6 J-
<1.0U
<1.0U
<0.06 U
<0.07 U
<1.0U
<1.0U, J-
23.4 J-
19.6 J
<2.0U
<2.0U
<5.0U
<5.0U
3.08J
3.11J
157
162 J
<1.0U
0.22 J-
<7U
<8U
<1.0U
<1.0U
<1.0U
<1.0U
0.89
17
17
14
14 B
100
95
0.20 B
0.38 *, B
<0.05 U
<0.03 U
<0.2U
0.14J
NR
NR
<0.2U
<0.2U
<2U
<2U
3.2
3.3
150
151
<0.2U
<0.2U
<5U
<2.5 U
<0.2U
<0.2U
0.15 J
<0.2U
0.76
16
16
14
15
103
102
0.16 J
0.40
<0.05 U
<0.03 U
<0.20 U
<0.20 U
NR
NR
<0.20 U
<0.20 U
<2.0U
<2.0U
3.2
3.2
136
137
<0.20 U
<0.20 U
0.7 J
1.3 J
<0.20 U
<0.20 U
0.12 J
0.12 J
-------
B-40
Table B-3 Sample Results - Dissolved and Total Metals (Raton Basin, Colorado)
Parameter
Round 1 Round 2 Round 3 Round 4 Round 1 Round 1 Round 1
Sample MW03 MW03 MW03 MW03 MW04 MW05 DW01 DW01
Sample Date 10/4/11 5/15/12 11/7/2012 5/1/13 10/5/11 10/5/11 10/3/11 5/15/12
Round 2
Total Mg
Dissolved Mn
Total Mn
Dissolved Mo
Total Mo
Dissolved Na
Total Na
Dissolved Ni
Total Ni
Dissolved P
Total P
Dissolved Pb
Total Pb
Dissolved S
Total S
Dissolved Sb
Total Sb
Dissolved Se
Total Se
Dissolved Si
Total Si
Dissolved Sr
Total Sr
Dissolved Th
Total Th
Dissolved Ti
Total Ti
Dissolved TI
Total TI
Dissolved U
Total U
mg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
mg/L
mg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
mg/L
mg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
mg/L
mg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
mg/L
mg/L
UgA
UgA
UgA
UgA
UgA
UgA
UgA
UgA
UgA
UgA
0.36 J
25
50 J
6J
<19U
167 J
164 J
<84U
<93U
0.39 J
<0.07 U
<17U
<19U
1.46 J
1.17 J
R
R
<30U
<33U
3.99J
6.57 J
152
166 J
NA
NA
<7U
27 J
<17U
<19U
<50U
<56U
0.23 J
23
22 J
2.1
2.1
162 J-
159 J-
6.9
8.9
<0.06 U
0.02 J
1.9 J
2.7 J,*
0.39 J-
0.64 J
2.3 B
3.5 B
<5.0U
<5.0U
4.63 J
4.83 J
138
146 J
<1.0U
0.25 J-
10
8J
<1.0U
<1.0U
<1.0U
<1.0U
0.23
19
36
1.8
1.7
168
175
4.3 B
3.9 *, B
0.09
0.02 J
0.14J
1.8
NR
NR
2.2
0.5
<2U
<2U
4.0
5.6
141
146
<0.2U
0.14J
<5 U
7
<0.2U
<0.2U
<0.2U
<0.2U
0.18
8.5
17
1.6
1.8
169
163
3.8
6.2
<0.05 U
<0.03 U
0.24
1.6
NR
NR
2.7
3.0
<2.0U
<2.0U
4.1
4.3
147
152
<0.20 U
<0.20 U
1.0 J
3.3
<0.20 U
<0.20 U
0.09 J
0.10 J
0.04 J
6J
9J
<17U
<19U
115 J
118 J
<84U
<93U
<0.06 U
<0.07 U
<17U
<19U
69.6 J
44.4 J
R
R
<30U
<33 U
4.78 J
5.11J
99
109 J
NA
NA
<7U
<8U
<17U
<19U
<50U
<56U
0.40 J
32
95 J
5J
<19U
90 J
90 J
<84U
<93 U
<0.06 U
0.03 J
<17U
<19U
455 J
16.0 J
R
R
10 J
<33 U
4.72 J
9.86 J
41
59 J
NA
NA
<7U
74 J
<17U
<19U
<50U
<56U
9.94 J
<14U
<16U
<17U
<19U
13 J
13 J
<84U
<93 U
<0.06 U
<0.07 U
<17U
<19U
7.61 J
6.69 J
R
R
<30U
<33 U
4.83 J
4.71 J
366
395 J
NA
NA
<7U
<8U
<17U
<19U
16 J
<56U
10.3 J
<14U
<16U
<1.0U
<1.0U
11.5 J-
12.0 J-
1.5
<1.0U
<0.06 U
<0.07 U
<1.0U
<1.0U, J-
7.05 J-
6.85 J
<2.0U
<2.0U
R
<5.0U
4.70 J
4.55 J
364
372 J
R
<1.0U,J-
<7U
<8U
<1.0U
<1.0U
1.8 J-
1.5 J-
-------
B-41
Table B-3 Sample Results - Dissolved and Total Metals (Raton Basin, Colorado)
Parameter
Round 1 Round 2 Round 3 Round 4 Round 1 Round 2 Round 3
Sample DW02 DW02 DW02 DW02 DW03 DW03 DW03 DW03
Sample Date 10/3/11 5/14/12 11/5/2012 4/29/13 10/3/11 5/15/12 11/5/2012 4/30/13
Round 4
Total Mg
Dissolved Mn
Total Mn
Dissolved Mo
Total Mo
Dissolved Na
Total Na
Dissolved Ni
Total Ni
Dissolved P
Total P
Dissolved Pb
Total Pb
Dissolved S
Total S
Dissolved Sb
Total Sb
Dissolved Se
Total Se
Dissolved Si
Total Si
Dissolved Sr
Total Sr
Dissolved Th
Total Th
Dissolved Ti
Total Ti
Dissolved TI
Total TI
Dissolved U
Total U
mg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
mg/L
mg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
mg/L
mg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
mg/L
mg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
mg/L
mg/L
UgA
UgA
UgA
UgA
UgA
UgA
UgA
UgA
UgA
UgA
1.53 J
<14U
191 J
8J
<19U
83 J
84 J
<84U
<93U
<0.06 U
<0.07 U
<17U
<19U
21.4 J
20. 1J
R
R
<30U
<33U
3.05J
3.32J
358
421 J
NA
NA
<7U
<8U
<17U
<19U
<50U
<56U
1.70 J
<14U
226 J
<1.0U
1.2
87.1 J-
85. OJ-
<1.0U
<1.0U
<0.06 U
<0.07 U
1.6 J
2.3 J
25. OJ-
22.9 J
<2.0U
<2.0U
R
R
3.29J
3.10J
495
468 J
R
<1.0U
<7U
<8U
<1.0U
<1.0U
<1.0U,J-
<1.0U
1.5
4J
11
1.5
1.4
87
84
0.44
0.70*
<0.05 U
<0.03 U
0.48
0.52
NR
NR
<0.2U
<0.2U
<2U
0.8 J
3.4
3.5
399
413
<0.2U
0.09 J
<5 U
<2.5 U
<0.2U
0.08 J
<0.2U
<0.2U
1.4
2.8 J
47*
1.5
1.2
87
84
0.77 B
0.68
<0.05 U
0.003 J
0.25
0.53
NR
NR
0.06 J
<0.20 U
<2.0U
<2.0U
3.2
3.1
396
417
<0.20 U
0.29*
<5.0U
<2.5 U
<0.20 U
<0.20 U
<0.20 U
0.12 J
12.0 J
<14U
<16U
<17U
<19U
30 J
30 J
<84U
<93U
<0.06 U
<0.07 U
<17U
<19U
22. 1J
20.0 J
R
R
<30U
<33U
4.57 J
4.54 J
547
567 J
NA
NA
<7U
<8U
<17U
<19U
<50U
<56U
12.1 J
<14U
<16U
<1.0U
<1.0U
26.3 J-
27.4 J-
<1.0U
<1.0U
<0.06 U
<0.07 U
<1.0U
<1.0U
21.2 J-
18.6 J
<2.0U
<2.0U
<5.0U, J-
<5.0U, J-
4.69 J
4.43 J
534
569 J
R
<1.0U
<7U
<8U
<1.0U
<1.0U
<1.0U, J-
<1.0U
11
0.3 J
<2.5 U
0.5
0.6
36
33
1.6
2.9*
<0.05 U
<0.03 U
0.18 J
0.28
NR
NR
<0.2U
<0.2U
1.6 J
2.5
4.4
4.4
576
529
<0.2U
<0.2U
<5 U
0.3 J
<0.2U
0.15 J
0.42
0.43
13
0.4 J
<2.5 U
<0.50 U
0.52
30
29
1.4
1.4
<0.05 U
<0.03 U
1.6
1.8
NR
NR
<0.20 U
0.06 J
2.2
2.5
4.3
4.2
582
564
<0.20 U
<0.20 U
<5.0U
0.5 J
<0.20 U
<0.20 U
0.42
0.42
-------
B-42
Table B-3 Sample Results - Dissolved and Total Metals (Raton Basin, Colorado)
Parameter
Sample DW04 DW04 DW04 DW05 DW05 DW05 DW05
Sample Date 10/4/11 11/6/2012 4/30/13 10/4/11 5/14/12 11/5/2012 4/29/13
Unit Round 1 Round 3 Round 4 Round 1 Round 2 Round 3 Round 4
Total Mg
Dissolved Mn
Total Mn
Dissolved Mo
Total Mo
Dissolved Na
Total Na
Dissolved Ni
Total Ni
Dissolved P
Total P
Dissolved Pb
Total Pb
Dissolved S
Total S
Dissolved Sb
Total Sb
Dissolved Se
Total Se
Dissolved Si
Total Si
Dissolved Sr
Total Sr
Dissolved Th
Total Th
Dissolved Ti
Total Ti
Dissolved TI
Total TI
Dissolved U
Total U
mg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
mg/L
mg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
mg/L
mg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
mg/L
mg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
mg/L
mg/L
UgA
UgA
UgA
UgA
UgA
UgA
UgA
UgA
UgA
UgA
6.01 J
<14U
<16U
<17U
<19U
52J
50 J
<84U
<93U
<0.06 U
<0.07 U
<17U
<19U
14.0 J
12.6 J
R
R
<30U
<33U
4.78 J
4.59 J
1130
1130 J
NA
NA
<7U
<8U
<17U
<19U
<50U
<56U
4.2
3J
2.4 J
0.5
0.6 B
67
63
0.84 B
2.0 *, B
0.02 J
<0.03 U
0.68
0.37
NR
NR
<0.2U
<0.2U
<2U
<2U
4.7
4.7
797
722
<0.2U
<0.2U
<5 U
<2.5 U
<0.2U
<0.2U
<0.2U
<0.2U
4.7
4.8 J
6.2*
0.54
0.56
66
63
2.4
1.3
<0.05 U
<0.03 U
0.44
0.90
NR
NR
0.06 J
<0.20 U
<2.0U
<2.0U
4.6
4.4
808
834
<0.20 U
<0.20 U
<5.0U
<2.5 U
<0.20 U
<0.20 U
<0.20 U
<0.20 U
0.28 J
20
22 J
<17U
<19U
123 J
124 J
<84U
<93 U
<0.06 U
<0.07 U
<17U
<19U
19.8 J
17.9 J
R
R
<30U
<33 U
4.75 J
5.00 J
100
106 J
NA
NA
<7U
<8U
<17U
<19U
<50U
<56U
0.24 J
8J
8J
1.2
1.1
120 J-
118 J-
<1.0U
<1.0U
0.02 J
<0.07 U
<1.0U
<1.0U
17.3 J-
16. 1J
<2.0U
<2.0U
R
R
4.68 J
4.71 J
86.8
89.3 J
R
<1.0U
<7U
<8U
<1.0U
<1.0U
<1.0U, J-
<1.0U
0.26
14
14
1.4
1.3
136
122
0.28
0.36*
<0.05 U
0.02 J
<0.2U
1.0
NR
NR
<0.2U
<0.2U
<2U
<2U
5.2
5.4
99
102
<0.2U
<0.2U
<5 U
1J
<0.2U
<0.2U
0.17 J
0.16 J
0.21
7.0
7.8*
1.2
1.1
121
119
0.32 B
0.25
<0.05 U
<0.03 U
<0.20 U
<0.20 U
NR
NR
<0.20 U
0.06 J
<2.0U
<2.0U
4.7
4.8
81.8
82
<0.20 U
<0.20 U
<5.0U
<2.5 U
<0.20 U
<0.20 U
<0.20 U
0.16 J
-------
B-43
Table B-3 Sample Results - Dissolved and Total Metals (Raton Basin, Colorado)
Parameter
Round 1 Round 2 Round 3 Round 4 Round 1 Round 2 Round 3
Sample DW06 DW06 DW06 DW06 DW07 DW07 DW07 DW07
Sample Date 10/6/11 5/16/12 11/8/2012 5/2/13 10/6/11 5/16/12 11/6/2012 5/1/13
Round 4
Total Mg
Dissolved Mn
Total Mn
Dissolved Mo
Total Mo
Dissolved Na
Total Na
Dissolved Ni
Total Ni
Dissolved P
Total P
Dissolved Pb
Total Pb
Dissolved S
Total S
Dissolved Sb
Total Sb
Dissolved Se
Total Se
Dissolved Si
Total Si
Dissolved Sr
Total Sr
Dissolved Th
Total Th
Dissolved Ti
Total Ti
Dissolved TI
Total TI
Dissolved U
Total U
mg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
mg/L
mg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
mg/L
mg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
mg/L
mg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
mg/L
mg/L
UgA
UgA
UgA
UgA
UgA
UgA
UgA
UgA
UgA
UgA
3.06J
9J
8J
<17U
<19U
98 J
97 J
<84U
<93U
<0.06 U
<0.07 U
<17U
<19U
161 J
20.7 J
R
R
<30U
<33U
9.30 J
9.47 J
679
567 J
NA
NA
<7U
<8U
<17U
<19U
<50U
<56U
2.17 J
<14U
<16U
21.2
30.4
101 J-
101 J-
<1.0U
<1.0U
<0.06 U
<0.07 U
<1.0U
<1.0U
143 J-
18.3 J
<2.0U
<2.0U
R
<5.0U, J-
9.50 J
9.24 J
428
450 J
R
<1.0U
<7U
<8U
<1.0U
<1.0U
R
R
2.7
4J
5.0
8.0
13
90
90
0.78
0.77 B
<0.05 U
<0.03 U
<0.2U
0.18 J
NR
NR
<0.2U
<0.2U
<2U
<2U
8.6
8.9
464
445
<0.2U
<0.2U
<5 U
2J
<0.2U
<0.2U
<0.2U
<0.2U
2.3
3.1J
3.5*
0.64
1.6
104
103
0.38
2.2
<0.05 U
0.006 J
<0.20 U
0.36
NR
NR
<0.20 U
<0.20 U
<2.0U
<2.0U
9.6
9.3
428
439
<0.20 U
<0.20 U
<5.0U
<2.5 U
<0.20 U
<0.20 U
<0.20 U
0.06 J
0.16 J
<14U
<16U
<17U
<19U
129 J
131 J
<84U
<93U
<0.06 U
<0.07 U
<17U
<19U
26.9 J
23.7 J
R
R
<30U
<33 U
4.58 J
4.91 J
86
96 J
NA
NA
<7U
3J
<17U
<19U
<50U
<56U
<0.11U
<14U
<16U
1.8
2.3
127 J-
126 J-
<1.0U
<1.0U
<0.06 U
<0.07 U
<1.0U
<1.0U
24.8 J-
21.4 J
<2.0U
<2.0U
R
R
4.71 J
4.71 J
89.4
93. 8 J
<1.0U,J-
<1.0U
<7U
<8U
<1.0U
<1.0U
R
R
0.13
2J
1.8 J
2.3
2.3 B
135
122
<0.2U
0.16*, J
<0.05 U
<0.03 U
<0.2U
0.20
NR
NR
<0.2U
<0.2U
<2U
<2U
4.8
4.9
79
84
<0.2U
<0.2U
<5 U
<2.5 U
<0.2U
<0.2U
<0.2U
<0.2U
0.08
1.4 J
<2.5 U
2.0
2.3
127
126
<0.20 U
2.2
<0.05 U
<0.03 U
<0.20 U
0.30
NR
NR
<0.20 U
<0.20 U
<2.0U
<2.0U
4.6
4.6
69.1
72
<0.20 U
<0.20 U
<5.0U
<2.5 U
<0.20 U
<0.20 U
<0.20 U
0.07 J
-------
B-44
Table B-3 Sample Results - Dissolved and Total Metals (Raton Basin, Colorado)
Parameter
Round 1 Round 2 Round 3 Round 4 Round 1 Round 2 Round 3
Sample DW08 DW08 DW08 DW08 DW09 DW09 DW09 DW09
Sample Date 10/5/11 5/16/12 11/7/2012 5/1/13 10/5/11 5/16/12 11/8/2012 5/1/13
Round 4
Total Mg
Dissolved Mn
Total Mn
Dissolved Mo
Total Mo
Dissolved Na
Total Na
Dissolved Ni
Total Ni
Dissolved P
Total P
Dissolved Pb
Total Pb
Dissolved S
Total S
Dissolved Sb
Total Sb
Dissolved Se
Total Se
Dissolved Si
Total Si
Dissolved Sr
Total Sr
Dissolved Th
Total Th
Dissolved Ti
Total Ti
Dissolved TI
Total TI
Dissolved U
Total U
mg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
mg/L
mg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
mg/L
mg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
mg/L
mg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
mg/L
mg/L
UgA
UgA
UgA
UgA
UgA
UgA
UgA
UgA
UgA
UgA
0.14J
<14U
6J
<17U
<19U
136 J
134 J
<84U
<93U
<0.06 U
<0.07 U
<17U
<19U
151 J
40.4 J
R
R
<30U
<33U
6.41 J
6.81 J
175
180 J
NA
NA
<7U
<8U
<17U
<19U
<50U
<56U
<0.11U
7J
5J
<1.0U
<1.0U
129 J-
128 J-
<1.0U
<1.0U
<0.06 U
<0.07 U
<1.0U
<1.0U
143 J-
31.4J
<2.0U
<2.0U
R
R
6.43 J
6.44 J
167
173 J
<1.0U,J-
<1.0U
<7U
<8U
<1.0U
<1.0U
<1.0U,J-
R
0.13
7
6.7
0.4 J
1.1
142
140
0.26 B
0.50*
<0.05 U
<0.03 U
<0.2U
0.06 J
NR
NR
<0.2U
<0.2U
<2U
<2U
6.6
6.8
175
186
<0.2U
<0.2U
<5 U
<2.5 U
<0.2U
<0.2U
<0.2U
<0.2U
0.12
5.7
5.7*
0.82
1.0
139
137
0.51 B
0.52
<0.05 U
<0.03 U
<0.20 U
<0.20 U
NR
NR
<0.20 U
<0.20 U
<2.0U
0.45 J
6.5
6.4
165
168
0.36 B
0.34 *, B
<5.0U
<2.5 U
<0.20 U
<0.20 U
<0.20 U
<0.20 U
1.18 J
54
65 J
<17U
<19U
185 J
185 J
<84U
<93U
<0.06 U
<0.07 U
<17U
<19U
206 J
138 J
R
R
<30U
<33U
4.85 J
5.60J
1770
1890 J
NA
NA
<7U
10 J
<17U
<19U
20 J
<56U
0.19 J
9J
8J
<1.0U
<1.0U
139 J-
140 J-
<1.0U
<1.0U
<0.06 U
<0.07 U
<1.0U
<1.0U
297 J-
58.3 J
<2.0U
<2.0U
<5.0U, J-
<5.0U, J-
4.86 J
5.12J
560
597 J
<1.0U,J-
<1.0U
<7U
5J
<1.0U
<1.0U
<1.0U,J-
R
0.34
7
12
0.8 B
1.4
147
146
0.70
1.1 B
<0.05 U
<0.03 U
<0.2U
0.08 J
NR
NR
<0.2U
<0.2U
<2U
<2U
4.7
5.3
499
524
<0.2U
<0.2U
<5 U
3
<0.2U
<0.2U
<0.2U
<0.2U
0.46
13
12*
0.72
1.3
160
155
1.4 B
1.4
<0.05 U
<0.03 U
<0.20 U
<0.20 U
NR
NR
<0.20 U
<0.20 U
0.7 J
0.49 J
4.9
4.8
778
783
<0.20 U
<0.20 U
<5.0U
<2.5 U
<0.20 U
<0.20 U
<0.20 U
<0.20 U
-------
B-45
Table B-3 Sample Results - Dissolved and Total Metals (Raton Basin, Colorado)
Parameter
Round 1 Round 2 Round 3 Round 4 Round 1 Round 2 Round 3
Sample DW10 DW10 DW10 DW10 DW11 DW11 DW11 DW11
Sample Date 10/5/11 5/17/12 11/8/2012 5/1/13 10/6/11 5/15/12 11/7/2012 4/29/13
Round 4
Total Mg
Dissolved Mn
Total Mn
Dissolved Mo
Total Mo
Dissolved Na
Total Na
Dissolved Ni
Total Ni
Dissolved P
Total P
Dissolved Pb
Total Pb
Dissolved S
Total S
Dissolved Sb
Total Sb
Dissolved Se
Total Se
Dissolved Si
Total Si
Dissolved Sr
Total Sr
Dissolved Th
Total Th
Dissolved Ti
Total Ti
Dissolved TI
Total TI
Dissolved U
Total U
mg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
mg/L
mg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
mg/L
mg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
mg/L
mg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
mg/L
mg/L
UgA
UgA
UgA
UgA
UgA
UgA
UgA
UgA
UgA
UgA
0.06 J
<14U
<16U
12 J
<19U
105 J
106 J
<84U
<93U
<0.06 U
<0.07 U
<17U
<19U
681 J
40.0 J
R
R
18 J
<33U
4.90 J
5.47 J
90
93 J
NA
NA
3J
<8U
<17U
<19U
<50U
<56U
<0.11U
<14U
<16U
<1.0U
<1.0U
103 J-
105 J-
<1.0U
<1.0U
<0.06 U
<0.07 U
<1.0U
<1.0U
471 J-
36.7 J
<2.0U
<2.0U
<5.0U, J-
<5.0U, J-
5.08 J
5.84 J
82.3
87.0 J
R
0.07 J
<7U
8J
<1.0U
<1.0U
R
R
0.05
2J
<2.5 U
1.1 B
2.6
108
107
0.24
0.26 B
<0.05 U
<0.03 U
<0.2U
0.07 J
NR
NR
<0.2U
<0.2U
0.7 J
<2U
4.9
5.2
86
104
<0.2U
<0.2U
<5 U
0.3 J
<0.2U
<0.2U
<0.2U
<0.2U
0.07
3.0 J
4.9*
0.76
1.9
111
109
0.30 B
1.1
<0.05 U
<0.03 U
<0.20 U
1.1
NR
NR
<0.20 U
<0.20 U
<2.0U
<2.0U
4.9
5.0
94.2
95
<0.20 U
<0.20 U
<5.0U
5.0
<0.20 U
<0.20 U
<0.20 U
<0.20 U
2.00 J
21
26 J
5J
<19U
93 J
94 J
<84U
<93U
<0.06 U
<0.07 U
<17U
<19U
6.25 J
0.99 J
R
R
13 J
<33 U
3.46 J
3.36J
484
519 J
NA
NA
<7U
2J
<17U
<19U
<50U
<56U
2.36 J
25
27 J
2.1
2.3
88.6 J-
88.8 J-
<1.0U
<1.0U
<0.06 U
<0.07 U
<1.0U
2.7 J,*
1.23 J-
1.01 J
<2.0U
<2.0U
<5.0U
<5.0U
3.81 J
3.51J
603
627 J
R
0.07 J-
<7U
<8U
<1.0U
<1.0U
<1.0U
<1.0U
1.8
3J
22
5.1
5.1
96
93
0.34 B
0.68*
<0.05 U
<0.03 U
0.09 J
0.46
NR
NR
<0.2U
<0.2U
0.7 J
<2U
3.7
3.7
460
417
<0.2U
<0.2U
<5 U
<2.5 U
<0.2U
<0.2U
<0.2U
<0.2U
1.7
16
68*
3.0
3.0
96
97
1.2 B
0.74
<0.05 U
<0.03 U
0.38
1.0
NR
NR
<0.20 U
<0.20 U
0.9 J
<2.0U
3.6
3.5
431
437
<0.20 U
<0.20 U
<5.0U
<2.5 U
<0.20 U
<0.20 U
<0.20 U
0.09 J
-------
B-46
Table B-3 Sample Results - Dissolved and Total Metals (Raton Basin, Colorado)
Parameter
Sample DW12 DW13 DW13 DW13 DW14 DW14 DW14
Sample Date 10/6/11 5/15/12 11/6/2012 4/30/13 5/17/12 11/8/2012 5/1/13
Unit Round 1 Round 2 Round 3 Round 4 Round 2 Round 3 Round 4
Total Mg
Dissolved Mn
Total Mn
Dissolved Mo
Total Mo
Dissolved Na
Total Na
Dissolved Ni
Total Ni
Dissolved P
Total P
Dissolved Pb
Total Pb
Dissolved S
Total S
Dissolved Sb
Total Sb
Dissolved Se
Total Se
Dissolved Si
Total Si
Dissolved Sr
Total Sr
Dissolved Th
Total Th
Dissolved Ti
Total Ti
Dissolved TI
Total TI
Dissolved U
Total U
mg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
mg/L
mg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
mg/L
mg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
mg/L
mg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
mg/L
mg/L
UgA
UgA
UgA
UgA
UgA
UgA
UgA
UgA
UgA
UgA
0.44 J
27
28 J
<17U
<19U
86 J
86 J
<84U
<93U
<0.06 U
<0.07 U
<17U
<19U
6.28 J
2.13 J
R
R
<30U
<33U
3.61J
3.68J
229
230 J
NA
NA
<7U
<8U
<17U
<19U
<50U
<56U
8.64 J
<14U
6J
<1.0U
<1.0U
6.88 J-
7.13 J-
<1.0U
<1.0U
<0.06 U
<0.07 U
<1.0U
1.4 J
7.88 J-
7.74 J
<2.0U
<2.0U
R
R
4.72 J
4.52 J
279
284 J
R
<1.0U
<7U
<8U
<1.0U
<1.0U
<1.0U, J-
1.1 J-
7.8
5J
12
0.4 J
0.4 B
6.9
6.8
1.4 B
2.6 *, B
<0.05 U
<0.03 U
0.30
1.4
NR
NR
<0.2U
<0.2U
<2U
<2U
4.3
4.5
265
258
<0.2U
<0.2U
<5 U
2J
<0.2U
<0.2U
0.93
0.94
8.6
5.2
37*
<0.5 U
0.71
7
8
2.1
46
<0.05 U
0.006 J
0.18J
0.47
NR
NR
<0.20 U
0.06 J
0.6 J
0.62 J
4.1
4.5
281
382
<0.20 U
<0.20 U
<5.0U
<2.5 U
<0.20 U
<0.20 U
1.2
1.1
<0.11U
<14U
<16U
5.5
5.4
242 J-
244 J-
1.9
2.0
<0.06 U
<0.07 U
1.2 J
3.5J
116 J-
104 J
0.16 J
<2.0U
R
<5.0U, J-
4.14J
4.24J
274
292 J
<1.0U,J-
0.29 J
<7U
<8U
<1.0U
<1.0U
<1.0U,J-
<1.0U
0.09
<5 U
<2.5 U
5. IB
5.3
216
220
1.7
4.1 B
0.13
0.08
0.18J
0.50
NR
NR
<0.2U
<0.2U
<2U
<2U
4.0
4.4
288
270
<0.2U
<0.2U
<5 U
<2.5 U
<0.2U
<0.2U
<0.2U
<0.2U
0.11
8.5
<2.5 U
5.1
8.6
212
205
8.7
2.3
<0.05 U
<0.03 U
<0.20 U
1.4
NR
NR
<0.20 U
<0.20 U
0.5 J
<2.0U
4.0
4.1
294
299
<0.20 U
<0.20 U
<5.0U
<2.5 U
<0.20 U
<0.20 U
0.14J
0.12 J
-------
B-47
Table B-3 Sample Results - Dissolved and Total Metals (Raton Basin, Colorado)
Parameter
Round 3 Round 1 Round 2 Round 3 Round 4 Round 1 Round 2 Round 3
Sample DW15 PW01 PW01 PW01 PW01 PW02 PW03 PW03 PW03
Sample Date 11/8/2012 10/3/11 5/14/12 11/5/2012 4/29/13 10/3/11 5/14/12 11/5/2012 4/29/13
Round 4
Total Mg
Dissolved Mn
Total Mn
Dissolved Mo
Total Mo
Dissolved Na
Total Na
Dissolved Ni
Total Ni
Dissolved P
Total P
Dissolved Pb
Total Pb
Dissolved S
Total S
Dissolved Sb
Total Sb
Dissolved Se
Total Se
Dissolved Si
Total Si
Dissolved Sr
Total Sr
Dissolved Th
Total Th
Dissolved Ti
Total Ti
Dissolved TI
Total TI
Dissolved U
Total U
mg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
mg/L
mg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
mg/L
mg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
mg/L
mg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
mg/L
mg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
3.8
5
6.8
31
32
82
81
1.5
2.2 B
<0.05 U
<0.03 U
0.54
0.72
NR
NR
<0.2U
<0.2U
<2U
<2U
8.1
8.5
516
585
<0.2U
<0.2U
<5 U
<2.5 U
<0.2U
<0.2U
0.18 J
0.16 J
0.64 J
33
36 J
9J
<19U
419 J
431 J
<84U
<93 U
0.10 J
0.11J
<17U
<19U
<0.46 U
<0.51U
R
R
32
<33 U
6.31J
6.54 J
312
328 J
NA
NA
<7U
<8U
<17U
<19U
<50U
<56U
0.76 J
31
35 J
<1.0U
<1.0U
432 J-
457 J-
<1.0U
<1.0U
0.09 J
0.10 J
<1.0U
<1.0U, J-
0.78 J-
<0.51 U
<2.0U
<2.0U
R
<5.0U
6.75 J
6.75 J
349
365 J
<1.0U
0.08 J-
<7U
<8U
<1.0U
<1.0U
<1.0U
R
0.77
30
31
0.9
0.9
506
530
0.22
1.4*
0.19
0.11
<0.2U
0.06 J
NR
NR
<0.2U
<0.2U
<2U
<2U
7.3
7.3
385
354
<0.2U
<0.2U
<5 U
<2.5 U
<0.2U
<0.2U
<0.2U
<0.2U
0.83
28
36*
0.72
1.0
510
500
0.20 B
1.6
0.15
0.105
<0.20 U
<0.20 U
NR
NR
<0.20 U
<0.20 U
<2.0U
<2.0U
7.1
7.1
393
414
<0.20 U
<0.20 U
<5.0U
1.0 J
<0.20 U
<0.20 U
<0.20 U
<0.20 U
0.08 J
38
53 J
17
<19U
240 J
243 J
<84U
<93 U
<0.06 U
<0.07 U
<17U
<19U
<0.46 U
0.23 J
R
R
20 J
<33 U
10.3 J
10.6 J
270
287 J
NA
NA
3J
<8U
<17U
<19U
<50U
<56U
0.32 J
138
157 J
1.4
1.2
305 J-
310 J-
2.6
6.6
<0.06 U
0.02 J
<1.0U
1.4 J, *
0.76 J-
<0.51 U
<2.0U
<2.0U
<5.0U, J-
<5.0U, J-
11.1 J
11.1 J
732
753 J
<1.0U
0.08 J-
<7U
<8U
<1.0U
<1.0U
R
R
0.31
125
139
1.5
1.6
341
342
0.56
2.4 *, B
0.16
0.03
0.09 J
0.72
NR
NR
0.1 J
0.2
<2U
<2U
11.1
10.4
776
721
<0.2U
0.10 J
<5 U
<2.5 U
<0.2U
0.11 J
<0.2U
<0.2U
0.28
99
110*
2.2
2.3
349
340
1.8 B
3.6
0.12
0.028
<0.20 U
1.3
NR
NR
<0.20 U
0.16 J
<2.0U
<2.0U
10.5
10.4
716
733
<0.20 U
<0.20 U
<5.0U
<2.5 U
<0.20 U
<0.20 U
<0.20 U
<0.20 U
-------
B-48
Table B-3 Sample Results - Dissolved and Total Metals (Raton Basin, Colorado)
Parameter
Sample SW01 SW01 SW01 SW01 SW02 SW02 SW02
Sample Date 10/4/11 5/14/12 11/7/2012 4/30/13 5/14/12 11/6/2012 4/30/13
Unit Round 1 Round 2 Round 3 Round 4 Round 2 Round 3 Round 4
Total Mg
Dissolved Mn
Total Mn
Dissolved Mo
Total Mo
Dissolved Na
Total Na
Dissolved Ni
Total Ni
Dissolved P
Total P
Dissolved Pb
Total Pb
Dissolved S
Total S
Dissolved Sb
Total Sb
Dissolved Se
Total Se
Dissolved Si
Total Si
Dissolved Sr
Total Sr
Dissolved Th
Total Th
Dissolved Ti
Total Ti
Dissolved TI
Total TI
Dissolved U
Total U
mg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
mg/L
mg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
mg/L
mg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
mg/L
mg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
mg/L
mg/L
UgA
UgA
UgA
UgA
UgA
UgA
UgA
UgA
UgA
UgA
5.86J
<14U
<16U
6J
<19U
301 J
305 J
<84U
<93U
<0.06 U
<0.07 U
<17U
<19U
1.61 J
1.49 J
R
R
14 J
<33U
6.86 J
6.89 J
296
316 J
NA
NA
<7U
3J
<17U
<19U
<50U
<56U
5.60 J
<14U
29 J
1.4
<1.0U
289 J-
295 J-
<1.0U
<1.0U
<0.06 U
0.04 J
<1.0U
<1.0U, J-
1.46 J-
1.58 J
<2.0U
<2.0U
<5.0U
<5.0U
6.69 J
10.5 J
342
368 J
<1.0U
0.06 J-
<7U
67 J
<1.0U
<1.0U
1.5 J-
1.6 J-
5.1
0.9 J
3.6
1.6
1.6
350
352
4.2 B
0.83 *, B
<0.05 U
0.02 J
0.24
0.16 J
NR
NR
<0.2U
<0.2U
<2U
<2U
7.0
7.6
386
368
<0.2U
<0.2U
0.5 J
3
<0.2U
<0.2U
1.4
1.5
4.67
1.5 J
14
1.5
1.8
318
309
0.58
1.0
<0.05 U
0.034
<0.20 U
0.15 J
NR
NR
<0.20 U
<0.20 U
<2.0U
0.43 J
6.1
7.0
309
326
<0.20 U
<0.20 U
0.7 J
12
<0.20 U
<0.20 U
1.5
1.6
10.9 J
50
78 J
1.9
1.1
317 J-
323 J-
<1.0U
1.3
<0.06 U
0.04 J
<1.0U
<1.0U, J-
7.28 J-
7.60 J
<2.0U
<2.0U
<5.0U
<5.0U
5.78J
8.04 J
571
603 J
<1.0U
0.10 J-
<7U
35 J
<1.0U
<1.0U
2.7 J-
2.6 J-
12
90
92
2.0
5.2B
396
398
1.2 B
0.68 *, B
0.04 J
0.03
<0.2U
<0.2U
NR
NR
<0.2U
<0.2U
<2U
<2U
5.9
6.1
701
639
<0.2U
<0.2U
<5 U
0.8 J
<0.2U
<0.2U
3.7
<0.2U
12
40
44
1.9
2.2
356
344
1.2
1.6
<0.05 U
0.026
<0.20 U
<0.20 U
NR
NR
<0.20 U
0.07 J
<2.0U
0.64 J
5.4
5.4
649
679
<0.20 U
<0.20 U
<5.0U
1.1 J
<0.20 U
<0.20 U
3.8
3.8
-------
B-49
Table B-3 Sample Results - Dissolved and Total Metals (Raton Basin, Colorado)
Parameter
Round 2 Round 3
Sample SW03 SW03 SW03
Sample Date 5/15/12 11/6/2012 4/30/13
Round 4
Total Mg
Dissolved Mn
Total Mn
Dissolved Mo
Total Mo
Dissolved Na
Total Na
Dissolved Ni
Total Ni
Dissolved P
Total P
Dissolved Pb
Total Pb
Dissolved S
Total S
Dissolved Sb
Total Sb
Dissolved Se
Total Se
Dissolved Si
Total Si
Dissolved Sr
Total Sr
Dissolved Th
Total Th
Dissolved Ti
Total Ti
Dissolved TI
Total TI
Dissolved U
Total U
mg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
mg/L
mg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
mg/L
mg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
mg/L
mg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
mg/L
mg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
0.16 J
17
12 J
1.5
1.4
326 J-
347 J-
<1.0U
<1.0U
0.03 J
<0.07 U
<1.0U
<1.0U,J-
0.95 J-
<0.51 U
<2.0U
<2.0U
<5.0U
<5.0U
7.90 J
8.18J
282
279 J
<1.0U
0.54 J-
<7U
<8U
<1.0U
<1.0U
<1.0U
<1.0U
0.31
11
13
1.3
1.5 B
369
382
0.36 B
1.9 *, B
0.10
0.05
<0.2U
0.14 J
NR
NR
<0.2U
<0.2U
<2U
<2U
8.8
9.1
290
278
<0.2U
<0.2U
<5 U
0.5 J
<0.2U
<0.2U
<0.2U
<0.2U
0.31
13
10
0.94
1.1
387
341
<0.20 U
0.66
0.06
0.060
<0.20 U
<0.20 U
NR
NR
<0.20 U
<0.20 U
<2.0U
0.55 J
8.8
8.4
275
223
<0.20 U
<0.20 U
<5.0U
<2.5 U
<0.20 U
<0.20 U
<0.20 U
<0.20 U
-------
B-50
Table B-3 Sample Results - Dissolved and Total Metals (Raton Basin, Colorado)
Parameter
Round 1 Round 2 Round 3 Round 4 Round 1 Round 2 Round 3
Sample MW01 MW01 MW01 MW01 MW02 MW02 MW02 MW02
Sample Date 10/3/11 5/15/12 11/5/2012 4/29/13 10/4/11 5/15/12 11/6/2012 4/30/13
Round 4
Dissolved V
Total V
Dissolved Zn
Total Zn
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
<10U
<11U
<50U
<56U
<10U
<11U
<50U
<56U
<0.2U
<0.2U
<5 U
<2.5 U
0.02 J
0.40 B
<5.0U
<2.5 U
<10U
<11U
<50U
<56U
<10U
<11U
<50U
<56U
0.4
0.4
<5U
<2.5 U
0.31
0.77 B
<5.0U
<2.5 U
-------
B-51
Table B-3 Sample Results - Dissolved and Total Metals (Raton Basin, Colorado)
Parameter
Round 1 Round 2 Round 3 Round 4 Round 1 Round 1 Round 1
Sample MW03 MW03 MW03 MW03 MW04 MW05 DW01 DW01
Sample Date 10/4/11 5/15/12 11/7/2012 5/1/13 10/5/11 10/5/11 10/3/11 5/15/12
Round 2
Dissolved V
Total V
Dissolved Zn
Total Zn
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
<10U
<11U
<50U
24 J
<10U
<11U
<50U
<56U
0.3
1.5
<5 U
12 B
0.41
1.40 B
5.4
6.4 B
<10U
<11U
<50U
<56U
<10U
4J
<50U
<56U
<10U
<11U
<50U
<56U
<10U
<11U
<50U
<56U
-------
B-52
Table B-3 Sample Results - Dissolved and Total Metals (Raton Basin, Colorado)
Parameter
Round 1 Round 2 Round 3 Round 4 Round 1 Round 2 Round 3
Sample DW02 DW02 DW02 DW02 DW03 DW03 DW03 DW03
Sample Date 10/3/11 5/14/12 11/5/2012 4/29/13 10/3/11 5/15/12 11/5/2012 4/30/13
Round 4
Dissolved V
Total V
Dissolved Zn
Total Zn
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
<10U
<11U
<50U
<56U
<10U
<11U
<50U
<56U
0.2
0.2
6
7
0.23
0.66 B
8.8
6.5 B
<10U
<11U
33 J
21 J
<10U
<11U
16 J
23 J
0.1J
0.2
3J
5
0.12 J
0.55 B
34
37
-------
B-53
Table B-3 Sample Results - Dissolved and Total Metals (Raton Basin, Colorado)
Parameter
Sample DW04 DW04 DW04 DW05 DW05 DW05 DW05
Sample Date 10/4/11 11/6/2012 4/30/13 10/4/11 5/14/12 11/5/2012 4/29/13
Unit Round 1 Round 3 Round 4 Round 1 Round 2 Round 3 Round 4
Dissolved V
Total V
Dissolved Zn
Total Zn
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
<10U
<11U
22 J
<56U
0.07 J
<0.2U
14
14 B
0.09 J
0.54 B
20
24 B
<10U
<11U
<50U
<56U
<10U
<11U
<50U
<56U
0.5
0.8
1J
3
0.50
0.88 B
<5.0U
2.7 B
-------
B-54
Table B-3 Sample Results - Dissolved and Total Metals (Raton Basin, Colorado)
Parameter
Round 1 Round 2 Round 3 Round 4 Round 1 Round 2 Round 3
Sample DW06 DW06 DW06 DW06 DW07 DW07 DW07 DW07
Sample Date 10/6/11 5/16/12 11/8/2012 5/2/13 10/6/11 5/16/12 11/6/2012 5/1/13
Round 4
Dissolved V
Total V
Dissolved Zn
Total Zn
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
<10U
<11U
<50U
<56U
<10U
<11U
<50U
100 J
0.09 J
0.4
82
157
0.05 J
0.56 B
76
192
<10U
<11U
<50U
<56U
<10U
<11U
<50U
<56U
0.02 J
0.2
<5U
<2.5 U
0.02 J
0.43 B
<5.0U
<2.5U
-------
B-55
Table B-3 Sample Results - Dissolved and Total Metals (Raton Basin, Colorado)
Parameter
Round 1 Round 2 Round 3 Round 4 Round 1 Round 2 Round 3
Sample DW08 DW08 DW08 DW08 DW09 DW09 DW09 DW09
Sample Date 10/5/11 5/16/12 11/7/2012 5/1/13 10/5/11 5/16/12 11/8/2012 5/1/13
Round 4
Dissolved V
Total V
Dissolved Zn
Total Zn
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
<10U
<11U
156 U
998 J
<10U
<11U
72
196 J
0.06 J
0.2
<5 U
11 B
0.07 J
0.47 B
<5.0U
12 B
<10U
<11U
31J
327 J
<10U
<11U
<50U
24 J
0.1 J
0.4
<5U
11
0.04 J
0.54 B
<5.0U
26 B
-------
B-56
Table B-3 Sample Results - Dissolved and Total Metals (Raton Basin, Colorado)
Parameter
Round 1 Round 2 Round 3 Round 4 Round 1 Round 2 Round 3
Sample DW10 DW10 DW10 DW10 DW11 DW11 DW11 DW11
Sample Date 10/5/11 5/17/12 11/8/2012 5/1/13 10/6/11 5/15/12 11/7/2012 4/29/13
Round 4
Dissolved V
Total V
Dissolved Zn
Total Zn
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
<10U
<11U
<50U
<56U
<10U
<11U
<50U
<56U
0.02 J
0.2
<5 U
<2.5 U
0.08 J
0.80 B
<5.0U
5.3 B
3J
<11U
<50U
<56U
<10U
<11U
<50U
17 J
0.06 J
0.2
5
8B
0.07 J
0.60 B
22
27 B
-------
B-57
Table B-3 Sample Results - Dissolved and Total Metals (Raton Basin, Colorado)
Parameter
Sample DW12 DW13 DW13 DW13 DW14 DW14 DW14
Sample Date 10/6/11 5/15/12 11/6/2012 4/30/13 5/17/12 11/8/2012 5/1/13
Unit Round 1 Round 2 Round 3 Round 4 Round 2 Round 3 Round 4
Dissolved V
Total V
Dissolved Zn
Total Zn
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
<10U
<11U
<50U
<56U
<10U
<11U
284
97 J
0.1 J
0.4
89
141
0.10 J
1.20 B
35
27 B
<10U
<11U
<50U
<56U
2.3
2.8
<5 U
3
1.10
2.10 B
<5.0U
14 B
-------
B-58
Table B-3 Sample Results - Dissolved and Total Metals (Raton Basin, Colorado)
Parameter
Round 3 Round 1 Round 2 Round 3 Round 4 Round 1 Round 2 Round 3
Sample DW15 PW01 PW01 PW01 PW01 PW02 PW03 PW03 PW03
Sample Date 11/8/2012 10/3/11 5/14/12 11/5/2012 4/29/13 10/3/11 5/14/12 11/5/2012 4/29/13
Round 4
Dissolved V
Total V
Dissolved Zn
Total Zn
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
0.7
0.9
23
30
<10U
<11U
<50U
<56U
<10U
<11U
<50U
<56U
0.04 J
0.5
<5 U
<2.5 U
0.03 J
0.89 B
<5.0U
<2.5 U
<10U
<11U
<50U
<56U
<10U
<11U
<50U
<56U
0.03 J
0.4
2J
6
0.13 J
0.75 B
<5.0U
<2.5 U
-------
B-59
Table B-3 Sample Results - Dissolved and Total Metals (Raton Basin, Colorado)
Parameter
Sample SW01 SW01 SW01 SW01 SW02 SW02 SW02
Sample Date 10/4/11 5/14/12 11/7/2012 4/30/13 5/14/12 11/6/2012 4/30/13
Unit Round 1 Round 2 Round 3 Round 4 Round 2 Round 3 Round 4
Dissolved V
Total V
Dissolved Zn
Total Zn
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
<10U
<11U
<50U
<56U
<10U
4J
<50U
<56U
0.7
1.1
<5 U
<2.5 U
0.94
1.60 B
<5.0U
<2.5 U
<10U
<11U
<50U
<56U
0.8
0.9
<5 U
<2.5 U
1.00
1.40 B
<5.0U
<2.5 U
-------
B-60
Table B-3 Sample Results - Dissolved and Total Metals (Raton Basin, Colorado)
Parameter
Round 2 Round 3
Sample SW03 SW03 SW03
Sample Date 5/15/12 11/6/2012 4/30/13
Round 4
Dissolved V
Total V
Dissolved Zn
Total Zn
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
<10U
<11U
<50U
<56U
0.03 J
0.3
<5 U
<2.5 U
0.03 J
0.35 B
<5.0U
<2.5 U
-------
B-61
Table B-4 Sample Results - Volatile Organic Compounds (Raton Basin, Colorado)
Parameter (CAS Number)
Round 1 Round 2 Round 3 Round 4 Round 1 Round 2 Round 3
Sample MW01 MW01 MW01 MW01 MW02 MW02 MW02 MW02
Sample Date 10/3/11 5/15/12 11/5/12 4/29/13 10/4/11 5/15/12 11/6/12 4/30/13
Round 4
ethanol (64-17-5)
isopropanol (67-63-0)
acrylonitrile (107-13-1)
styrene (100-42-5)
acetone (67-64-1)
tert-butyl alcohol (75-65-0)
methyl tert-butyl ether (1634-04-4)
diisopropyl ether (108-20-3)
ethyl tert-butyl ether (637-92-3)
tert-amyl methyl ether (994-05-8)
vinyl chloride (75-01-4)
1,1-dichloroethene (75-35-4)
carbon disulfide (75-15-0)
methylene chloride (75-09-2)
trans-l,2-dichloroethene (156-60-5)
1,1-dichloroethane (75-34-3)
cis-l,2-dichoroethene (156-59-2)
chloroform (67-66-3)
1,1,1-trichloroethane (71-55-6)
carbon tetrachloride (56-23-5)
benzene (71-43-2)
1,2-dichloroethane (107-06-2)
trichloroethene (79-01-6)
toluene (108-88-3)
1,1,2-trichloroethane (79-00-5)
tetrachloroethene (127-18-4)
chlorobenzene (108-90-7)
ethylbenzene (100-41-4)
m+p xylene (108-38-3, 106-42-3 )
o-xylene (95-47-6)
isopropylbenzene (98-82-8)
1,3,5-trimethylbenzene (108-67-8)
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
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
<100U
<25U
<25U
<0.5 U
<1.0U
<5.0U
<1.0U
<1.0U
<1.0U
<1.0U
<0.5 U
R
<0.5 U,J-
<1.0U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
R
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<1.0U
<2.0U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<100U
<25 U
<25 U,J-
<0.5 U
<1.0U, J-
<5.0U, J-
<1.0U
<1.0U
<1.0U
<1.0U
<0.5 U
R
<0.5 U, J-
<1.0U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
R
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<1.0U
<2.0U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<100U
<10U
<1.0U
NR
<1.0U
<10U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<1.0U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<100U
<10U
<1.0U
<0.5 U
<1.0U
<10U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<1.0U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<100U
<25 U
<25 U
<0.5 U
<1.0U
37.4
<1.0U
<1.0U
<1.0U
<1.0U
<0.5 U
R
<0.5 U, J-
<1.0U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
0.53
R
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<1.0U
<2.0U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<100U
<25 U
<25 U,J-
<0.5 U
<1.0U,J-
27.2 J-
<1.0U
<1.0U
<1.0U
<1.0U
<0.5 U
R
<0.5 U, J-
<1.0U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
R
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<1.0U
<2.0U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<100U
<10U
<1.0U
NR
<1.0U
29
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<1.0U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<100U
<10U
<1.0U
<0.5 U
<1.0U
28
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
NR2
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<1.0U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
-------
B-62
Table B-4 Sample Results - Volatile Organic Compounds (Raton Basin, Colorado)
Parameter (CAS Number)
Round 1 Round 2 Round 3 Round 4 Round 1 Round 1 Round 1
Sample MW03 MW03 MW03 MW03 MW04 MW05 DW01 DW01
Sample Date 10/4/11 5/15/12 11/7/12 5/1/13 10/5/11 10/5/11 10/3/11 5/15/12
Round 2
ethanol (64-17-5)
isopropanol (67-63-0)
acrylonitrile (107-13-1)
styrene (100-42-5)
acetone (67-64-1)
tert-butyl alcohol (75-65-0)
methyl tert-butyl ether (1634-04-4)
diisopropyl ether (108-20-3)
ethyl tert-butyl ether (637-92-3)
tert-amyl methyl ether (994-05-8)
vinyl chloride (75-01-4)
1,1-dichloroethene (75-35-4)
carbon disulfide (75-15-0)
methylene chloride (75-09-2)
trans-l,2-dichloroethene (156-60-5)
1,1-dichloroethane (75-34-3)
cis-l,2-dichoroethene (156-59-2)
chloroform (67-66-3)
1,1,1-trichloroethane (71-55-6)
carbon tetrachloride (56-23-5)
benzene (71-43-2)
1,2-dichloroethane (107-06-2)
trichloroethene (79-01-6)
toluene (108-88-3)
1,1,2-trichloroethane (79-00-5)
tetrachloroethene (127-18-4)
chlorobenzene (108-90-7)
ethylbenzene (100-41-4)
m+p xylene (108-38-3, 106-42-3 )
o-xylene (95-47-6)
isopropylbenzene (98-82-8)
1,3,5-trimethylbenzene (108-67-8)
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
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
<100U
<25U
<25U
<0.5 U
<1.0U
965
<1.0U
<1.0U
<1.0U
<1.0U
<0.5 U
R
<0.5 U,J-
<1.0U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
14.0
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
NR2
R
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<1.0U
<2.0U
<0.5 U
0.31 J
<0.5 U
<100U
<25 U
<25 U,J-
<0.5 U
<1.0U, J-
1310 J-
<1.0U
<1.0U
<1.0U
<1.0U
<0.5 U
R
<0.5 U, J-
<1.0U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
1.93
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
R
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<1.0U
<2.0U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<100U
<10U
<1.0U
NR
<1.0U
1000 J
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
0.12 J
0.23 J
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
4.1
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
0.18 J
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<1.0U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<100U
<10U
<1.0U
<0.5 U
<1.0U
960 H
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
0.12J
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
2.3
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
0.11J
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<1.0U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<100U
<25 U
<25 U
<0.5 U
<1.0U
<5.0U
<1.0U
<1.0U
<1.0U
<1.0U
<0.5 U
R
<0.5 U, J-
<1.0U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
R
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<1.0U
<2.0U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<100U
<25 U
<25 U
<0.5 U
<1.0U
<5.0U
<1.0U
<1.0U
<1.0U
<1.0U
<0.5 U
R
<0.5 U, J-
<1.0U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
R
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<1.0U
<2.0U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<100U
<25 U
<25 U
<0.5 U
<1.0U
<5.0U
<1.0U
<1.0U
<1.0U
<1.0U
<0.5 U
R
<0.5 U, J-
<1.0U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
R
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<1.0U
<2.0U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<100U
<25U
<25 U, J-
<0.5 U
<1.0U, J-
<5.0U, J-
<1.0U
<1.0U
<1.0U
<1.0U
<0.5 U
R
<0.5 U, J-
<1.0U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
R
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<1.0U
<2.0U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
-------
B-63
Table B-4 Sample Results - Volatile Organic Compounds (Raton Basin, Colorado)
Parameter (CAS Number)
Round 1 Round 2 Round 3 Round 4 Round 1 Round 2 Round 3
Sample DW02 DW02 DW02 DW02 DW03 DW03 DW03 DW03
Sample Date 10/3/11 5/14/12 11/5/12 4/29/13 10/3/11 5/15/12 11/5/12 4/30/13
Round 4
ethanol (64-17-5)
isopropanol (67-63-0)
acrylonitrile (107-13-1)
styrene (100-42-5)
acetone (67-64-1)
tert-butyl alcohol (75-65-0)
methyl tert-butyl ether (1634-04-4)
diisopropyl ether (108-20-3)
ethyl tert-butyl ether (637-92-3)
tert-amyl methyl ether (994-05-8)
vinyl chloride (75-01-4)
1,1-dichloroethene (75-35-4)
carbon disulfide (75-15-0)
methylene chloride (75-09-2)
trans-l,2-dichloroethene (156-60-5)
1,1-dichloroethane (75-34-3)
cis-l,2-dichoroethene (156-59-2)
chloroform (67-66-3)
1,1,1-trichloroethane (71-55-6)
carbon tetrachloride (56-23-5)
benzene (71-43-2)
1,2-dichloroethane (107-06-2)
trichloroethene (79-01-6)
toluene (108-88-3)
1,1,2-trichloroethane (79-00-5)
tetrachloroethene (127-18-4)
chlorobenzene (108-90-7)
ethylbenzene (100-41-4)
m+p xylene (108-38-3, 106-42-3 )
o-xylene (95-47-6)
isopropylbenzene (98-82-8)
1,3,5-trimethylbenzene (108-67-8)
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
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
<100U
<25U
<25U
<0.5 U
<1.0U
<5.0U
<1.0U
<1.0U
<1.0U
<1.0U
<0.5 U
R
<0.5 U,J-
<1.0U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
R
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<1.0U
<2.0U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<100U
<25 U
<25 U,J-
<0.5 U
<1.0U, J-
<5.0U, J-
<1.0U
<1.0U
<1.0U
<1.0U
<0.5 U
R
<0.5 U, J-
<1.0U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
R
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<1.0U
<2.0U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<100U
<10U
<1.0U
NR
<1.0U
<10U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<1.0U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<100U
<10U
<1.0U
<0.5 U
<1.0U
<10U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
0.09 J
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<1.0U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<100U
<25 U
<25 U
<0.5 U
<1.0U
<5.0U
<1.0U
<1.0U
<1.0U
<1.0U
<0.5 U
R
<0.5 U, J-
<1.0U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
R
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<1.0U
<2.0U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<100U
<25 U
<25 U, J-
<0.5 U
62.3 J-
51.3 J-
<1.0U
<1.0U
<1.0U
<1.0U
<0.5 U
R
<0.5 U, J-
<1.0U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
0.66
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
R
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<1.0U
<2.0U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<100U
<10U
<1.0U
NR
<1.0U
<10U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<1.0U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<100U
<10U
<1.0U
<0.5 U
<1.0U
<10U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<1.0U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
-------
B-64
Table B-4 Sample Results - Volatile Organic Compounds (Raton Basin, Colorado)
Parameter (CAS Number)
Sample DW04 DW04 DW04 DW05 DW05 DW05 DW05
Sample Date 10/4/11 11/6/12 4/30/13 10/4/11 5/14/12 11/5/12 4/29/13
Unit Round 1 Round 3 Round 4 Round 1 Round 2 Round 3 Round 4
ethanol (64-17-5)
isopropanol (67-63-0)
acrylonitrile (107-13-1)
styrene (100-42-5)
acetone (67-64-1)
tert-butyl alcohol (75-65-0)
methyl tert-butyl ether (1634-04-4)
diisopropyl ether (108-20-3)
ethyl tert-butyl ether (637-92-3)
tert-amyl methyl ether (994-05-8)
vinyl chloride (75-01-4)
1,1-dichloroethene (75-35-4)
carbon disulfide (75-15-0)
methylene chloride (75-09-2)
trans-l,2-dichloroethene (156-60-5)
1,1-dichloroethane (75-34-3)
cis-l,2-dichoroethene (156-59-2)
chloroform (67-66-3)
1,1,1-trichloroethane (71-55-6)
carbon tetrachloride (56-23-5)
benzene (71-43-2)
1,2-dichloroethane (107-06-2)
trichloroethene (79-01-6)
toluene (108-88-3)
1,1,2-trichloroethane (79-00-5)
tetrachloroethene (127-18-4)
chlorobenzene (108-90-7)
ethylbenzene (100-41-4)
m+p xylene (108-38-3, 106-42-3 )
o-xylene (95-47-6)
isopropylbenzene (98-82-8)
1,3,5-trimethylbenzene (108-67-8)
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
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
<100U
<25U
<25U
<0.5 U
<1.0U
<5.0U
<1.0U
<1.0U
<1.0U
<1.0U
<0.5 U
R
<0.5 U,J-
<1.0U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
R
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<1.0U
<2.0U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<100U
<10U
<1.0U
NR
<1.0U
<10U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<1.0U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<100U
<10U
<1.0U
<0.5 U
<1.0U
<10U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<1.0U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<100U
<25 U
<25 U
<0.5 U
<1.0U
<5.0U
<1.0U
<1.0U
<1.0U
<1.0U
<0.5 U
R
<0.5 U, J-
<1.0U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
0.56
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
R
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<1.0U
<2.0U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<100U
<25 U
<25 U, J-
<0.5 U
<1.0U,J-
<5.0U, J-
<1.0U
<1.0U
<1.0U
<1.0U
<0.5 U
R
<0.5 U, J-
<1.0U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
R
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<1.0U
<2.0U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<100U
<10U
<1.0U
NR
<1.0U
<10U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<1.0U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<100U
<10U
<1.0U
<0.5 U
<1.0U
<10U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
0.14J
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
0.12 J
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<1.0U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
-------
B-65
Table B-4 Sample Results - Volatile Organic Compounds (Raton Basin, Colorado)
Parameter (CAS Number)
Round 1 Round 2 Round 3 Round 4 Round 1 Round 2 Round 3
Sample DW06 DW06 DW06 DW06 DW07 DW07 DW07 DW07
Sample Date 10/6/11 5/16/12 11/8/12 5/2/13 10/6/11 5/16/12 11/6/12 5/1/13
Round 4
ethanol (64-17-5)
isopropanol (67-63-0)
acrylonitrile (107-13-1)
styrene (100-42-5)
acetone (67-64-1)
tert-butyl alcohol (75-65-0)
methyl tert-butyl ether (1634-04-4)
diisopropyl ether (108-20-3)
ethyl tert-butyl ether (637-92-3)
tert-amyl methyl ether (994-05-8)
vinyl chloride (75-01-4)
1,1-dichloroethene (75-35-4)
carbon disulfide (75-15-0)
methylene chloride (75-09-2)
trans-l,2-dichloroethene (156-60-5)
1,1-dichloroethane (75-34-3)
cis-l,2-dichoroethene (156-59-2)
chloroform (67-66-3)
1,1,1-trichloroethane (71-55-6)
carbon tetrachloride (56-23-5)
benzene (71-43-2)
1,2-dichloroethane (107-06-2)
trichloroethene (79-01-6)
toluene (108-88-3)
1,1,2-trichloroethane (79-00-5)
tetrachloroethene (127-18-4)
chlorobenzene (108-90-7)
ethylbenzene (100-41-4)
m+p xylene (108-38-3, 106-42-3 )
o-xylene (95-47-6)
isopropylbenzene (98-82-8)
1,3,5-trimethylbenzene (108-67-8)
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
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
<100U
<25U
<25U
<0.5 U
<1.0U
<5.0U
<1.0U
<1.0U
<1.0U
<1.0U
<0.5 U
R
<0.5 U,J-
<1.0U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
0.58
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
1.23 B
R
<0.5U
<0.5U
<1.0U
<2.0U
<0.5U
<0.5U
<0.5U
<100U
<25 U
<25 U,J-
<0.5 U
<1.0U
<5.0U
<1.0U
<1.0U
<1.0U
<1.0U
<0.5 U
R
<0.5 U, J-
<1.0U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
1.96
R
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<1.0U
<2.0U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<100U, J-
<10U, J-
<1.0U, J-
NR
1.6 J-
<10U, J-
<0.5 U,J-
<0.5 U,J-
<0.5 U,J-
<0.5 U,J-
<0.5 U,J-
<0.5 U,J-
0.54 J-
2.1 J-
<0.5 U,J-
<0.5 U,J-
<0.5 U,J-
3.0J-
<0.5 U,J-
<0.5 U,J-
<0.5 U,J-
<0.5 U,J-
<0.5 U,J-
0.36 J-
<0.5 U,J-
<0.5 U,J-
<0.5 U,J-
<0.5 U,J-
<1.0U,J-
<0.5 U,J-
<0.5 U,J-
<0.5 U,J-
<100U
<10U
<1.0U
<0.5 U
<1.0U
<10U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
0.08 J
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
0.21J
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<1.0U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<100U
<25 U
<25 U
<0.5 U
<1.0U
<5.0U
<1.0U
<1.0U
<1.0U
<1.0U
<0.5 U
R
<0.5 U,J-
<1.0U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5U
R
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<1.0U
<2.0U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<100U
<25 U
<25 U,J-
<0.5 U
<1.0U
<5.0U
<1.0U
<1.0U
<1.0U
<1.0U
<0.5 U
R
<0.5 U,J-
<1.0U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
R
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<1.0U
<2.0U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<100U
<10U
<1.0U
NR
<1.0U
<10U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<1.0U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<100U
<10U
<1.0U
<0.5 U
<1.0U
<10U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<1.0U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
-------
B-66
Table B-4 Sample Results - Volatile Organic Compounds (Raton Basin, Colorado)
Parameter (CAS Number)
Round 1 Round 2 Round 3 Round 4 Round 1 Round 2 Round 3
Sample DW08 DW08 DW08 DW08 DW09 DW09 DW09 DW09
Sample Date 10/5/11 5/16/12 11/7/12 5/1/13 10/5/11 5/16/12 11/8/12 5/1/13
Round 4
ethanol (64-17-5)
isopropanol (67-63-0)
acrylonitrile (107-13-1)
styrene (100-42-5)
acetone (67-64-1)
tert-butyl alcohol (75-65-0)
methyl tert-butyl ether (1634-04-4)
diisopropyl ether (108-20-3)
ethyl tert-butyl ether (637-92-3)
tert-amyl methyl ether (994-05-8)
vinyl chloride (75-01-4)
1,1-dichloroethene (75-35-4)
carbon disulfide (75-15-0)
methylene chloride (75-09-2)
trans-l,2-dichloroethene (156-60-5)
1,1-dichloroethane (75-34-3)
cis-l,2-dichoroethene (156-59-2)
chloroform (67-66-3)
1,1,1-trichloroethane (71-55-6)
carbon tetrachloride (56-23-5)
benzene (71-43-2)
1,2-dichloroethane (107-06-2)
trichloroethene (79-01-6)
toluene (108-88-3)
1,1,2-trichloroethane (79-00-5)
tetrachloroethene (127-18-4)
chlorobenzene (108-90-7)
ethylbenzene (100-41-4)
m+p xylene (108-38-3, 106-42-3 )
o-xylene (95-47-6)
isopropylbenzene (98-82-8)
1,3,5-trimethylbenzene (108-67-8)
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
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
<100U
<25U
<25U
<0.5 U
<1.0U
<5.0U
<1.0U
<1.0U
<1.0U
<1.0U
<0.5 U
R
<0.5 U,J-
<1.0U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
R
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<1.0U
<2.0U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<100U
<25 U
<25 U,J-
<0.5 U
<1.0U
<5.0U
<1.0U
<1.0U
<1.0U
<1.0U
<0.5 U
R
<0.5 U, J-
<1.0U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
R
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<1.0U
<2.0U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<100U
<10U
<1.0U
NR
1.0
<10U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
0.17 J
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
0.41 J
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<1.0U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<100U
<10U
<1.0U
<0.5 U
0.16J
<10U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
0.45 J
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
0.66
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<1.0U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<100U
<25 U
<25 U
<0.5 U
<1.0U
<5.0U
<1.0U
<1.0U
<1.0U
<1.0U
<0.5 U
R
<0.5 U, J-
<1.0U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
R
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<1.0U
<2.0U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<100U
<25 U
<25 U, J-
<0.5 U
<1.0U
<5.0U
<1.0U
<1.0U
<1.0U
<1.0U
<0.5 U
R
<0.5 U, J-
<1.0U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
R
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<1.0U
<2.0U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<100U,J-
<10U, J-
<1.0U,J-
NR
<1.0U,J-
<10U, J-
<0.5 U,J-
<0.5 U,J-
<0.5 U,J-
<0.5 U,J-
<0.5 U,J-
<0.5 U,J-
0.56 J-
<0.5 U,J-
<0.5 U,J-
<0.5 U,J-
<0.5 U,J-
<0.5 U,J-
<0.5 U,J-
<0.5 U,J-
<0.5 U,J-
<0.5 U,J-
<0.5 U,J-
<0.5 U,J-
<0.5 U,J-
<0.5 U,J-
<0.5 U,J-
<0.5 U,J-
<1.0U,J-
<0.5 U,J-
<0.5 U,J-
<0.5 U,J-
<100U
<10U
<1.0U
<0.5 U
<1.0U
<10U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<1.0U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
-------
B-67
Table B-4 Sample Results - Volatile Organic Compounds (Raton Basin, Colorado)
Parameter (CAS Number)
Round 1 Round 2 Round 3 Round 4 Round 1 Round 2 Round 3
Sample DW10 DW10 DW10 DW10 DW11 DW11 DW11 DW11
Sample Date 10/5/11 5/17/12 11/8/12 5/1/13 10/6/11 5/15/12 11/7/12 4/29/13
Round 4
ethanol (64-17-5)
isopropanol (67-63-0)
acrylonitrile (107-13-1)
styrene (100-42-5)
acetone (67-64-1)
tert-butyl alcohol (75-65-0)
methyl tert-butyl ether (1634-04-4)
diisopropyl ether (108-20-3)
ethyl tert-butyl ether (637-92-3)
tert-amyl methyl ether (994-05-8)
vinyl chloride (75-01-4)
1,1-dichloroethene (75-35-4)
carbon disulfide (75-15-0)
methylene chloride (75-09-2)
trans-l,2-dichloroethene (156-60-5)
1,1-dichloroethane (75-34-3)
cis-l,2-dichoroethene (156-59-2)
chloroform (67-66-3)
1,1,1-trichloroethane (71-55-6)
carbon tetrachloride (56-23-5)
benzene (71-43-2)
1,2-dichloroethane (107-06-2)
trichloroethene (79-01-6)
toluene (108-88-3)
1,1,2-trichloroethane (79-00-5)
tetrachloroethene (127-18-4)
chlorobenzene (108-90-7)
ethylbenzene (100-41-4)
m+p xylene (108-38-3, 106-42-3 )
o-xylene (95-47-6)
isopropylbenzene (98-82-8)
1,3,5-trimethylbenzene (108-67-8)
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
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
<100U
<25U
<25U
<0.5 U
<1.0U
<5.0U
<1.0U
<1.0U
<1.0U
<1.0U
<0.5 U
R
<0.5 U,J-
<1.0U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
4.16
R
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<1.0U
<2.0U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<100U
<25 U
<25 U,J-
<0.5 U
<1.0U
<5.0U
<1.0U
<1.0U
<1.0U
<1.0U
<0.5 U
R
<0.5 U, J-
<1.0U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
5.91
R
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<1.0U
<2.0U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<100U, J-
<10U, J-
<1.0U, J-
NR
<1.0U,J-
<10U, J-
<0.5 U,J-
<0.5 U,J-
<0.5 U,J-
<0.5 U,J-
<0.5 U,J-
<0.5 U,J-
0.71 J-
<0.5 U,J-
<0.5 U,J-
<0.5 U,J-
<0.5 U,J-
<0.5 U,J-
<0.5 U,J-
<0.5 U,J-
<0.5 U,J-
<0.5 U,J-
<0.5 U,J-
1.8 J-
<0.5 U,J-
<0.5 U,J-
<0.5 U,J-
<0.5 U,J-
<1.0U,J-
<0.5 U,J-
<0.5 U,J-
<0.5 U,J-
<100U
<10U
<1.0U
<0.5 U
<1.0U
<10U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
0.50 J
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<1.0U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<100U
<25 U
<25 U
<0.5 U
<1.0U
11.7
<1.0U
<1.0U
<1.0U
<1.0U
<0.5 U
R
<0.5 U,J-
<1.0U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
R
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<1.0U
<2.0U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<100U
<25 U
<25 U,J-
<0.5 U
<1.0U,J-
20.4 J-
<1.0U
<1.0U
<1.0U
<1.0U
<0.5 U
R
<0.5 U,J-
<1.0U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
R
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<1.0U
<2.0U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<100U
<10U
<1.0U
NR
<1.0U
32
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
0.14J
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
0.31 J
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
0.07 J
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<1.0U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<100U
<10U
<1.0U
<0.5 U
<1.0U
12
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
0.22 J
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
0.22 J
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<1.0U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
-------
B-68
Table B-4 Sample Results - Volatile Organic Compounds (Raton Basin, Colorado)
Parameter (CAS Number)
Sample DW12 DW13 DW13 DW13 DW14 DW14 DW14 DW15
Sample Date 10/6/11 5/15/12 11/6/12 4/30/13 5/17/12 11/8/12 5/1/13 11/8/12
Unit Round 1 Round 2 Round 3 Round 4 Round 2 Round 3 Round 4 Round 3
ethanol (64-17-5)
isopropanol (67-63-0)
acrylonitrile (107-13-1)
styrene (100-42-5)
acetone (67-64-1)
tert-butyl alcohol (75-65-0)
methyl tert-butyl ether (1634-04-4)
diisopropyl ether (108-20-3)
ethyl tert-butyl ether (637-92-3)
tert-amyl methyl ether (994-05-8)
vinyl chloride (75-01-4)
1,1-dichloroethene (75-35-4)
carbon disulfide (75-15-0)
methylene chloride (75-09-2)
trans-l,2-dichloroethene (156-60-5)
1,1-dichloroethane (75-34-3)
cis-l,2-dichoroethene (156-59-2)
chloroform (67-66-3)
1,1,1-trichloroethane (71-55-6)
carbon tetrachloride (56-23-5)
benzene (71-43-2)
1,2-dichloroethane (107-06-2)
trichloroethene (79-01-6)
toluene (108-88-3)
1,1,2-trichloroethane (79-00-5)
tetrachloroethene (127-18-4)
chlorobenzene (108-90-7)
ethylbenzene (100-41-4)
m+p xylene (108-38-3, 106-42-3 )
o-xylene (95-47-6)
isopropylbenzene (98-82-8)
1,3,5-trimethylbenzene (108-67-8)
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
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
<100U
<25U
<25U
<0.5 U
<1.0U
<5.0U
<1.0U
<1.0U
<1.0U
<1.0U
<0.5 U
R
<0.5 U,J-
<1.0U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
R
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<1.0U
<2.0U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<100U
<25 U
<25 U,J-
<0.5 U
<1.0U, J-
<5.0U, J-
<1.0U
<1.0U
<1.0U
<1.0U
<0.5 U
R
<0.5 U, J-
<1.0U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
R
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<1.0U
<2.0U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<100U
<10U
<1.0U
NR
<1.0U
<10U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<1.0U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<100U
<10U
<1.0U
<0.5 U
<1.0U
<10U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<1.0U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<100U
<25 U
<25 U, J-
<0.5 U
<1.0U
<5.0U
<1.0U
<1.0U
<1.0U
<1.0U
<0.5 U
R
<0.5 U, J-
<1.0U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
39.0
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
R
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<1.0U
<2.0U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<100U, J-
<10U, J-
<1.0U, J-
NR
<1.0U, J-
<10U,J-
<0.5 U, J-
<0.5 U, J-
<0.5 U, J-
<0.5 U, J-
<0.5 U, J-
<0.5 U, J-
0.22 J-
<0.5 U, J-
<0.5 U, J-
<0.5 U, J-
<0.5 U, J-
0.19 J-
<0.5 U, J-
<0.5 U, J-
<0.5 U, J-
<0.5 U, J-
<0.5 U, J-
<0.5 U,J-
<0.5 U,J-
<0.5 U,J-
<0.5 U,J-
<0.5 U,J-
<1.0U,J-
<0.5 U,J-
<0.5 U,J-
<0.5 U,J-
<100U
<10U
<1.0U
<0.5 U
<1.0U
<10U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
0.16 J
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<1.0U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<100U, J-
<10U, J-
<1.0U,J-
NR
<1.0U,J-
9.1J-
<0.5 U,J-
<0.5 U,J-
<0.5 U,J-
<0.5 U,J-
<0.5 U,J-
<0.5 U,J-
0.16J-
0.11J-
<0.5 U,J-
<0.5 U,J-
<0.5 U,J-
1.3 J-
<0.5 U,J-
<0.5 U,J-
<0.5 U,J-
<0.5 U,J-
<0.5 U,J-
<0.5 U,J-
<0.5 U,J-
<0.5 U,J-
<0.5 U,J-
<0.5 U,J-
<1.0U,J-
<0.5 U,J-
<0.5 U,J-
<0.5 U, J-
-------
B-69
Table B-4 Sample Results - Volatile Organic Compounds (Raton Basin, Colorado)
Parameter (CAS Number)
Round 1 Round 2 Round 3 Round 4 Round 1 Round 2 Round 3
Sample PW01 PW01 PW01 PW01 PW02 PW03 PW03 PW03
Sample Date 10/3/11 5/14/12 11/5/12 4/29/13 10/3/11 5/14/12 11/5/12 4/29/13
Round 4
ethanol (64-17-5)
isopropanol (67-63-0)
acrylonitrile (107-13-1)
styrene (100-42-5)
acetone (67-64-1)
tert-butyl alcohol (75-65-0)
methyl tert-butyl ether (1634-04-4)
diisopropyl ether (108-20-3)
ethyl tert-butyl ether (637-92-3)
tert-amyl methyl ether (994-05-8)
vinyl chloride (75-01-4)
1,1-dichloroethene (75-35-4)
carbon disulfide (75-15-0)
methylene chloride (75-09-2)
trans-l,2-dichloroethene (156-60-5)
1,1-dichloroethane (75-34-3)
cis-l,2-dichoroethene (156-59-2)
chloroform (67-66-3)
1,1,1-trichloroethane (71-55-6)
carbon tetrachloride (56-23-5)
benzene (71-43-2)
1,2-dichloroethane (107-06-2)
trichloroethene (79-01-6)
toluene (108-88-3)
1,1,2-trichloroethane (79-00-5)
tetrachloroethene (127-18-4)
chlorobenzene (108-90-7)
ethylbenzene (100-41-4)
m+p xylene (108-38-3, 106-42-3 )
o-xylene (95-47-6)
isopropylbenzene (98-82-8)
1,3,5-trimethylbenzene (108-67-8)
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
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
<100U
<25U
<25U
<0.5 U
<1.0U
<5.0U
<1.0U
<1.0U
<1.0U
<1.0U
<0.5 U
R
<0.5 U,J-
<1.0U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
0.38 J
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
NR2
R
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<1.0U
<2.0U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<100U
<25 U
<25 U,J-
<0.5 U
<1.0U,J-
<5.0U, J-
<1.0U
<1.0U
<1.0U
<1.0U
<0.5 U
R
<0.5 U, J-
<1.0U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
0.77
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
R
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<1.0U
<2.0U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<100U
<10U
<1.0U
NR
<1.0U
<10U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<1.0U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<100U
<10U
<1.0U
<0.5 U
<1.0U
6.9 J
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
0.25J
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<1.0U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<100U
<25 U
<25 U
<0.5 U
<1.0U
<5.0U
<1.0U
<1.0U
<1.0U
<1.0U
<0.5 U
R
<0.5 U, J-
<1.0U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
0.98
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
R
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<1.0U
<2.0U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<100U
<25 U
<25 U, J-
<0.5 U
<1.0U,J-
<5.0U, J-
<1.0U
<1.0U
<1.0U
<1.0U
<0.5 U
R
<0.5 U, J-
<1.0U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
0.87
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
R
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<1.0U
<2.0U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<100U
<10U
<1.0U
NR
0.65 J
<10U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
0.48 J
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
0.08 J
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<1.0U
0.08 J
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<100U
<10U
<1.0U
<0.5 U
<1.0U
<10U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
0.43 J
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
NR2
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<1.0U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
-------
B-70
Table B-4 Sample Results - Volatile Organic Compounds (Raton Basin, Colorado)
Parameter (CAS Number)
Sample SW01 SW01 SW01 SW01 SW02 SW02 SW02
Sample Date 10/4/11 5/14/12 11/7/12 4/30/13 5/14/12 11/6/12 4/30/13
Unit Round 1 Round 2 Round 3 Round 4 Round 2 Round 3 Round 4
ethanol (64-17-5)
isopropanol (67-63-0)
acrylonitrile (107-13-1)
styrene (100-42-5)
acetone (67-64-1)
tert-butyl alcohol (75-65-0)
methyl tert-butyl ether (1634-04-4)
diisopropyl ether (108-20-3)
ethyl tert-butyl ether (637-92-3)
tert-amyl methyl ether (994-05-8)
vinyl chloride (75-01-4)
1,1-dichloroethene (75-35-4)
carbon disulfide (75-15-0)
methylene chloride (75-09-2)
trans-l,2-dichloroethene (156-60-5)
1,1-dichloroethane (75-34-3)
cis-l,2-dichoroethene (156-59-2)
chloroform (67-66-3)
1,1,1-trichloroethane (71-55-6)
carbon tetrachloride (56-23-5)
benzene (71-43-2)
1,2-dichloroethane (107-06-2)
trichloroethene (79-01-6)
toluene (108-88-3)
1,1,2-trichloroethane (79-00-5)
tetrachloroethene (127-18-4)
chlorobenzene (108-90-7)
ethylbenzene (100-41-4)
m+p xylene (108-38-3, 106-42-3 )
o-xylene (95-47-6)
isopropylbenzene (98-82-8)
1,3,5-trimethylbenzene (108-67-8)
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
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
<100U
<25U
<25U
<0.5 U
<1.0U
<5.0U
<1.0U
<1.0U
<1.0U
<1.0U
<0.5 U
R
<0.5 U,J-
<1.0U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
R
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<1.0U
<2.0U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<100U
<25 U
<25 U,J-
<0.5 U
<1.0U, J-
<5.0U, J-
<1.0U
<1.0U
<1.0U
<1.0U
<0.5 U
R
<0.5 U, J-
<1.0U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
R
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<1.0U
<2.0U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<100U
<10U
<1.0U
NR
<1.0U
<10U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<1.0U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<100U
<10U
<1.0U
<0.5 U
0.30 J
<10U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<1.0U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<100U
<25 U
<25 U, J-
<0.5 U
<1.0U, J-
<5.0U, J-
<1.0U
<1.0U
<1.0U
<1.0U
<0.5 U
R
<0.5 U, J-
<1.0U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
R
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<1.0U
<2.0U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<100U
<10U
<1.0U
NR
<1.0U
<10U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<1.0U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<100U
<10U
<1.0U
<0.5 U
<1.0U
<10U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<1.0U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
-------
B-71
Table B-4 Sample Results - Volatile Organic Compounds (Raton Basin, Colorado)
Parameter (CAS Number)
Round 2 Round 3
Sample SW03 SW03 SW03
Sample Date 5/15/12 11/6/12 4/30/13
Round 4
ethanol (64-17-5)
isopropanol (67-63-0)
acrylonitrile (107-13-1)
styrene (100-42-5)
acetone (67-64-1)
tert-butyl alcohol (75-65-0)
methyl tert-butyl ether (1634-04-4)
diisopropyl ether (108-20-3)
ethyl tert-butyl ether (637-92-3)
tert-amyl methyl ether (994-05-8)
vinyl chloride (75-01-4)
1,1-dichloroethene (75-35-4)
carbon disulfide (75-15-0)
methylene chloride (75-09-2)
trans-l,2-dichloroethene (156-60-5)
1,1-dichloroethane (75-34-3)
cis-l,2-dichoroethene (156-59-2)
chloroform (67-66-3)
1,1,1-trichloroethane (71-55-6)
carbon tetrachloride (56-23-5)
benzene (71-43-2)
1,2-dichloroethane (107-06-2)
trichloroethene (79-01-6)
toluene (108-88-3)
1,1,2-trichloroethane (79-00-5)
tetrachloroethene (127-18-4)
chlorobenzene (108-90-7)
ethylbenzene (100-41-4)
m+p xylene (108-38-3, 106-42-3 )
o-xylene (95-47-6)
isopropylbenzene (98-82-8)
1,3,5-trimethylbenzene (108-67-8)
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
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
<100U
<25U
<25U, J-
<0.5 U
<1.0U,J-
<5.0U, J-
<1.0U
<1.0U
<1.0U
<1.0U
<0.5 U
R
<0.5 U,J-
<1.0U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
1.03
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
R
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
1.67
2.94
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<100U
<10U
<1.0U
NR
<1.0U
<10U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
0.84
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
0.08 J
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
0.06 J
0.20 J
0.10 J
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<100U
<10U
<1.0U
<0.5 U
<1.0U
<10U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
0.29 J
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<1.0U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
-------
B-72
Table B-4 Sample Results - Volatile Organic Compounds (Raton Basin, Colorado)
Parameter (CAS Number)
Round 1 Round 2 Round 3 Round 4 Round 1 Round 2 Round 3
Sample MW01 MW01 MW01 MW01 MW02 MW02 MW02 MW02
Sample Date 10/3/11 5/15/12 11/5/12 4/29/13 10/4/11 5/15/12 11/6/12 4/30/13
Round 4
1,2,4-trimethylbenzene (95-63-6)
1,3-dichlorobenzene (541-73-1)
1,4-dichlorobenzene (106-46-7)
1,2,3-trimethylbenzene (526-73-8)
1,2-dichlorobenzene (95-50-1)
naphthalene (91-20-3)
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
-------
B-73
Table B-4 Sample Results - Volatile Organic Compounds (Raton Basin, Colorado)
Parameter (CAS Number)
Round 1 Round 2 Round 3 Round 4 Round 1 Round 1 Round 1
Sample MW03 MW03 MW03 MW03 MW04 MW05 DW01 DW01
Sample Date 10/4/11 5/15/12 11/7/12 5/1/13 10/5/11 10/5/11 10/3/11 5/15/12
Round 2
1,2,4-trimethylbenzene (95-63-6)
1,3-dichlorobenzene (541-73-1)
1,4-dichlorobenzene (106-46-7)
1,2,3-trimethylbenzene (526-73-8)
1,2-dichlorobenzene (95-50-1)
naphthalene (91-20-3)
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
-------
B-74
Table B-4 Sample Results - Volatile Organic Compounds (Raton Basin, Colorado)
Parameter (CAS Number)
Round 1 Round 2 Round 3 Round 4 Round 1 Round 2 Round 3
Sample DW02 DW02 DW02 DW02 DW03 DW03 DW03 DW03
Sample Date 10/3/11 5/14/12 11/5/12 4/29/13 10/3/11 5/15/12 11/5/12 4/30/13
Round 4
1,2,4-trimethylbenzene (95-63-6)
1,3-dichlorobenzene (541-73-1)
1,4-dichlorobenzene (106-46-7)
1,2,3-trimethylbenzene (526-73-8)
1,2-dichlorobenzene (95-50-1)
naphthalene (91-20-3)
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
-------
B-75
Table B-4 Sample Results - Volatile Organic Compounds (Raton Basin, Colorado)
Parameter (CAS Number)
Sample DW04 DW04 DW04 DW05 DW05 DW05 DW05
Sample Date 10/4/11 11/6/12 4/30/13 10/4/11 5/14/12 11/5/12 4/29/13
Unit Round 1 Round 3 Round 4 Round 1 Round 2 Round 3 Round 4
1,2,4-trimethylbenzene (95-63-6)
1,3-dichlorobenzene (541-73-1)
1,4-dichlorobenzene (106-46-7)
1,2,3-trimethylbenzene (526-73-8)
1,2-dichlorobenzene (95-50-1)
naphthalene (91-20-3)
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
-------
B-76
Table B-4 Sample Results - Volatile Organic Compounds (Raton Basin, Colorado)
Parameter (CAS Number)
Round 1 Round 2 Round 3 Round 4 Round 1 Round 2 Round 3
Sample DW06 DW06 DW06 DW06 DW07 DW07 DW07 DW07
Sample Date 10/6/11 5/16/12 11/8/12 5/2/13 10/6/11 5/16/12 11/6/12 5/1/13
Round 4
1,2,4-trimethylbenzene (95-63-6)
1,3-dichlorobenzene (541-73-1)
1,4-dichlorobenzene (106-46-7)
1,2,3-trimethylbenzene (526-73-8)
1,2-dichlorobenzene (95-50-1)
naphthalene (91-20-3)
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U,J-
<0.5 U,J-
<0.5 U,J-
<0.5 U,J-
<0.5 U,J-
<0.5 U,J-
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
-------
B-77
Table B-4 Sample Results - Volatile Organic Compounds (Raton Basin, Colorado)
Parameter (CAS Number)
Round 1 Round 2 Round 3 Round 4 Round 1 Round 2 Round 3
Sample DW08 DW08 DW08 DW08 DW09 DW09 DW09 DW09
Sample Date 10/5/11 5/16/12 11/7/12 5/1/13 10/5/11 5/16/12 11/8/12 5/1/13
Round 4
1,2,4-trimethylbenzene (95-63-6)
1,3-dichlorobenzene (541-73-1)
1,4-dichlorobenzene (106-46-7)
1,2,3-trimethylbenzene (526-73-8)
1,2-dichlorobenzene (95-50-1)
naphthalene (91-20-3)
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
0.10 J
<0.5 U
0.73
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U, J-
<0.5 U, J-
<0.5 U, J-
0.08 J-
0.08 J-
0.78 J-
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
-------
B-78
Table B-4 Sample Results - Volatile Organic Compounds (Raton Basin, Colorado)
Parameter (CAS Number)
Round 1 Round 2 Round 3 Round 4 Round 1 Round 2 Round 3
Sample DW10 DW10 DW10 DW10 DW11 DW11 DW11 DW11
Sample Date 10/5/11 5/17/12 11/8/12 5/1/13 10/6/11 5/15/12 11/7/12 4/29/13
Round 4
1,2,4-trimethylbenzene (95-63-6)
1,3-dichlorobenzene (541-73-1)
1,4-dichlorobenzene (106-46-7)
1,2,3-trimethylbenzene (526-73-8)
1,2-dichlorobenzene (95-50-1)
naphthalene (91-20-3)
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U,J-
<0.5 U,J-
<0.5 U,J-
<0.5 U,J-
<0.5 U,J-
<0.5 U,J-
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
-------
B-79
Table B-4 Sample Results - Volatile Organic Compounds (Raton Basin, Colorado)
Parameter (CAS Number)
Sample DW12 DW13 DW13 DW13 DW14 DW14 DW14 DW15
Sample Date 10/6/11 5/15/12 11/6/12 4/30/13 5/17/12 11/8/12 5/1/13 11/8/12
Unit Round 1 Round 2 Round 3 Round 4 Round 2 Round 3 Round 4 Round 3
1,2,4-trimethylbenzene (95-63-6)
1,3-dichlorobenzene (541-73-1)
1,4-dichlorobenzene (106-46-7)
1,2,3-trimethylbenzene (526-73-8)
1,2-dichlorobenzene (95-50-1)
naphthalene (91-20-3)
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U, J-
<0.5 U, J-
<0.5 U, J-
<0.5 U, J-
<0.5 U, J-
<0.5 U, J-
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U, J-
<0.5 U, J-
<0.5 U, J-
<0.5 U, J-
<0.5 U, J-
<0.5 U, J-
-------
B-80
Table B-4 Sample Results - Volatile Organic Compounds (Raton Basin, Colorado)
Parameter (CAS Number)
Round 1 Round 2 Round 3 Round 4 Round 1 Round 2 Round 3
Sample PW01 PW01 PW01 PW01 PW02 PW03 PW03 PW03
Sample Date 10/3/11 5/14/12 11/5/12 4/29/13 10/3/11 5/14/12 11/5/12 4/29/13
Round 4
1,2,4-trimethylbenzene (95-63-6)
1,3-dichlorobenzene (541-73-1)
1,4-dichlorobenzene (106-46-7)
1,2,3-trimethylbenzene (526-73-8)
1,2-dichlorobenzene (95-50-1)
naphthalene (91-20-3)
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
0.16 J
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
-------
B-81
Table B-4 Sample Results - Volatile Organic Compounds (Raton Basin, Colorado)
Parameter (CAS Number)
Sample SW01 SW01 SW01 SW01 SW02 SW02 SW02
Sample Date 10/4/11 5/14/12 11/7/12 4/30/13 5/14/12 11/6/12 4/30/13
Unit Round 1 Round 2 Round 3 Round 4 Round 2 Round 3 Round 4
1,2,4-trimethylbenzene (95-63-6)
1,3-dichlorobenzene (541-73-1)
1,4-dichlorobenzene (106-46-7)
1,2,3-trimethylbenzene (526-73-8)
1,2-dichlorobenzene (95-50-1)
naphthalene (91-20-3)
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
-------
B-82
Table B-4 Sample Results - Volatile Organic Compounds (Raton Basin, Colorado)
Parameter (CAS Number)
Round 2 Round 3
Sample SW03 SW03 SW03
Sample Date 5/15/12 11/6/12 4/30/13
Round 4
1,2,4-trimethylbenzene (95-63-6)
1,3-dichlorobenzene (541-73-1)
1,4-dichlorobenzene (106-46-7)
1,2,3-trimethylbenzene (526-73-8)
1,2-dichlorobenzene (95-50-1)
naphthalene (91-20-3)
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
tig/L
Hg/L
tig/L
1.96
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
0.13J
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
0.13J
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
-------
B-83
Table B-5 Sample Results - Dissolved Gases, Diesel and Gasoline Range Organics, Glycols, and Low Molecular
Weight Acids (Raton Basin, Colorado)
Parameter (CAS Number)
Sample MW01 MW01 MW01 MW01 MW02 MW02 MW02 MW02
Sample Date 10/3/11 5/15/12 11/5/12 4/29/13 10/4/11 5/15/12 11/6/12 4/30/13
Unit Round 1 Round 2 Round 3 Round 4 Round 1 Round 2 Round 3 Round 4
Dissolved Gases
Methane (74-82-8)
Ethane (74-84-0)
Propane (74-98-6)
Butane (106-97-8)
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
Diesel and Gas Range Organics
GRO/TPH
DRO
ug/L
ug/L
Glycols
2-butoxyethanol (111-76-2)
Diethyleneglycol (111-46-6)
Triethylene glycol (112-27-6)
Tetraethylene glycol (112-60-7)
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
Low Molecular Weight Acids
Lactate (50-21-5)
Formate (64-18-6)
Acetate (64-19-7)
Propionate (79-09-4)
Isobutyrate (79-31-2)
Butyrate (107-92-6)
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
0.0134 B
<0.0029 U
<0.0040 U
<0.0051 U
0.0191
<0.0027 U
<0.0038 U
<0.0047 U
0.0900
<0.0027 U
<0.0037 U
<0.0047 U
1.040 *
<0.0027 U
<0.0037 U
<0.0047 U
4.840
<0.0029 U
<0.0040 U
<0.0051 U
4.250
0.0013 J
<0.0038 U
<0.0047 U
4.930
<0.0027 U
<0.0037 U
<0.0047 U
3.270
0.0009 J
<0.0037 U
<0.0047 U
< 20.0 U
30.2
<20.0U
<20.0U
<20.0 U
21.7
<20.0 U
29.8
< 20.0 U
< 20.0 U
<20.0U
<20.0U
<20.0 U
<20.0 U
<20.0 U
<20.0 U
<5 U
<25 U
<25 U
<25 U
<25U
<25 U
<25 U
<25 U
<25 U,J-
<10U
<10U
<10U
<10U
<10U
<10U
<10U
<5 U, J-
<25 U, J-
<25 U, J-
<25 U, J-
<25 U
<25 U
<25 U
<25 U
<25 U, J-
<10U
<10U
<10U
<10U
<10U
<10U
<10U
<0.10U
<0.10U
R
<0.10 U
<0.10 U
<0.10 U
<0.10 U
R
<0.10 U
0.14
<0.10 U
<0.10 U
<0.10U
NR
0.05 J
<0.10 U
<0.10U, J-
<0.10U, J-
<0.10 U
NR
<0.10 U
<0.10 U
<0.10U,J-
<0.10 U
<0.10U
<0.10 U
R
<0.10 U
<0.10 U
<0.10 U
<0.10 U
R
<0.10 U
<0.10 U
<0.10 U
<0.10 U
0.08 J
NR
0.24
<0.10 U
<0.10U, J-
<0.10U, J-
<0.10 U
NR
NRZ
<0.10 U
<0.10U, J-
<0.10 U
-------
B-84
Table B-5 Sample Results - Dissolved Gases, Diesel and Gasoline Range Organics, Glycols, and Low Molecular
Weight Acids (Raton Basin, Colorado)
Parameter (CAS Number)
Sample MW03 MW03 MW03 MW03 MW04 MW05 DW01 DW01
Sample Date 10/4/11 5/15/12 11/7/12 5/1/13 10/5/11 10/5/11 10/3/11 5/15/12
Unit Round 1 Round 2 Round 3 Round 4 Round 1 Round 1 Round 1 Round 2
Dissolved Gases
Methane (74-82-8)
Ethane (74-84-0)
Propane (74-98-6)
Butane (106-97-8)
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
Diesel and Gas Range Organics
GRO/TPH
DRO
ug/L
ug/L
Glycols
2-butoxyethanol (111-76-2)
Diethyleneglycol (111-46-6)
Triethylene glycol (112-27-6)
Tetraethylene glycol (112-60-7)
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
Low Molecular Weight Acids
Lactate (50-21-5)
Formate (64-18-6)
Acetate (64-19-7)
Propionate (79-09-4)
Isobutyrate (79-31-2)
Butyrate (107-92-6)
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
6.370
0.0145 B
<0.0040 U
<0.0051 U
4.210
0.0071
<0.0038 U
<0.0047 U
18.70
0.0274
<0.0037 U
<0.0047 U
12.20
<0.0027 U
<0.0037 U
<0.0047 U
15.10
0.0079
<0.0040 U
<0.0051 U
17.50
0.0161
<0.0040 U
<0.0051 U
0.0157 B
<0.0029 U
<0.0040 U
<0.0051 U
0.0069
<0.0027 U
<0.0038 U
<0.0047 U
30.1 B
1940 J
31.3
1310J
<20.0 U
874
<20.0 U
1530
< 20.0 U
< 20.0 U
<20.0U
52.5
< 20.0 U
< 20.0 U
<20.0U
<20.0U
<5 U, J-
<25 U, J-
<25 U, J-
<25 U, J-
<25U
<25U
<25U
<25U
<25 U,J-
<10U
<10U
<10U
<10U
<10U
<10U
<10U
<5 U, J-
<25 U, J-
<25 U, J-
<25 U, J-
<5 U, J-
<25 U, J-
<25 U, J-
<25 U, J-
<5 U
<25 U
<25 U
<25 U
<25 U
<25 U
<25 U
<25 U
<0.10U
<0.10U
NRZ
<0.10U
<0.10U
<0.10U
<0.10 U
R
0.20
<0.10 U
<0.10 U
<0.10 U
<0.10U
NR
0.47
<0.10U
<0.10U, J-
<0.10U
<0.10 U
NR
<0.10 U
<0.10 U
<0.10U, J-
<0.10 U
<0.10 U
<0.10 U
R
<0.10U
<0.10 U
<0.10U
<0.10 U
<0.10 U
R
<0.10 U
<0.10 U
<0.10 U
<0.10 U
0.18
R
<0.10 U
<0.10 U
<0.10 U
<0.10 U
R
<0.10 U
<0.10 U
<0.10 U
<0.10 U
-------
B-85
Table B-5 Sample Results - Dissolved Gases, Diesel and Gasoline Range Organics, Glycols, and Low Molecular
Weight Acids (Raton Basin, Colorado)
Parameter (CAS Number)
Sample DW02 DW02 DW02 DW02 DW03 DW03 DW03 DW03
Sample Date 10/3/11 5/14/12 11/5/12 4/29/13 10/3/11 5/15/12 11/5/12 4/30/13
Unit Round 1 Round 2 Round 3 Round 4 Round 1 Round 2 Round 3 Round 4
Dissolved Gases
Methane (74-82-8)
Ethane (74-84-0)
Propane (74-98-6)
Butane (106-97-8)
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
Diesel and Gas Range Organics
GRO/TPH
DRO
ug/L
ug/L
Glycols
2-butoxyethanol (111-76-2)
Diethyleneglycol (111-46-6)
Triethylene glycol (112-27-6)
Tetraethylene glycol (112-60-7)
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
Low Molecular Weight Acids
Lactate (50-21-5)
Formate (64-18-6)
Acetate (64-19-7)
Propionate (79-09-4)
Isobutyrate (79-31-2)
Butyrate (107-92-6)
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
0.1010
<0.0029 U
<0.0040 U
<0.0051 U
0.0141
<0.0027 U
<0.0038 U
<0.0047 U
0.0939
<0.0027 U
<0.0037 U
<0.0047 U
<0.0013 U
<0.0027 U
<0.0037 U
<0.0047 U
0.0129 B
<0.0029 U
<0.0040 U
<0.0051 U
0.0012 J
<0.0027 U
<0.0038 U
<0.0047 U
0.0328 *
<0.0027 U
<0.0037 U
<0.0047 U
<0.0013 U
<0.0027 U
<0.0037 U
<0.0047 U
< 20.0 U
39.0
<20.0U
< 20.0 U
<20.0 U
21.3
<20.0 U
28.3
< 20.0 U
20.0
<20.0U
< 20.0 U
<20.0 U
<20.0 U
<20.0 U
<20.0 U
<5 U, J-
<25 U, J-
<25 U, J-
<25 U, J-
<25U
<25U
<25U
<25U
<25 U, J-
<10U
<10U
<10U
<10U
<10U
<10U
<10U
<5 U
<25 U
<25 U
<25 U
<25U
<25 U
<25 U
<25 U
<25 U,J-
<10U
<10U
<10U
<10U
<10U
<10U
<10U
<0.10U
<0.10U
R
<0.10U
<0.10U
<0.10U
<0.10 U
R
<0.10 U
<0.10 U
<0.10 U
<0.10 U
<0.10U
NR
<0.10U
<0.10U
<0.10U, J-
<0.10U, J-
<0.10 U
NR
<0.10 U
<0.10 U
<0.10U, J-
<0.10 U
<0.10U
<0.10 U
R
<0.10U
<0.10 U
<0.10 U
<0.10 U
R
<0.10 U
<0.10 U
<0.10 U
<0.10 U
<0.10U
NR
<0.10U
<0.10U
<0.10U, J-
<0.10U, J-
<0.10 U
NR
<0.10 U
<0.10 U
<0.10U,J-
<0.10 U
-------
B-86
Table B-5 Sample Results - Dissolved Gases, Diesel and Gasoline Range Organics, Glycols, and Low Molecular
Weight Acids (Raton Basin, Colorado)
Parameter (CAS Number)
Sample DW04 DW04 DW04 DW05 DW05 DW05 DW05
Sample Date 10/4/11 11/6/12 4/30/13 10/4/11 5/14/12 11/5/12 4/29/13
Unit Round 1 Round 3 Round 4 Round 1 Round 2 Round 3 Round 4
Dissolved Gases
Methane (74-82-8)
Ethane (74-84-0)
Propane (74-98-6)
Butane (106-97-8)
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
Diesel and Gas Range Organics
GRO/TPH
DRO
ug/L
ug/L
Glycols
2-butoxyethanol (111-76-2)
Diethyleneglycol (111-46-6)
Triethylene glycol (112-27-6)
Tetraethylene glycol (112-60-7)
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
Low Molecular Weight Acids
Lactate (50-21-5)
Formate (64-18-6)
Acetate (64-19-7)
Propionate (79-09-4)
Isobutyrate (79-31-2)
Butyrate (107-92-6)
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
10.00
0.0094 B
<0.0040 U
<0.0051 U
12.70
0.0065
<0.0037 U
<0.0047 U
14.40
0.0096
<0.0037 U
<0.0047 U
0.0026 B
<0.0029 U
<0.0040 U
<0.0051 U
0.0069
<0.0027 U
<0.0038 U
<0.0047 U
0.1820
<0.0027 U
<0.0037 U
<0.0047 U
0.0966 *
<0.0027 U
<0.0037 U
<0.0047 U
< 20.0 U
< 20.0 U
<20.0 U
<20.0 U
<20.0 U
<20.0 U
<20.0U
<20.0U
< 20.0 U
< 20.0 U
<20.0 U
<20.0 U
<20.0 U
21.9
<5 U, J-
<25 U,J-
<25 U,J-
<25 U,J-
<25 U, J-
<10U
<10U
<10U
<10U
<10U
<10U
<10U
<5 U, J-
<25 U, J-
<25 U, J-
<25 U, J-
<25 U
<25 U
<25 U
<25 U
<25 U, J-
<10U
<10U
<10U
<10U
<10U
<10U
<10U
<0.10 U
<0.10 U
R
<0.10 U
<0.10 U
<0.10 U
<0.10 U
NR
0.06 J
<0.10 U
<0.10U, J-
<0.10U, J-
<0.10 U
NR
<0.10 U
<0.10 U
<0.10U, J-
<0.10 U
0.09 J
<0.10 U
R
<0.10 U
<0.10 U
<0.10 U
<0.10 U
R
0.05 J
<0.10 U
<0.10 U
<0.10 U
<0.10 U
NR
<0.10 U
<0.10 U
<0.10U,J-
<0.10U,J-
<0.10 U
NR
<0.10 U
<0.10 U
<0.10U, J-
<0.10 U
-------
B-87
Table B-5 Sample Results - Dissolved Gases, Diesel and Gasoline Range Organics, Glycols, and Low Molecular
Weight Acids (Raton Basin, Colorado)
Parameter (CAS Number)
Sample DW06 DW06 DW06 DW06 DW07 DW07 DW07 DW07
Sample Date 10/6/11 5/16/12 11/8/12 5/2/13 10/6/11 5/16/12 11/6/12 5/1/13
Unit Round 1 Round 2 Round 3 Round 4 Round 1 Round 2 Round 3 Round 4
Dissolved Gases
Methane (74-82-8)
Ethane (74-84-0)
Propane (74-98-6)
Butane (106-97-8)
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
Diesel and Gas Range Organics
GRO/TPH
DRO
ug/L
ug/L
Glycols
2-butoxyethanol (111-76-2)
Diethyleneglycol (111-46-6)
Triethylene glycol (112-27-6)
Tetraethylene glycol (112-60-7)
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
Low Molecular Weight Acids
Lactate (50-21-5)
Formate (64-18-6)
Acetate (64-19-7)
Propionate (79-09-4)
Isobutyrate (79-31-2)
Butyrate (107-92-6)
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
13.50
0.0137
<0.0040 U
<0.0051 U
6.710
0.0100
<0.0038 U
<0.0047 U
10.40
0.0090
<0.0037 U
<0.0047 U
8.080
0.0071
<0.0037 U
<0.0047 U
0.021
<0.0029 U
<0.0040 U
<0.0051 U
0.0206
<0.0027 U
<0.0038 U
<0.0047 U
0.0178
<0.0027 U
<0.0037 U
<0.0047 U
0.0241
<0.0027 U
<0.0037 U
<0.0047 U
22.5
81.4
21.5
89.7
<20.0 U
147
<20.0 U
148
< 20.0 U
23.0
<20.0U
<20.0U
<20.0 U
21.5
<20.0 U
<20.0U, J-
<5 U
<25 U
<25 U
<25 U
<25U
<25 U
<25 U
<25 U
<25 U,J-
<10U,J-
<10U,J-
<10U,J-
<10U
<10U
<10U
<10U
<5 U
<25 U
<25 U
<25 U
<25 U
<25 U
<25 U
<25 U
<25 U,J-
<10U
<10U
<10U
<10U
<10U
<10U
<10U
<0.10 U
<0.10 U
R
<0.10 U
<0.10 U
<0.10 U
<0.10 U
R
<0.10 U
<0.10 U
<0.10 U
<0.10 U
<0.10 U
NR
<0.10 U
<0.10 U
<0.10U, J-
<0.10 U
<0.10 U
NR
<0.10 U
<0.10 U
<0.10U,J-
<0.10 U
<0.10 U
<0.10 U
R
<0.10 U
<0.10 U
<0.10 U
<0.10 U
R
<0.10 U
<0.10 U
<0.10 U
<0.10 U
<0.10 U
NR
<0.10 U
<0.10 U
<0.10U, J-
<0.10U, J-
<0.10 U
NR
<0.10 U
<0.10 U
<0.10U, J-
<0.10 U
-------
B-88
Table B-5 Sample Results - Dissolved Gases, Diesel and Gasoline Range Organics, Glycols, and Low Molecular
Weight Acids (Raton Basin, Colorado)
Parameter (CAS Number)
Sample DW08 DW08 DW08 DW08 DW09 DW09 DW09 DW09
Sample Date 10/5/11 5/16/12 11/7/12 5/1/13 10/5/11 5/16/12 11/8/12 5/1/13
Unit Round 1 Round 2 Round 3 Round 4 Round 1 Round 2 Round 3 Round 4
Dissolved Gases
Methane (74-82-8)
Ethane (74-84-0)
Propane (74-98-6)
Butane (106-97-8)
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
Diesel and Gas Range Organics
GRO/TPH
DRO
ug/L
ug/L
Glycols
2-butoxyethanol (111-76-2)
Diethyleneglycol (111-46-6)
Triethylene glycol (112-27-6)
Tetraethylene glycol (112-60-7)
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
Low Molecular Weight Acids
Lactate (50-21-5)
Formate (64-18-6)
Acetate (64-19-7)
Propionate (79-09-4)
Isobutyrate (79-31-2)
Butyrate (107-92-6)
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
3.580
0.0087
0.0094
0.0072
7.160
0.0087
<0.0038 U
<0.0047 U
4.110
0.0058
<0.0037 U
<0.0047 U
8.400
<0.0027 U
<0.0037 U
<0.0047 U
9.530
0.0116
<0.0040 U
<0.0051 U
11.30
0.0180
<0.0038 U
<0.0047 U
5.920
0.0072
<0.0037 U
<0.0047 U
13.30
<0.0027 U
<0.0037 U
<0.0047 U
< 20.0 U
21.1
<20.0U
< 20.0 U
<20.0 U
46.5 B
<20.0 U
52.3 B
< 20.0 U
79.3
31.8
40.5
<20.0 U
53.8
<20.0 U
50.9 B
<5 U, J-
<25 U, J-
<25 U, J-
<25 U, J-
<25U
<25U
<25U
<25U
<25 U, J-
<10U
<10U
<10U
<10U
<10U
<10U
<10U
<5 U, J-
<25 U,J-
<25 U,J-
<25 U,J-
<25 U
<25 U
<25 U
<25 U
<25 U,J-
<10U, J-
<10U, J-
<10U, J-
<10U
<10U
<10U
<10U
<0.10U
0.10
R
<0.10U
<0.10U
<0.10U
<0.10 U
R
<0.10 U
<0.10 U
<0.10 U
<0.10 U
<0.10U
NR
<0.10U
<0.10U
<0.10U, J-
<0.10U
<0.10 U
NR
<0.10 U
<0.10 U
<0.10U, J-
<0.10 U
<0.10U
0.07 J
R
<0.10U
<0.10 U
<0.10U
<0.10 U
R
<0.10 U
<0.10 U
<0.10 U
<0.10 U
<0.10U
NR
<0.10U
<0.10U
<0.10U, J-
<0.10U
<0.10 U
NR
<0.10 U
<0.10 U
<0.10U,J-
<0.10 U
-------
B-89
Table B-5 Sample Results - Dissolved Gases, Diesel and Gasoline Range Organics, Glycols, and Low Molecular
Weight Acids (Raton Basin, Colorado)
Parameter (CAS Number)
Sample DW10 DW10 DW10 DW10 DW11 DW11 DW11 DW11
Sample Date 10/5/11 5/17/12 11/8/12 5/1/13 10/6/11 5/15/12 11/7/12 4/29/13
Unit Round 1 Round 2 Round 3 Round 4 Round 1 Round 2 Round 3 Round 4
Dissolved Gases
Methane (74-82-8)
Ethane (74-84-0)
Propane (74-98-6)
Butane (106-97-8)
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
Diesel and Gas Range Organics
GRO/TPH
DRO
ug/L
ug/L
Glycols
2-butoxyethanol (111-76-2)
Diethyleneglycol (111-46-6)
Triethylene glycol (112-27-6)
Tetraethylene glycol (112-60-7)
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
Low Molecular Weight Acids
Lactate (50-21-5)
Formate (64-18-6)
Acetate (64-19-7)
Propionate (79-09-4)
Isobutyrate (79-31-2)
Butyrate (107-92-6)
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
9.580
0.0087
<0.0040 U
<0.0051 U
11.50
0.0087
<0.0038 U
<0.0047 U
11.70
0.0099
<0.0037 U
<0.0047 U
10.70
<0.0027 U
<0.0037 U
<0.0047 U
0.573
0.0027 J
0.0057
<0.0051 U
0.5500
0.0009 J
<0.0038 U
<0.0047 U
2.870
0.0017 J
<0.0037 U
<0.0047 U
2.300 *
<0.0027 U
<0.0037 U
<0.0047 U
23.9
21.1
44.8
<20.0U
20.6
<20.0 U
<20.0 U
<20.0 U
< 20.0 U
<23.3 U
<20.0U
<20.0U
<20.0 U
<20.0 U
<20.0 U
22.5
<5 U, J-
<25 U, J-
<25 U, J-
<25 U, J-
<25U
<25U
<25U
<25U
<25 U,J-
<10U,J-
<10U,J-
<10U,J-
<10U
<10U
<10U
<10U
<5 U
<25 U
<25 U
<25 U
<25 U
<25 U
<25 U
<25 U
<25 U,J-
<10U
<10U
<10U
<10U
<10U
<10U
<10U
0.17
0.06 J
R
<0.10U
<0.10U
<0.10U
<0.10 U
R
<0.10 U
<0.10 U
<0.10 U
<0.10 U
<0.10U
NR
<0.10U
<0.10U
<0.10U, J-
<0.10U
<0.10 U
NR
<0.10 U
<0.10 U
<0.10U, J-
<0.10 U
<0.10 U
<0.10 U
R
<0.10 U
<0.10 U
<0.10 U
<0.10 U
R
<0.10 U
<0.10 U
<0.10 U
<0.10 U
<0.10 U
NR
<0.10 U
<0.10 U
<0.10U, J-
<0.10 U
<0.10 U
NR
<0.10 U
<0.10 U
<0.10U,J-
<0.10 U
-------
B-90
Table B-5 Sample Results - Dissolved Gases, Diesel and Gasoline Range Organics, Glycols, and Low Molecular
Weight Acids (Raton Basin, Colorado)
Parameter (CAS Number)
Sample DW12 DW13 DW13 DW13 DW14 DW14 DW14 DW15
Sample Date 10/6/11 5/15/12 11/6/12 4/30/13 5/17/12 11/8/12 5/1/13 11/8/12
Unit Round 1 Round 2 Round 3 Round 4 Round 2 Round 3 Round 4 Round 3
Dissolved Gases
Methane (74-82-8)
Ethane (74-84-0)
Propane (74-98-6)
Butane (106-97-8)
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
Diesel and Gas Range Organics
GRO/TPH
DRO
ug/L
ug/L
Glycols
2-butoxyethanol (111-76-2)
Diethyleneglycol (111-46-6)
Triethylene glycol (112-27-6)
Tetraethylene glycol (112-60-7)
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
Low Molecular Weight Acids
Lactate (50-21-5)
Formate (64-18-6)
Acetate (64-19-7)
Propionate (79-09-4)
Isobutyrate (79-31-2)
Butyrate (107-92-6)
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
0.832
<0.0029 U
<0.0040 U
<0.0051 U
0.0005 J
<0.0027 U
<0.0038 U
<0.0047 U
0.0306
<0.0027 U
<0.0037 U
<0.0047 U
0.0244
<0.0027 U
<0.0037 U
<0.0047 U
0.0010 J
<0.0027 U
<0.0038 U
<0.0047 U
0.0044
<0.0027 U
<0.0037 U
<0.0047 U
<0.0013 U
<0.0027 U
<0.0037 U
<0.0047 U
0.0817
<0.0027 U
<0.0037 U
<0.0047 U
< 20.0 U
54.7
<20.0U
< 20.0 U
<20.0 U
<20.0 U
<20.0 U
<20.0 U
49.8 J-
1200 J
<20.0 U
24.1
<20.0 U
34.6 B
29.60
<20.0 U
<5 U
<25 U
<25 U
<25 U
<25U
<25U
<25U
<25U
<25 U, J-
<10U
<10U
<10U
<10U
<10U
<10U
<10U
<25 U
<25 U
<25 U
<25 U
<25 U, J-
<10U, J-
<10U, J-
<10U, J-
<10U
<10U
<10U
<10U
<25 U, J-
<10U, J-
<10U, J-
<10U, J-
<0.10U
<0.10U
R
<0.10U
<0.10U
<0.10U
<0.10 U
R
<0.10 U
<0.10 U
<0.10 U
<0.10 U
<0.10U
NR
<0.10U
<0.10U
<0.10U, J-
<0.10U, J-
<0.10 U
NR
<0.10 U
<0.10 U
<0.10U, J-
<0.10 U
<0.10 U
R
<0.10 U
<0.10 U
<0.10 U
<0.10 U
<0.10 U
NR
<0.10 U
<0.10 U
<0.10U,J-
<0.10 U
<0.10 U
NR
<0.10 U
<0.10 U
<0.10U, J-
<0.10 U
<0.10 U
NR
<0.10 U
<0.10 U
<0.10U, J-
<0.10 U
-------
B-91
Table B-5 Sample Results - Dissolved Gases, Diesel and Gasoline Range Organics, Glycols, and Low Molecular
Weight Acids (Raton Basin, Colorado)
Parameter (CAS Number)
Sample PW01 PW01 PW01 PW01 PW02 PW03 PW03 PW03
Sample Date 10/3/11 5/14/12 11/5/12 4/29/13 10/3/11 5/14/12 11/5/12 4/29/13
Unit Round 1 Round 2 Round 3 Round 4 Round 1 Round 2 Round 3 Round 4
Dissolved Gases
Methane (74-82-8)
Ethane (74-84-0)
Propane (74-98-6)
Butane (106-97-8)
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
Diesel and Gas Range Organics
GRO/TPH
DRO
ug/L
ug/L
Glycols
2-butoxyethanol (111-76-2)
Diethyleneglycol (111-46-6)
Triethylene glycol (112-27-6)
Tetraethylene glycol (112-60-7)
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
Low Molecular Weight Acids
Lactate (50-21-5)
Formate (64-18-6)
Acetate (64-19-7)
Propionate (79-09-4)
Isobutyrate (79-31-2)
Butyrate (107-92-6)
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
27.80
0.0091 B
<0.0040 U
<0.0051 U
16.70
0.0062
<0.0038 U
<0.0047 U
18.10
0.0061
<0.0037 U
<0.0047 U
20.90 *
0.0074
<0.0037 U
<0.0047 U
14.80
0.0893
<0.0040 U
<0.0051 U
19.60
0.0135
<0.0038 U
<0.0047 U
17.10
0.0107
<0.0037 U
<0.0047 U
28.90 *
0.0181
<0.0037 U
<0.0047 U
< 20.0 U
31.9
<20.0U
48.0
<20.0 U
70.1
<20.0 U
77.0000
< 20.0 U
40.1
<20.0U
118
<20.0 U
79.7 J-, *
<20.0 U
73.6
<5 U
<25 U
<25 U
<25 U
<25U
<25 U
<25 U
<25 U
<25 U,J-
<10U
<10U
<10U
<10U
<10U
<10U
<10U
<5 U
<25 U
<25 U
<25 U
<25 U
<25 U
<25 U
<25 U
<25 U,J-
<10U
<10U
<10U
<10U
1.1 J
2.6 J+
<10U
<0.10 U
<0.10 U
NRZ
<0.10 U
<0.10 U
<0.10 U
<0.10 U
R
0.09 J
<0.10 U
<0.10 U
<0.10 U
<0.10 U
NR
0.09 J
<0.10 U
<0.10U, J-
<0.10U, J-
<0.10 U
NR
<0.10 U
<0.10 U
<0.10U, J-
<0.10 U
<0.10 U
<0.10 U
R
<0.10 U
<0.10 U
<0.10 U
<0.10 U
R
0.17
<0.10 U
<0.10 U
<0.10 U
<0.10 U
NR
<0.10 U
<0.10 U
<0.10U, J-
<0.10U, J-
<0.10 U
NR
NRZ
<0.10 U
<0.10U,J-
<0.10 U
-------
B-92
Table B-5 Sample Results - Dissolved Gases, Diesel and Gasoline Range Organics, Glycols, and Low Molecular
Weight Acids (Raton Basin, Colorado)
Parameter (CAS Number)
Sample SW01 SW01 SW01 SW01 SW02 SW02 SW02
Sample Date 10/4/11 5/14/12 11/7/12 4/30/13 5/14/12 11/6/12 4/30/13
Unit Round 1 Round 2 Round 3 Round 4 Round 2 Round 3 Round 4
Dissolved Gases
Methane (74-82-8)
Ethane (74-84-0)
Propane (74-98-6)
Butane (106-97-8)
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
Diesel and Gas Range Organics
GRO/TPH
DRO
ug/L
ug/L
Glycols
2-butoxyethanol (111-76-2)
Diethyleneglycol (111-46-6)
Triethylene glycol (112-27-6)
Tetraethylene glycol (112-60-7)
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
Low Molecular Weight Acids
Lactate (50-21-5)
Formate (64-18-6)
Acetate (64-19-7)
Propionate (79-09-4)
Isobutyrate (79-31-2)
Butyrate (107-92-6)
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
<0.0014 U
<0.0029 U
0.0046 B
<0.0051 U
0.0012 J
<0.0027 U
<0.0038 U
<0.0047 U
0.0049 B
<0.0027 U
<0.0037 U
<0.0047 U
<0.0013 U
<0.0027 U
<0.0037 U
<0.0047 U
0.0078
<0.0027 U
<0.0038 U
<0.0047 U
0.0212
<0.0027 U
<0.0037 U
<0.0047 U
0.0142
<0.0027 U
<0.0037 U
<0.0047 U
< 20.0 U
41.8
<20.0U
34.2
<20.0 U
39.8 B
<20.0 U
46.9
< 20.0 U
30.3
<20.0 U
23.6
<20.0 U
29.4
<5 U, J-
<25 U, J-
<25 U, J-
<25 U, J-
<25U
<25U
<25U
<25U
<25 U, J-
<10U
<10U
<10U
<10U
<10U
<10U
<10U
<25 U
<25 U
<25 U
<25 U
<25 U, J-
<10U
<10U
<10U
<10U
<10U
<10U
<10U
<0.10U
<0.10U
R
<0.10U
<0.10U
<0.10U
<0.10 U
R
<0.10 U
<0.10 U
<0.10 U
<0.10 U
<0.10U
NR
<0.10U
<0.10U
<0.10U, J-
<0.10U
<0.10 U
NR
<0.10 U
<0.10 U
<0.10U, J-
<0.10 U
<0.10U
R
<0.10U
<0.10U
<0.10 U
<0.10U
<0.10 U
NR
0.13
<0.10 U
<0.10U, J-
<0.10U, J-
<0.10U
NR
<0.10U
<0.10U
<0.10U, J-
<0.10 U
-------
B-93
Table B-5 Sample Results - Dissolved Gases, Diesel and Gasoline Range Organics, Glycols, and Low Molecular
Weight Acids (Raton Basin, Colorado)
Parameter (CAS Number)
Sample SW03 SW03 SW03
Sample Date 5/15/12 11/6/12 4/30/13
Unit Round 2 Round 3 Round 4
Dissolved Gases
Methane (74-82-8)
Ethane (74-84-0)
Propane (74-98-6)
Butane (106-97-8)
Diesel and Gas Range Organics
GRO/TPH
DRO
Glycols
2-butoxyethanol (111-76-2)
Diethyleneglycol (111-46-6)
Triethylene glycol (112-27-6)
Tetraethylene glycol (112-60-7)
Low Molecular Weight Acids
Lactate (50-21-5)
Formate (64-18-6)
Acetate (64-19-7)
Propionate (79-09-4)
Isobutyrate (79-31-2)
Butyrate (107-92-6)
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
14.60
0.0075
<0.0038 U
<0.0047 U
< 20.0 U
26.6
<25 U
<25 U
<25 U
<25 U
<0.10U
R
<0.10U
<0.10U
<0.10U
<0.10U
16.30
0.0068
<0.0037 U
<0.0047 U
<20.0 U
28.2
<25U, J-
<10U
<10U
<10U
<0.10 U
NR
0.06 J
<0.10 U
<0.10U, J-
<0.10U, J-
15.80
0.0065
<0.0037 U
<0.0047 U
<20.0 U
28.7
<10U
<10U
<10U
<10U
<0.10U
NR
<0.10U
<0.10U
<0.10U, J-
<0.10 U
-------
B-94
Table B-6 Sample Results - Semivolatile Organic Compounds (Raton Basin, Colorado)
^^^^^^m ^^^^^^M ^^^^^^m ^^^^^^ ^^^^H
Parameter (CAS Number)
Round 1 Round 2 Round 3 Round 4 Round 1 Round 2 Round 3
Sample MW01 MW01 MW01 MW01 MW02 MW02 MW02 MW02
Sample Date 10/3/11 5/15/12 11/5/12 4/29/13 10/4/11 5/15/12 11/6/12 4/30/13
Round 4
R-(+)-limonene (5989-27-5)
1,2,4-trichlorobenzene (120-82-1)
1,2-dichlorobenzene (95-50-1)
1,2-dinitrobenzene (528-29-0)
1,3-dichlorobenzene (541-73-1)
1,3-dimethyladamantane (702-79-4)
1,3 -dinitrobenzene (99-65-0)
1,4-dichlorobenzene (106-46-7)
1,4-dinitrobenzene (100-25-4)
1-methylnaphthalene (90-12-0)
2,3,4,6-tetrachlorophenol (58-90-2)
2,3,5,6-tetrachlorophenol (935-95-5)
2,4,5-trichlorophenol (95-95-4)
2,4,6-trichlorophenol (88-06-2)
2,4-dichlorophenol (120-83-2)
2,4-dimethylphenol (105-67-9)
2,4-dinitrophenol (51-28-5)
2,4-dinitrotoluene (121-14-2)
2,6-dinitrotoluene (606-20-2)
2-butoxyethanol (111-76-2)
2-chloronaphthalene (91-58-7)
2-chlorophenol (95-57-8)
2-methylnaphthalene (91-57-6)
2-methylphenol (95-48-7)
2-nitroaniline (88-74-4)
2-nitrophenol (88-75-5)
3&4-methylphenol (108-39-4 & 106-44-5)
3,3'-dichlorobenzidine (91-94-1)
3-nitroaniline (99-09-2)
4,6-dinitro-2-methylphenol (534-52-1)
4-bromophenyl phenyl ether (101-55-3)
4-chloro-3-methylphenol (59-50-7)
lig/L
tii/L
Hg/L
tii/L
tii/L
tii/L
tii/L
Hg/L
tii/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<5.00 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
NR
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<1.00U, J-
<1.00U
<1.00U
<1.00U
<1.00U
<1.00U, J-
<1.00U
<1.00U
<1.00U
<1.00U
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
<3.00 U
<1.00U
<1.00U
<1.00U, J-
<1.00U
<2.00 U
<1.00U
<2.00 U
<1.00U
<2.00 U
<5.00 U
<1.00 U
<3.00 U
<2.00 U
<1.00U
<2.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
<3.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<5.00 U
<1.00U, J-
<3.00 U
<2.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00U
<1.00U
<1.00U
<1.00U
<1.00 U
<1.00U
<1.00U
<1.00U
<1.00U
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
<3.00 U
<1.00U
<1.00U
<1.00 U
<1.00U
<2.00 U
<1.00U
<2.00 U
<1.00U
<2.00 U
<5.00 U
<1.00 U
<3.00 U
<2.00 U
<1.00U
<2.00 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<5.00 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
NR
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<1.00U, J-
<1.00U
<1.00U
<1.00U
<1.00U
<1.00U, J-
<1.00U
<1.00U
<1.00U
<1.00U
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
<3.00 U
<1.00U
<1.00U
<1.00U, J-
<1.00U
<2.00 U
<1.00U
<2.00 U
<1.00U
<2.00 U
<5.00 U
<1.00 U
<3.00 U
<2.00 U
<1.00U
<2.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
<3.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<5.00 U
<1.00U,J-
<3.00 U
<2.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00U
<1.00U
<1.00U
<1.00U
<1.00U, J-
<1.00U
<1.00U
<1.00U
<1.00U
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
<3.00 U
<1.00U
<1.00U
<1.00 U
<1.00U
<2.00 U
<1.00U
NRZ
<1.00U
<2.00 U
<5.00 U
<1.00 U
<3.00 U
<2.00 U
<1.00U
<2.00 U
-------
B-95
Table B-6 Sample Results - Semivolatile Organic Compounds (Raton Basin, Colorado)
^^^^^^m ^^^^^^M ^^^^^^m ^^^^^^ ^^^^H
Parameter (CAS Number)
Round 1 Round 2 Round 3 Round 4 Round 1 Round 1 Round 1
Sample MW03 MW03 MW03 MW03 MW04 MW05 DW01 DW01
Sample Date 10/4/11 5/15/12 11/7/12 5/1/13 10/5/11 10/5/11 10/3/11 5/15/12
Round 2
R-(+)-limonene (5989-27-5)
1,2,4-trichlorobenzene (120-82-1)
1,2-dichlorobenzene (95-50-1)
1,2-dinitrobenzene (528-29-0)
1,3-dichlorobenzene (541-73-1)
1,3-dimethyladamantane (702-79-4)
1,3 -dinitrobenzene (99-65-0)
1,4-dichlorobenzene (106-46-7)
1,4-dinitrobenzene (100-25-4)
1-methylnaphthalene (90-12-0)
2,3,4,6-tetrachlorophenol (58-90-2)
2,3,5,6-tetrachlorophenol (935-95-5)
2,4,5-trichlorophenol (95-95-4)
2,4,6-trichlorophenol (88-06-2)
2,4-dichlorophenol (120-83-2)
2,4-dimethylphenol (105-67-9)
2,4-dinitrophenol (51-28-5)
2,4-dinitrotoluene (121-14-2)
2,6-dinitrotoluene (606-20-2)
2-butoxyethanol (111-76-2)
2-chloronaphthalene (91-58-7)
2-chlorophenol (95-57-8)
2-methylnaphthalene (91-57-6)
2-methylphenol (95-48-7)
2-nitroaniline (88-74-4)
2-nitrophenol (88-75-5)
3&4-methylphenol (108-39-4 & 106-44-5)
3,3'-dichlorobenzidine (91-94-1)
3-nitroaniline (99-09-2)
4,6-dinitro-2-methylphenol (534-52-1)
4-bromophenyl phenyl ether (101-55-3)
4-chloro-3-methylphenol (59-50-7)
lig/L
lig/L
Hg/L
liS/L
lig/L
lig/L
lig/L
Hg/L
liS/L
lig/L
lig/L
lig/L
Hg/L
liS/L
lig/L
lig/L
lig/L
Hg/L
liS/L
lig/L
lig/L
lig/L
Hg/L
liS/L
lig/L
lig/L
tii/L
Hg/L
liS/L
lig/L
tii/L
tii/L
<0.50U, J-
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50U, J-
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<5.00 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
1.45
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
NRZ
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
NR
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<1.00 H, U
<1.00 H, U
<1.00 H, U
<1.00 H, U
<1.00 H, U
<1.00 H, U
<1.00 H, U
<1.00 H, U
<1.00 H, U
<1.00 H, U
<2.00 H, U
<2.00 H, U
<2.00 H, U
<2.00 H, U
<2.00 H, U
<2.00 H, U
<3.00 H, U
<1.00 H, U
<1.00 H, U
<1.00 H, U
<1.00 H, U
<2.00 H, U
<1.00 H, U
<2.00 H, U
<1.00 H, U
<2.00 H, U
<5.00 H, U
<1.00 H, U
<3.00 H, U
<2.00 H, U
<1.00 H, U
<2.00 H, U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
<3.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<5.00 U
<1.00U, J-
<3.00 U
<2.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
<3.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<5.00 U
<1.00 U
<3.00 U
<2.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<0.50U, J-
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50U, J-
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<5.00 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
NR
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50U, J-
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50U, J-
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<5.00 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
NR
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<5.00 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
NR
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<1.00U, J-
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00U, J-
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
<3.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00U, J-
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<5.00 U
<1.00 U
<3.00 U
<2.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
-------
B-96
Table B-6 Sample Results - Semivolatile Organic Compounds (Raton Basin, Colorado)
^^^^^^m ^^^^^^M ^^^^^^m ^^^^^^ ^^^^H
Parameter (CAS Number)
Sample DW02 DW02 DW02 DW02 DW03 DW03 DW03 DW03
Sample Date 10/3/11 5/14/12 11/5/12 4/29/13 10/3/11 5/15/12 11/5/12 4/30/13
Unit Round 1 Round 2 Round 3 Round 4 Round 1 Round 2 Round 3 Round 4
R-(+)-limonene (5989-27-5)
1,2,4-trichlorobenzene (120-82-1)
1,2-dichlorobenzene (95-50-1)
1,2-dinitrobenzene (528-29-0)
1,3-dichlorobenzene (541-73-1)
1,3-dimethyladamantane (702-79-4)
1,3 -dinitrobenzene (99-65-0)
1,4-dichlorobenzene (106-46-7)
1,4-dinitrobenzene (100-25-4)
1-methylnaphthalene (90-12-0)
2,3,4,6-tetrachlorophenol (58-90-2)
2,3,5,6-tetrachlorophenol (935-95-5)
2,4,5-trichlorophenol (95-95-4)
2,4,6-trichlorophenol (88-06-2)
2,4-dichlorophenol (120-83-2)
2,4-dimethylphenol (105-67-9)
2,4-dinitrophenol (51-28-5)
2,4-dinitrotoluene (121-14-2)
2,6-dinitrotoluene (606-20-2)
2-butoxyethanol (111-76-2)
2-chloronaphthalene (91-58-7)
2-chlorophenol (95-57-8)
2-methylnaphthalene (91-57-6)
2-methylphenol (95-48-7)
2-nitroaniline (88-74-4)
2-nitrophenol (88-75-5)
3&4-methylphenol (108-39-4 & 106-44-5)
3,3'-dichlorobenzidine (91-94-1)
3-nitroaniline (99-09-2)
4,6-dinitro-2-methylphenol (534-52-1)
4-bromophenyl phenyl ether (101-55-3)
4-chloro-3-methylphenol (59-50-7)
lig/L
Hg/L
liS/L
lig/L
lig/L
lig/L
Hg/L
liS/L
lig/L
lig/L
lig/L
Hg/L
liS/L
lig/L
lig/L
lig/L
Hg/L
liS/L
lig/L
lig/L
lig/L
Hg/L
liS/L
lig/L
lig/L
lig/L
Hg/L
liS/L
lig/L
lig/L
tii/L
Hg/L
<0.50U, J-
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50U, J-
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<5.00 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
NR
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<1.00U, J-
<1.00U
<1.00U
<1.00U
<1.00U
<1.00U, J-
<1.00U
<1.00U
<1.00U
<1.00U
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
<3.00 U
<1.00U
<1.00U
<1.00U, J-
<1.00U
<2.00 U
<1.00U
<2.00 U
<1.00U
<2.00 U
<5.00 U
<1.00 U
<3.00 U
<2.00 U
<1.00U
<2.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
<3.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<5.00 U
<1.00U, J-
<3.00 U
<2.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00U
<1.00U
<1.00U
<1.00U
<1.00 U
<1.00U
<1.00U
<1.00U
<1.00U
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
<3.00 U
<1.00U
<1.00U
<1.00 U
<1.00U
<2.00 U
<1.00U
<2.00 U
<1.00U
<2.00 U
<5.00 U
<1.00 U
<3.00 U
<2.00 U
<1.00U
<2.00 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<5.00 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
NR
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<1.00U, J-
<1.00U
<1.00U
<1.00U
<1.00U
<1.00U, J-
<1.00U
<1.00U
<1.00U
<1.00U
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
<3.00 U
<1.00U
<1.00U
<1.00U, J-
<1.00U
<2.00 U
<1.00U
<2.00 U
<1.00U
<2.00 U
<5.00 U
<1.00 U
<3.00 U
<2.00 U
<1.00U
<2.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
<3.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<5.00 U
<1.00U,J-
<3.00 U
<2.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00U
<1.00U
<1.00U
<1.00U
<1.00U, J-
<1.00U
<1.00U
<1.00U
<1.00U
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
<3.00 U
<1.00U
<1.00U
<1.00 U
<1.00U
<2.00 U
<1.00U
<2.00 U
<1.00U
<2.00 U
<5.00 U
<1.00 U
<3.00 U
<2.00 U
<1.00U
<2.00 U
-------
B-97
Table B-6 Sample Results - Semivolatile Organic Compounds (Raton Basin, Colorado)
^^^^^^m ^^^^^^M ^^^^^^m ^^^^^^ ^^^^H
Parameter (CAS Number)
Sample DW04 DW04 DW04 DW05 DW05 DW05 DW05
Sample Date 10/4/11 11/6/12 4/30/13 10/4/11 5/14/12 11/5/12 4/29/13
Unit Round 1 Round 3 Round 4 Round 1 Round 2 Round 3 Round 4
R-(+)-limonene (5989-27-5)
1,2,4-trichlorobenzene (120-82-1)
1,2-dichlorobenzene (95-50-1)
1,2-dinitrobenzene (528-29-0)
1,3-dichlorobenzene (541-73-1)
1,3-dimethyladamantane (702-79-4)
1,3 -dinitrobenzene (99-65-0)
1,4-dichlorobenzene (106-46-7)
1,4-dinitrobenzene (100-25-4)
1-methylnaphthalene (90-12-0)
2,3,4,6-tetrachlorophenol (58-90-2)
2,3,5,6-tetrachlorophenol (935-95-5)
2,4,5-trichlorophenol (95-95-4)
2,4,6-trichlorophenol (88-06-2)
2,4-dichlorophenol (120-83-2)
2,4-dimethylphenol (105-67-9)
2,4-dinitrophenol (51-28-5)
2,4-dinitrotoluene (121-14-2)
2,6-dinitrotoluene (606-20-2)
2-butoxyethanol (111-76-2)
2-chloronaphthalene (91-58-7)
2-chlorophenol (95-57-8)
2-methylnaphthalene (91-57-6)
2-methylphenol (95-48-7)
2-nitroaniline (88-74-4)
2-nitrophenol (88-75-5)
3&4-methylphenol (108-39-4 & 106-44-5)
3,3'-dichlorobenzidine (91-94-1)
3-nitroaniline (99-09-2)
4,6-dinitro-2-methylphenol (534-52-1)
4-bromophenyl phenyl ether (101-55-3)
4-chloro-3-methylphenol (59-50-7)
lig/L
Hg/L
liS/L
lig/L
lig/L
lig/L
Hg/L
liS/L
lig/L
lig/L
lig/L
Hg/L
liS/L
lig/L
lig/L
lig/L
Hg/L
liS/L
lig/L
lig/L
lig/L
Hg/L
liS/L
lig/L
lig/L
lig/L
Hg/L
liS/L
lig/L
lig/L
tii/L
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<5.00 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
NR
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
<3.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<5.00 U
<1.00U, J-
<3.00 U
<2.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00U, J-
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
<3.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<5.00 U
<1.00 U
<3.00 U
<2.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<5.00 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
0.65
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
NR
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<1.00U, J-
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00U, J-
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
<3.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00U, J-
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<5.00 U
<1.00 U
<3.00 U
<2.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
<3.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<5.00 U
<1.00U, J-
<3.00 U
<2.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
<3.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<5.00 U
<1.00 U
<3.00 U
<2.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
-------
B-98
Table B-6 Sample Results - Semivolatile Organic Compounds (Raton Basin, Colorado)
^^^^^^m ^^^^^^M ^^^^^^m ^^^^^^ ^^^^H
Parameter (CAS Number)
Sample DW06 DW06 DW06 DW06 DW07 DW07 DW07 DW07
Sample Date 10/6/11 5/16/12 11/8/12 5/2/13 10/6/11 5/16/12 11/6/12 5/1/13
Unit Round 1 Round 2 Round 3 Round 4 Round 1 Round 2 Round 3 Round 4
R-(+)-limonene (5989-27-5)
1,2,4-trichlorobenzene (120-82-1)
1,2-dichlorobenzene (95-50-1)
1,2-dinitrobenzene (528-29-0)
1,3-dichlorobenzene (541-73-1)
1,3-dimethyladamantane (702-79-4)
1,3 -dinitrobenzene (99-65-0)
1,4-dichlorobenzene (106-46-7)
1,4-dinitrobenzene (100-25-4)
1-methylnaphthalene (90-12-0)
2,3,4,6-tetrachlorophenol (58-90-2)
2,3,5,6-tetrachlorophenol (935-95-5)
2,4,5-trichlorophenol (95-95-4)
2,4,6-trichlorophenol (88-06-2)
2,4-dichlorophenol (120-83-2)
2,4-dimethylphenol (105-67-9)
2,4-dinitrophenol (51-28-5)
2,4-dinitrotoluene (121-14-2)
2,6-dinitrotoluene (606-20-2)
2-butoxyethanol (111-76-2)
2-chloronaphthalene (91-58-7)
2-chlorophenol (95-57-8)
2-methylnaphthalene (91-57-6)
2-methylphenol (95-48-7)
2-nitroaniline (88-74-4)
2-nitrophenol (88-75-5)
3&4-methylphenol (108-39-4 & 106-44-5)
3,3'-dichlorobenzidine (91-94-1)
3-nitroaniline (99-09-2)
4,6-dinitro-2-methylphenol (534-52-1)
4-bromophenyl phenyl ether (101-55-3)
4-chloro-3-methylphenol (59-50-7)
lig/L
Hg/L
liS/L
lig/L
lig/L
lig/L
Hg/L
liS/L
lig/L
lig/L
lig/L
Hg/L
liS/L
lig/L
lig/L
lig/L
Hg/L
liS/L
lig/L
lig/L
lig/L
Hg/L
liS/L
lig/L
lig/L
lig/L
Hg/L
liS/L
lig/L
lig/L
tii/L
Hg/L
<0.50U, J-
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50U, J-
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<5.00 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
NR
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<1.00U, J-
<1.00U
<1.00U
<1.00U
<1.00U
<1.00U, J-
<1.00U
<1.00U
<1.00U
<1.00U
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
<3.00 U
<1.00U
<1.00U
<1.00U, J-
<1.00U
<2.00 U
<1.00U
<2.00 U
<1.00U
<2.00 U
<5.00 U
<1.00 U
<3.00 U
<2.00 U
<1.00U
<2.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
<3.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<5.00 U
<1.00U, J-
<3.00 U
<2.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00U
<1.00U
<1.00U
<1.00U
<1.00 U
<1.00U
<1.00U
<1.00U
<1.00U
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
<3.00 U
<1.00U
<1.00U
<1.00 U
<1.00U
<2.00 U
<1.00U
<2.00 U
<1.00U
<2.00 U
<5.00 U
<1.00 U
<3.00 U
<2.00 U
<1.00U
<2.00 U
<0.50U, J-
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50U, J-
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<5.00 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
NR
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<1.00U, J-
<1.00U
<1.00U
<1.00U
<1.00U
<1.00U, J-
<1.00U
<1.00U
<1.00U
<1.00U
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
<3.00 U
<1.00U
<1.00U
<1.00U, J-
<1.00U
<2.00 U
<1.00U
<2.00 U
<1.00U
<2.00 U
<5.00 U
<1.00 U
<3.00 U
<2.00 U
<1.00U
<2.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
<3.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<5.00 U
<1.00U,J-
<3.00 U
<2.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00U
<1.00U
<1.00U
<1.00U
<1.00 U
<1.00U
<1.00U
<1.00U
<1.00U
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
<3.00 U
<1.00U
<1.00U
<1.00 U
<1.00U
<2.00 U
<1.00U
<2.00 U
<1.00U
<2.00 U
<5.00 U
<1.00 U
<3.00 U
<2.00 U
<1.00U
<2.00 U
-------
B-99
Table B-6 Sample Results - Semivolatile Organic Compounds (Raton Basin, Colorado)
^^^^^^m ^^^^^^M ^^^^^^m ^^^^^^ ^^^^H
Parameter (CAS Number)
Sample DW08 DW08 DW08 DW08 DW09 DW09 DW09 DW09
Sample Date 10/5/11 5/16/12 11/7/12 5/1/13 10/5/11 5/16/12 11/8/12 5/1/13
Unit Round 1 Round 2 Round 3 Round 4 Round 1 Round 2 Round 3 Round 4
R-(+)-limonene (5989-27-5)
1,2,4-trichlorobenzene (120-82-1)
1,2-dichlorobenzene (95-50-1)
1,2-dinitrobenzene (528-29-0)
1,3-dichlorobenzene (541-73-1)
1,3-dimethyladamantane (702-79-4)
1,3 -dinitrobenzene (99-65-0)
1,4-dichlorobenzene (106-46-7)
1,4-dinitrobenzene (100-25-4)
1-methylnaphthalene (90-12-0)
2,3,4,6-tetrachlorophenol (58-90-2)
2,3,5,6-tetrachlorophenol (935-95-5)
2,4,5-trichlorophenol (95-95-4)
2,4,6-trichlorophenol (88-06-2)
2,4-dichlorophenol (120-83-2)
2,4-dimethylphenol (105-67-9)
2,4-dinitrophenol (51-28-5)
2,4-dinitrotoluene (121-14-2)
2,6-dinitrotoluene (606-20-2)
2-butoxyethanol (111-76-2)
2-chloronaphthalene (91-58-7)
2-chlorophenol (95-57-8)
2-methylnaphthalene (91-57-6)
2-methylphenol (95-48-7)
2-nitroaniline (88-74-4)
2-nitrophenol (88-75-5)
3&4-methylphenol (108-39-4 & 106-44-5)
3,3'-dichlorobenzidine (91-94-1)
3-nitroaniline (99-09-2)
4,6-dinitro-2-methylphenol (534-52-1)
4-bromophenyl phenyl ether (101-55-3)
4-chloro-3-methylphenol (59-50-7)
lig/L
Hg/L
liS/L
lig/L
lig/L
lig/L
Hg/L
liS/L
lig/L
lig/L
lig/L
Hg/L
liS/L
lig/L
lig/L
lig/L
Hg/L
liS/L
lig/L
lig/L
lig/L
Hg/L
liS/L
lig/L
lig/L
lig/L
Hg/L
liS/L
lig/L
lig/L
tii/L
Hg/L
<0.50U, J-
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50U, J-
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<5.00 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
NR
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<1.00U, J-
<1.00U
<1.00U
<1.00U
<1.00U
<1.00U, J-
<1.00U
<1.00U
<1.00U
<1.00U
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
<3.00 U
<1.00U
<1.00U
<1.00U, J-
<1.00U
<2.00 U
<1.00U
<2.00 U
<1.00U
<2.00 U
<5.00 U
<1.00 U
<3.00 U
<2.00 U
<1.00U
<2.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
<3.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<5.00 U
<1.00U, J-
<3.00 U
<2.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00U
<1.00U
<1.00U
<1.00U
<1.00 U
<1.00U
<1.00U
<1.00U
<1.00U
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
<3.00 U
<1.00U
<1.00U
<1.00 U
<1.00U
<2.00 U
<1.00U
<2.00 U
<1.00U
<2.00 U
<5.00 U
<1.00 U
<3.00 U
<2.00 U
<1.00U
<2.00 U
<0.50U, J-
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50U, J-
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<5.00 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
NR
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<1.00U, J-
<1.00U
<1.00U
<1.00U
<1.00U
<1.00U, J-
<1.00U
<1.00U
<1.00U
<1.00U
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
<3.00 U
<1.00U
<1.00U
<1.00U, J-
<1.00U
<2.00 U
<1.00U
<2.00 U
<1.00U
<2.00 U
<5.00 U
<1.00 U
<3.00 U
<2.00 U
<1.00U
<2.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
<3.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<5.00 U
<1.00U,J-
<3.00 U
<2.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00U
<1.00U
<1.00U
<1.00U
<1.00 U
<1.00U
<1.00U
<1.00U
<1.00U
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
<3.00 U
<1.00U
<1.00U
<1.00 U
<1.00U
<2.00 U
<1.00U
<2.00 U
<1.00U
<2.00 U
<5.00 U
<1.00 U
<3.00 U
<2.00 U
<1.00U
<2.00 U
-------
B-100
Table B-6 Sample Results - Semivolatile Organic Compounds (Raton Basin, Colorado)
^^^^^^m ^^^^^^M ^^^^^^m ^^^^^^ ^^^^H
Parameter (CAS Number)
Unit Round 1 Round 2 Round 3 Round 4 Round 1 Round 2 Round 3
Sample DW10 DW10 DW10 DW10 DW11 DW11 DW11 DW11
Sample Date 10/5/11 5/17/12 11/8/12 5/1/13 10/6/11 5/15/12 11/7/12 4/29/13
Round 4
R-(+)-limonene (5989-27-5)
1,2,4-trichlorobenzene (120-82-1)
1,2-dichlorobenzene (95-50-1)
1,2-dinitrobenzene (528-29-0)
1,3-dichlorobenzene (541-73-1)
1,3-dimethyladamantane (702-79-4)
1,3 -dinitrobenzene (99-65-0)
1,4-dichlorobenzene (106-46-7)
1,4-dinitrobenzene (100-25-4)
1-methylnaphthalene (90-12-0)
2,3,4,6-tetrachlorophenol (58-90-2)
2,3,5,6-tetrachlorophenol (935-95-5)
2,4,5-trichlorophenol (95-95-4)
2,4,6-trichlorophenol (88-06-2)
2,4-dichlorophenol (120-83-2)
2,4-dimethylphenol (105-67-9)
2,4-dinitrophenol (51-28-5)
2,4-dinitrotoluene (121-14-2)
2,6-dinitrotoluene (606-20-2)
2-butoxyethanol (111-76-2)
2-chloronaphthalene (91-58-7)
2-chlorophenol (95-57-8)
2-methylnaphthalene (91-57-6)
2-methylphenol (95-48-7)
2-nitroaniline (88-74-4)
2-nitrophenol (88-75-5)
3&4-methylphenol (108-39-4 & 106-44-5)
3,3'-dichlorobenzidine (91-94-1)
3-nitroaniline (99-09-2)
4,6-dinitro-2-methylphenol (534-52-1)
4-bromophenyl phenyl ether (101-55-3)
4-chloro-3-methylphenol (59-50-7)
lig/L
Hg/L
liS/L
lig/L
lig/L
lig/L
Hg/L
liS/L
lig/L
lig/L
lig/L
Hg/L
liS/L
lig/L
lig/L
lig/L
Hg/L
liS/L
lig/L
lig/L
lig/L
Hg/L
liS/L
lig/L
lig/L
lig/L
Hg/L
liS/L
lig/L
lig/L
tii/L
Hg/L
<0.50U, J-
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50U, J-
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<5.00 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
NR
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<1.00U, J-
<1.00U
<1.00U
<1.00U
<1.00U
<1.00U, J-
<1.00U
<1.00U
<1.00U
<1.00U
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
<3.00 U
<1.00U
<1.00U
<1.00U, J-
<1.00U
<2.00 U
<1.00U
<2.00 U
<1.00U
<2.00 U
<5.00 U
<1.00 U
<3.00 U
<2.00 U
<1.00U
<2.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
<3.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<5.00 U
<1.00U, J-
<3.00 U
<2.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00U
<1.00U
<1.00U
<1.00U
<1.00 U
<1.00U
<1.00U
<1.00U
<1.00U
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
<3.00 U
<1.00U
<1.00U
<1.00 U
<1.00U
<2.00 U
<1.00U
<2.00 U
<1.00U
<2.00 U
<5.00 U
<1.00 U
<3.00 U
<2.00 U
<1.00U
<2.00 U
<0.50U, J-
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50U, J-
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<5.00 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
NR
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<1.00U, J-
<1.00U
<1.00U
<1.00U
<1.00U
<1.00U, J-
<1.00U
<1.00U
<1.00U
<1.00U
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
<3.00 U
<1.00U
<1.00U
<1.00U, J-
<1.00U
<2.00 U
<1.00U
<2.00 U
<1.00U
<2.00 U
<5.00 U
<1.00 U
<3.00 U
<2.00 U
<1.00U
<2.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
<3.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<5.00 U
<1.00U,J-
<3.00 U
<2.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00U
<1.00U
<1.00U
<1.00U
<1.00 U
<1.00U
<1.00U
<1.00U
<1.00U
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
<3.00 U
<1.00U
<1.00U
<1.00 U
<1.00U
<2.00 U
<1.00U
<2.00 U
<1.00U
<2.00 U
<5.00 U
<1.00 U
<3.00 U
<2.00 U
<1.00U
<2.00 U
-------
B-101
Table B-6 Sample Results - Semivolatile Organic Compounds (Raton Basin, Colorado)
^^^^^^m ^^^^^^M ^^^^^^m ^^^^^^ ^^^^H
Parameter (CAS Number)
Sample DW12 DW13 DW13 DW13 DW14 DW14 DW14 DW15
Sample Date 10/6/11 5/15/12 11/6/12 4/30/13 5/17/12 11/8/12 5/1/13 11/8/12
Unit Round 1 Round 2 Round 3 Round 4 Round 2 Round 3 Round 4 Round 3
R-(+)-limonene (5989-27-5)
1,2,4-trichlorobenzene (120-82-1)
1,2-dichlorobenzene (95-50-1)
1,2-dinitrobenzene (528-29-0)
1,3-dichlorobenzene (541-73-1)
1,3-dimethyladamantane (702-79-4)
1,3 -dinitrobenzene (99-65-0)
1,4-dichlorobenzene (106-46-7)
1,4-dinitrobenzene (100-25-4)
1-methylnaphthalene (90-12-0)
2,3,4,6-tetrachlorophenol (58-90-2)
2,3,5,6-tetrachlorophenol (935-95-5)
2,4,5-trichlorophenol (95-95-4)
2,4,6-trichlorophenol (88-06-2)
2,4-dichlorophenol (120-83-2)
2,4-dimethylphenol (105-67-9)
2,4-dinitrophenol (51-28-5)
2,4-dinitrotoluene (121-14-2)
2,6-dinitrotoluene (606-20-2)
2-butoxyethanol (111-76-2)
2-chloronaphthalene (91-58-7)
2-chlorophenol (95-57-8)
2-methylnaphthalene (91-57-6)
2-methylphenol (95-48-7)
2-nitroaniline (88-74-4)
2-nitrophenol (88-75-5)
3&4-methylphenol (108-39-4 & 106-44-5)
3,3'-dichlorobenzidine (91-94-1)
3-nitroaniline (99-09-2)
4,6-dinitro-2-methylphenol (534-52-1)
4-bromophenyl phenyl ether (101-55-3)
4-chloro-3-methylphenol (59-50-7)
lig/L
Hg/L
liS/L
lig/L
lig/L
lig/L
Hg/L
liS/L
lig/L
lig/L
lig/L
Hg/L
liS/L
lig/L
lig/L
lig/L
Hg/L
liS/L
lig/L
lig/L
lig/L
Hg/L
liS/L
lig/L
lig/L
lig/L
Hg/L
liS/L
lig/L
lig/L
tii/L
Hg/L
<0.50U, J-
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50U, J-
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<5.00 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
NR
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<1.00U, J-
<1.00U
<1.00U
<1.00U
<1.00U
<1.00U, J-
<1.00U
<1.00U
<1.00U
<1.00U
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
<3.00 U
<1.00U
<1.00U
<1.00U, J-
<1.00U
<2.00 U
<1.00U
<2.00 U
<1.00U
<2.00 U
<5.00 U
<1.00 U
<3.00 U
<2.00 U
<1.00U
<2.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
<3.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<5.00 U
<1.00U, J-
<3.00 U
<2.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00U
<1.00U
<1.00U
<1.00U
<1.00U, J-
<1.00U
<1.00U
<1.00U
<1.00U
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
<3.00 U
<1.00U
<1.00U
<1.00 U
<1.00U
<2.00 U
<1.00U
<2.00 U
<1.00U
<2.00 U
<5.00 U
<1.00 U
<3.00 U
<2.00 U
<1.00U
<2.00 U
<1.00U, J-
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00U,J-
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
<3.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00U, J-
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<5.00 U
<1.00 U
<3.00 U
<2.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00U
<1.00U
<1.00U
<1.00U
<1.00 U
<1.00U
<1.00U
<1.00U
<1.00U
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
<3.00 U
<1.00U
<1.00U
<1.00 U
<1.00U
<2.00 U
<1.00U
<2.00 U
<1.00U
<2.00 U
<5.00 U
<1.00U, J-
<3.00 U
<2.00 U
<1.00U
<2.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
<3.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<5.00 U
<1.00 U
<3.00 U
<2.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00U
<1.00U
<1.00U
<1.00U
<1.00 U
<1.00U
<1.00U
<1.00U
<1.00U
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
<3.00 U
<1.00U
<1.00U
<1.00 U
<1.00U
<2.00 U
<1.00U
<2.00 U
<1.00U
<2.00 U
<5.00 U
<1.00U, J-
<3.00 U
<2.00 U
<1.00U
<2.00 U
-------
B-102
Table B-6 Sample Results - Semivolatile Organic Compounds (Raton Basin, Colorado)
^^^^^^m ^^^^^^M ^^^^^^m ^^^^^^ ^^^^H
Parameter (CAS Number)
Sample PW01 PW01 PW01 PW01 PW02 PW03 PW03 PW03
Sample Date 10/3/11 5/14/12 11/5/12 4/29/13 10/3/11 5/14/12 11/5/12 4/29/13
Unit Round 1 Round 2 Round 3 Round 4 Round 1 Round 2 Round 3 Round 4
R-(+)-limonene (5989-27-5)
1,2,4-trichlorobenzene (120-82-1)
1,2-dichlorobenzene (95-50-1)
1,2-dinitrobenzene (528-29-0)
1,3-dichlorobenzene (541-73-1)
1,3-dimethyladamantane (702-79-4)
1,3 -dinitrobenzene (99-65-0)
1,4-dichlorobenzene (106-46-7)
1,4-dinitrobenzene (100-25-4)
1-methylnaphthalene (90-12-0)
2,3,4,6-tetrachlorophenol (58-90-2)
2,3,5,6-tetrachlorophenol (935-95-5)
2,4,5-trichlorophenol (95-95-4)
2,4,6-trichlorophenol (88-06-2)
2,4-dichlorophenol (120-83-2)
2,4-dimethylphenol (105-67-9)
2,4-dinitrophenol (51-28-5)
2,4-dinitrotoluene (121-14-2)
2,6-dinitrotoluene (606-20-2)
2-butoxyethanol (111-76-2)
2-chloronaphthalene (91-58-7)
2-chlorophenol (95-57-8)
2-methylnaphthalene (91-57-6)
2-methylphenol (95-48-7)
2-nitroaniline (88-74-4)
2-nitrophenol (88-75-5)
3&4-methylphenol (108-39-4 & 106-44-5)
3,3'-dichlorobenzidine (91-94-1)
3-nitroaniline (99-09-2)
4,6-dinitro-2-methylphenol (534-52-1)
4-bromophenyl phenyl ether (101-55-3)
4-chloro-3-methylphenol (59-50-7)
lig/L
Hg/L
liS/L
lig/L
lig/L
lig/L
Hg/L
liS/L
lig/L
lig/L
lig/L
Hg/L
liS/L
lig/L
lig/L
lig/L
Hg/L
liS/L
lig/L
lig/L
lig/L
Hg/L
liS/L
lig/L
lig/L
lig/L
Hg/L
liS/L
lig/L
lig/L
tii/L
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<5.00 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
NRZ
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
NR
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<1.00U, J-
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00U, J-
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
<3.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00U, J-
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<5.00 U
<1.00 U
<3.00 U
<2.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
<3.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<5.00 U
<1.00U, J-
<3.00 U
<2.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
<3.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<5.00 U
<1.00 U
<3.00 U
<2.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<5.00 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
NR
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<1.00U, J-
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00U, J-
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
<3.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00U, J-
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<5.00 U
<1.00 U
<3.00 U
<2.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
<3.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<5.00 U
<1.00U,J-
<3.00 U
<2.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
<3.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<1.00 U
NRZ
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<5.00 U
<1.00 U
<3.00 U
<2.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
-------
B-103
Table B-6 Sample Results - Semivolatile Organic Compounds (Raton Basin, Colorado)
^^^^^^m ^^^^^^M ^^^^^^m ^^^^^^ ^^^^H
Parameter (CAS Number)
Sample SW01 SW01 SW01 SW01 SW02 SW02 SW02
Sample Date 10/4/11 5/14/12 11/7/12 4/30/13 5/14/12 11/6/12 4/30/13
Unit Round 1 Round 2 Round 3 Round 4 Round 2 Round 3 Round 4
R-(+)-limonene (5989-27-5)
1,2,4-trichlorobenzene (120-82-1)
1,2-dichlorobenzene (95-50-1)
1,2-dinitrobenzene (528-29-0)
1,3-dichlorobenzene (541-73-1)
1,3-dimethyladamantane (702-79-4)
1,3 -dinitrobenzene (99-65-0)
1,4-dichlorobenzene (106-46-7)
1,4-dinitrobenzene (100-25-4)
1-methylnaphthalene (90-12-0)
2,3,4,6-tetrachlorophenol (58-90-2)
2,3,5,6-tetrachlorophenol (935-95-5)
2,4,5-trichlorophenol (95-95-4)
2,4,6-trichlorophenol (88-06-2)
2,4-dichlorophenol (120-83-2)
2,4-dimethylphenol (105-67-9)
2,4-dinitrophenol (51-28-5)
2,4-dinitrotoluene (121-14-2)
2,6-dinitrotoluene (606-20-2)
2-butoxyethanol (111-76-2)
2-chloronaphthalene (91-58-7)
2-chlorophenol (95-57-8)
2-methylnaphthalene (91-57-6)
2-methylphenol (95-48-7)
2-nitroaniline (88-74-4)
2-nitrophenol (88-75-5)
3&4-methylphenol (108-39-4 & 106-44-5)
3,3'-dichlorobenzidine (91-94-1)
3-nitroaniline (99-09-2)
4,6-dinitro-2-methylphenol (534-52-1)
4-bromophenyl phenyl ether (101-55-3)
4-chloro-3-methylphenol (59-50-7)
lig/L
Hg/L
liS/L
lig/L
lig/L
lig/L
Hg/L
liS/L
lig/L
lig/L
lig/L
Hg/L
liS/L
lig/L
lig/L
lig/L
Hg/L
liS/L
lig/L
lig/L
lig/L
Hg/L
liS/L
lig/L
lig/L
lig/L
Hg/L
liS/L
lig/L
lig/L
tii/L
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<5.00 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
NR
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<1.00U, J-
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00U, J-
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
<3.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00U, J-
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<5.00 U
<1.00 U
<3.00 U
<2.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
<3.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<5.00 U
<1.00U, J-
<3.00 U
<2.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00U, J-
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
<3.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<5.00 U
<1.00 U
<3.00 U
<2.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<1.00U, J-
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00U,J-
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
<3.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00U, J-
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<5.00 U
<1.00 U
<3.00 U
<2.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
<3.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<5.00 U
<1.00U, J-
<3.00 U
<2.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00U,J-
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
<3.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<5.00 U
<1.00 U
<3.00 U
<2.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
-------
B-104
Table B-6 Sample Results - Semivolatile Organic Compounds (Raton Basin, Colorado)
^^^^^^m ^^^^^^M ^^^^^^m ^^^^^^
Parameter (CAS Number)
Sample SW03 SW03 SW03
Sample Date 5/15/12 11/6/12 4/30/13
Unit Round 2 Round 3 Round 4
R-(+)-limonene (5989-27-5)
1,2,4-trichlorobenzene (120-82-1)
1,2-dichlorobenzene (95-50-1)
1,2-dinitrobenzene (528-29-0)
1,3-dichlorobenzene (541-73-1)
1,3-dimethyladamantane (702-79-4)
1,3 -dinitrobenzene (99-65-0)
1,4-dichlorobenzene (106-46-7)
1,4-dinitrobenzene (100-25-4)
1-methylnaphthalene (90-12-0)
2,3,4,6-tetrachlorophenol (58-90-2)
2,3,5,6-tetrachlorophenol (935-95-5)
2,4,5-trichlorophenol (95-95-4)
2,4,6-trichlorophenol (88-06-2)
2,4-dichlorophenol (120-83-2)
2,4-dimethylphenol (105-67-9)
2,4-dinitrophenol (51-28-5)
2,4-dinitrotoluene (121-14-2)
2,6-dinitrotoluene (606-20-2)
2-butoxyethanol (111-76-2)
2-chloronaphthalene (91-58-7)
2-chlorophenol (95-57-8)
2-methylnaphthalene (91-57-6)
2-methylphenol (95-48-7)
2-nitroaniline (88-74-4)
2-nitrophenol (88-75-5)
3&4-methylphenol (108-39-4 & 106-44-5)
3,3'-dichlorobenzidine (91-94-1)
3-nitroaniline (99-09-2)
4,6-dinitro-2-methylphenol (534-52-1)
4-bromophenyl phenyl ether (101-55-3)
4-chloro-3-methylphenol (59-50-7)
lig/L
lig/L
lig/L
Hg/L
liS/L
lig/L
lig/L
lig/L
Hg/L
liS/L
lig/L
lig/L
lig/L
Hg/L
liS/L
lig/L
lig/L
lig/L
Hg/L
liS/L
lig/L
lig/L
lig/L
Hg/L
liS/L
lig/L
tii/L
lig/L
Hg/L
liS/L
tii/L
tii/L
<1.00U,J-
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00U,J-
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
<3.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00U,J-
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<5.00 U
<1.00 U
<3.00 U
<2.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00U
<1.00U
<1.00U
<1.00U
<1.00 U
<1.00U
<1.00U
<1.00U
<1.00U
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
<3.00 U
<1.00U
<1.00U
<1.00 U
<1.00U
<2.00 U
<1.00U
<2.00 U
<1.00U
<2.00 U
<5.00 U
<1.00U,J-
<3.00 U
<2.00 U
<1.00U
<2.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00U,J-
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
<3.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<5.00 U
<1.00 U
<3.00 U
<2.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
-------
B-105
Table B-6 Sample Results - Semivolatile Organic Compounds (Raton Basin, Colorado)
^^^^^^m ^^^^^^M ^^^^^^m ^^^^^^ ^^^^H
Parameter (CAS Number)
Round 1 Round 2 Round 3 Round 4 Round 1 Round 2 Round 3
Sample MW01 MW01 MW01 MW01 MW02 MW02 MW02 MW02
Sample Date 10/3/11 5/15/12 11/5/12 4/29/13 10/4/11 5/15/12 11/6/12 4/30/13
Round 4
4-chloroaniline (106-47-8)
4-chlorophenyl phenyl ether (7005-72-3)
4-nitroaniline (100-01-6)
4-nitrophenol (100-02-7)
Acenaphthene (83-32-9)
Acenaphthylene (208-96-8)
Adamantane (281-23-2)
Aniline (62-53-3)
Anthracene (120-12-7)
Azobenzene (103-33-3)
Benzo(a)anthracene (56-55-3)
Benzo(a)pyrene (50-32-8)
Benzo(b)fluoranthene (205-99-2)
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene (191-24-2)
Benzo(k)fluoranthene (207-08-9)
Benzoic Acid (65-85-0)
Benzyl alcohol (100-51-6)
Bis-(2-chloroethoxy)methane (111-91-1)
Bis-(2-chloroethyl)ether (111-44-4)
Bis-(2-chloroisopropyl)ether (108-60-1)
Bis-(2-ethylhexyl) adipate (103-23-1)
Bis-(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (117-81-7)
Butyl benzyl phthalate (85-68-7)
Carbazole (86-74-8)
Chrysene (218-01-9)
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene (53-70-3)
Dibenzofuran (132-64-9)
Diethyl phthalate (84-66-2)
Dimethyl phthalate (131-11-3)
Di-n-butyl phthalate (84-74-2)
Di-n-octyl phthalate (117-84-0)
Diphenylamine (122-39-4)
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
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
<1.00 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<2.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<1.00 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<5.00 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<3.00 U
<1.00U
<3.00 U
<3.00 U
<1.00U
<1.00U
<1.00U, J-
<1.00U
<1.00U
<1.00U
<1.00U
<1.00U
<1.00U
<1.00U
<1.00U
<3.00 U
<1.00U
<1.00U
<1.00U
<1.00U
<1.00U
<2.00 U
<1.00U
<3.00 U
<1.00U
<1.00U
<1.00U
<1.00U
<1.00U
<1.00U
<1.00U
<1.00U
<3.00 U
<1.00 U
<3.00 U
<3.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<3.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<1.00 U
<3.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<3.00 U
<1.00U
<3.00 U
<3.00 U
<1.00U
<1.00U
<1.00 U
<1.00U
<1.00U
<1.00U
<1.00U
<1.00U
<1.00U
<1.00U
<1.00U
<3.00 U
<1.00U
<1.00U
<1.00U
<1.00U
<1.00U
5.28J-
<1.00U
<3.00 U
<1.00U
<1.00U
<1.00U
<1.00U
<1.00U
<1.00U
<1.00U
<1.00U
<1.00 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<2.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<1.00 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<5.00 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<3.00 U
<1.00U
<3.00 U
<3.00 U
<1.00U
<1.00U
<1.00U, J-
<1.00U
<1.00U
<1.00U
<1.00U
<1.00U
<1.00U
<1.00U
<1.00U
<3.00 U
<1.00U
<1.00U
<1.00U
<1.00U
<1.00U
<2.00 U
<1.00U
<3.00 U
<1.00U
<1.00U
<1.00U
<1.00U
<1.00U
<1.00U
<1.00U
<1.00U
<3.00 U
<1.00 U
<3.00 U
<3.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<3.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<1.00 U
<3.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<3.00 U
<1.00U
<3.00 U
<3.00 U
<1.00U
<1.00U
<1.00 U
<1.00U
<1.00U
<1.00U
<1.00U
<1.00U
<1.00U
<1.00U
<1.00U
<3.00 U
<1.00U
<1.00U
<1.00U
<1.00U
<1.00U
<2.00 U
<1.00U
<3.00 U
<1.00U
<1.00U
<1.00U
<1.00U
<1.00U
<1.00U
<1.00U
<1.00U
-------
B-106
Table B-6 Sample Results - Semivolatile Organic Compounds (Raton Basin, Colorado)
^^^^^^m ^^^^^^M ^^^^^^m ^^^^^^ ^^^^H
Parameter (CAS Number)
Round 1 Round 2 Round 3 Round 4 Round 1 Round 1 Round 1
Sample MW03 MW03 MW03 MW03 MW04 MW05 DW01 DW01
Sample Date 10/4/11 5/15/12 11/7/12 5/1/13 10/5/11 10/5/11 10/3/11 5/15/12
Round 2
4-chloroaniline (106-47-8)
4-chlorophenyl phenyl ether (7005-72-3)
4-nitroaniline (100-01-6)
4-nitrophenol (100-02-7)
Acenaphthene (83-32-9)
Acenaphthylene (208-96-8)
Adamantane (281-23-2)
Aniline (62-53-3)
Anthracene (120-12-7)
Azobenzene (103-33-3)
Benzo(a)anthracene (56-55-3)
Benzo(a)pyrene (50-32-8)
Benzo(b)fluoranthene (205-99-2)
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene (191-24-2)
Benzo(k)fluoranthene (207-08-9)
Benzoic Acid (65-85-0)
Benzyl alcohol (100-51-6)
Bis-(2-chloroethoxy)methane (111-91-1)
Bis-(2-chloroethyl)ether (111-44-4)
Bis-(2-chloroisopropyl)ether (108-60-1)
Bis-(2-ethylhexyl) adipate (103-23-1)
Bis-(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (117-81-7)
Butyl benzyl phthalate (85-68-7)
Carbazole (86-74-8)
Chrysene (218-01-9)
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene (53-70-3)
Dibenzofuran (132-64-9)
Diethyl phthalate (84-66-2)
Dimethyl phthalate (131-11-3)
Di-n-butyl phthalate (84-74-2)
Di-n-octyl phthalate (117-84-0)
Diphenylamine (122-39-4)
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
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
<1.00 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<2.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50U, J-
<1.00 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50U, J-
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<5.00 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<1.00 U
143
<0.50 U
<0.50U, J-
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
7.64
<0.50 U
<3.00 H, U
<1.00 H, U
<3.00 H, U
<3.00 H, U
<1.00 H, U
<1.00 H, U
<1.00 H, U
<1.00 H, U
<1.00 H, U
<1.00 H, U
<1.00 H, U
<1.00 H, U
<1.00 H, U
<1.00 H, U
<1.00 H, U
<3.00 H, U
<1.00 H, U
<1.00 H, U
<1.00 H, U
<1.00 H, U
<1.00 H, U
135 J, H
<1.00 H, U
<3.00 H, U
<1.00 H, U
<1.00 H, U
<1.00 H, U
<1.00 H, U
<1.00 H, U
<1.00 H, U
<1.00 H, U
<1.00 H, U
<3.00 U
<1.00 U
<3.00 U
<3.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<3.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
139
<1.00 U
<3.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<3.00 U
<1.00 U
<3.00 U
<3.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<3.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
291 J
<1.00 U
<3.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
7.35
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<2.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50U,J-
<1.00 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50U,J-
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<5.00 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
3.07B
<1.00 U
<0.50 U
<0.50U,J-
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<1.00 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<2.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50U, J-
<1.00 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50U, J-
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<5.00 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
2.56 B
1.03
<0.50 U
<0.50U, J-
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
5.68
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<1.00 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<2.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<1.00 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<5.00 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<3.00 U
<1.00 U
<3.00 U
<3.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00U, J-
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<3.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
4.27
<1.00 U
<3.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
-------
B-107
Table B-6 Sample Results - Semivolatile Organic Compounds (Raton Basin, Colorado)
^^^^^^m ^^^^^^M ^^^^^^m ^^^^^^ ^^^^H
Parameter (CAS Number)
Sample DW02 DW02 DW02 DW02 DW03 DW03 DW03 DW03
Sample Date 10/3/11 5/14/12 11/5/12 4/29/13 10/3/11 5/15/12 11/5/12 4/30/13
Unit Round 1 Round 2 Round 3 Round 4 Round 1 Round 2 Round 3 Round 4
4-chloroaniline (106-47-8)
4-chlorophenyl phenyl ether (7005-72-3)
4-nitroaniline (100-01-6)
4-nitrophenol (100-02-7)
Acenaphthene (83-32-9)
Acenaphthylene (208-96-8)
Adamantane (281-23-2)
Aniline (62-53-3)
Anthracene (120-12-7)
Azobenzene (103-33-3)
Benzo(a)anthracene (56-55-3)
Benzo(a)pyrene (50-32-8)
Benzo(b)fluoranthene (205-99-2)
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene (191-24-2)
Benzo(k)fluoranthene (207-08-9)
Benzoic Acid (65-85-0)
Benzyl alcohol (100-51-6)
Bis-(2-chloroethoxy)methane (111-91-1)
Bis-(2-chloroethyl)ether (111-44-4)
Bis-(2-chloroisopropyl)ether (108-60-1)
Bis-(2-ethylhexyl) adipate (103-23-1)
Bis-(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (117-81-7)
Butyl benzyl phthalate (85-68-7)
Carbazole (86-74-8)
Chrysene (218-01-9)
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene (53-70-3)
Dibenzofuran (132-64-9)
Diethyl phthalate (84-66-2)
Dimethyl phthalate (131-11-3)
Di-n-butyl phthalate (84-74-2)
Di-n-octyl phthalate (117-84-0)
Diphenylamine (122-39-4)
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
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
<1.00 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<2.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50U, J-
<1.00 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50U, J-
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<5.00 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<0.50 U
<0.50U, J-
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<3.00 U
<1.00 U
<3.00 U
<3.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00U, J-
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<3.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<1.00 U
<3.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<3.00 U
<1.00 U
<3.00 U
<3.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<3.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<1.00 U
<3.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<3.00 U
<1.00 U
<3.00 U
<3.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<3.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
9.56 J-
<1.00 U
<3.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<2.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<1.00 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<5.00 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<3.00 U
<1.00 U
<3.00 U
<3.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00U, J-
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<3.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<1.00 U
<3.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<3.00 U
<1.00 U
<3.00 U
<3.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<3.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<1.00 U
<3.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<3.00 U
<1.00 U
<3.00 U
<3.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<3.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<1.00 U
<3.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
-------
B-108
Table B-6 Sample Results - Semivolatile Organic Compounds (Raton Basin, Colorado)
^^^^^^m ^^^^^^M ^^^^^^m ^^^^^^ ^^^^H
Parameter (CAS Number)
Sample DW04 DW04 DW04 DW05 DW05 DW05 DW05
Sample Date 10/4/11 11/6/12 4/30/13 10/4/11 5/14/12 11/5/12 4/29/13
Unit Round 1 Round 3 Round 4 Round 1 Round 2 Round 3 Round 4
4-chloroaniline (106-47-8)
4-chlorophenyl phenyl ether (7005-72-3)
4-nitroaniline (100-01-6)
4-nitrophenol (100-02-7)
Acenaphthene (83-32-9)
Acenaphthylene (208-96-8)
Adamantane (281-23-2)
Aniline (62-53-3)
Anthracene (120-12-7)
Azobenzene (103-33-3)
Benzo(a)anthracene (56-55-3)
Benzo(a)pyrene (50-32-8)
Benzo(b)fluoranthene (205-99-2)
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene (191-24-2)
Benzo(k)fluoranthene (207-08-9)
Benzoic Acid (65-85-0)
Benzyl alcohol (100-51-6)
Bis-(2-chloroethoxy)methane (111-91-1)
Bis-(2-chloroethyl)ether (111-44-4)
Bis-(2-chloroisopropyl)ether (108-60-1)
Bis-(2-ethylhexyl) adipate (103-23-1)
Bis-(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (117-81-7)
Butyl benzyl phthalate (85-68-7)
Carbazole (86-74-8)
Chrysene (218-01-9)
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene (53-70-3)
Dibenzofuran (132-64-9)
Diethyl phthalate (84-66-2)
Dimethyl phthalate (131-11-3)
Di-n-butyl phthalate (84-74-2)
Di-n-octyl phthalate (117-84-0)
Diphenylamine (122-39-4)
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
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
<1.00 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<2.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<1.00 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<5.00 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<3.00 U
<1.00 U
<3.00 U
<3.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<3.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
53. 6 J
<1.00 U
<3.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<3.00 U
<1.00 U
<3.00 U
<3.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<3.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<1.00 U
<3.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<2.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<1.00 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<5.00 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<3.00 U
<1.00 U
<3.00 U
<3.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00U, J-
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<3.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<1.00 U
<3.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<3.00 U
<1.00 U
<3.00 U
<3.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<3.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<1.00 U
<3.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<3.00 U
<1.00 U
<3.00 U
<3.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<3.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00U, J-
<1.00 U
<3.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
-------
B-109
Table B-6 Sample Results - Semivolatile Organic Compounds (Raton Basin, Colorado)
^^^^^^m ^^^^^^M ^^^^^^m ^^^^^^ ^^^^H
Parameter (CAS Number)
Sample DW06 DW06 DW06 DW06 DW07 DW07 DW07 DW07
Sample Date 10/6/11 5/16/12 11/8/12 5/2/13 10/6/11 5/16/12 11/6/12 5/1/13
Unit Round 1 Round 2 Round 3 Round 4 Round 1 Round 2 Round 3 Round 4
4-chloroaniline (106-47-8)
4-chlorophenyl phenyl ether (7005-72-3)
4-nitroaniline (100-01-6)
4-nitrophenol (100-02-7)
Acenaphthene (83-32-9)
Acenaphthylene (208-96-8)
Adamantane (281-23-2)
Aniline (62-53-3)
Anthracene (120-12-7)
Azobenzene (103-33-3)
Benzo(a)anthracene (56-55-3)
Benzo(a)pyrene (50-32-8)
Benzo(b)fluoranthene (205-99-2)
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene (191-24-2)
Benzo(k)fluoranthene (207-08-9)
Benzoic Acid (65-85-0)
Benzyl alcohol (100-51-6)
Bis-(2-chloroethoxy)methane (111-91-1)
Bis-(2-chloroethyl)ether (111-44-4)
Bis-(2-chloroisopropyl)ether (108-60-1)
Bis-(2-ethylhexyl) adipate (103-23-1)
Bis-(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (117-81-7)
Butyl benzyl phthalate (85-68-7)
Carbazole (86-74-8)
Chrysene (218-01-9)
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene (53-70-3)
Dibenzofuran (132-64-9)
Diethyl phthalate (84-66-2)
Dimethyl phthalate (131-11-3)
Di-n-butyl phthalate (84-74-2)
Di-n-octyl phthalate (117-84-0)
Diphenylamine (122-39-4)
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
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
<1.00 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<2.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50U, J-
<1.00 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50U, J-
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<5.00 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
1.46 B
2.17
<0.50 U
<0.50U, J-
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<3.00 U
<1.00 U
<3.00 U
<3.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00U, J-
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<3.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<1.00U
<3.00 U
<1.00U
<1.00U
<1.00U
<1.00U
<1.00U
<1.00U
<1.00U
<1.00U
<3.00 U
<1.00 U
<3.00 U
<3.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<3.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<1.00 U
<3.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<3.00 U
<1.00 U
<3.00 U
<3.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<3.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<1.00U
<3.00 U
<1.00U
<1.00U
<1.00U
<1.00U
<1.00U
<1.00U
<1.00U
<1.00U
<1.00 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<2.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50U,J-
<1.00 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50U, J-
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<5.00 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
2.28 B
<1.00 U
<0.50 U
<0.50U, J-
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<3.00 U
<1.00 U
<3.00 U
<3.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00U, J-
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<3.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<1.00U
<3.00 U
<1.00U
<1.00U
<1.00U
<1.00U
<1.00U
<1.00U
<1.00U
<1.00U
<3.00 U
<1.00 U
<3.00 U
<3.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<3.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<1.00 U
<3.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<3.00 U
<1.00 U
<3.00 U
<3.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<3.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<1.00U
<3.00 U
<1.00U
<1.00U
<1.00U
<1.00U
<1.00U
<1.00U
<1.00U
<1.00U
-------
B-110
Table B-6 Sample Results - Semivolatile Organic Compounds (Raton Basin, Colorado)
^^^^^^m ^^^^^^M ^^^^^^m ^^^^^^ ^^^^H
Parameter (CAS Number)
Sample DW08 DW08 DW08 DW08 DW09 DW09 DW09 DW09
Sample Date 10/5/11 5/16/12 11/7/12 5/1/13 10/5/11 5/16/12 11/8/12 5/1/13
Unit Round 1 Round 2 Round 3 Round 4 Round 1 Round 2 Round 3 Round 4
4-chloroaniline (106-47-8)
4-chlorophenyl phenyl ether (7005-72-3)
4-nitroaniline (100-01-6)
4-nitrophenol (100-02-7)
Acenaphthene (83-32-9)
Acenaphthylene (208-96-8)
Adamantane (281-23-2)
Aniline (62-53-3)
Anthracene (120-12-7)
Azobenzene (103-33-3)
Benzo(a)anthracene (56-55-3)
Benzo(a)pyrene (50-32-8)
Benzo(b)fluoranthene (205-99-2)
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene (191-24-2)
Benzo(k)fluoranthene (207-08-9)
Benzoic Acid (65-85-0)
Benzyl alcohol (100-51-6)
Bis-(2-chloroethoxy)methane (111-91-1)
Bis-(2-chloroethyl)ether (111-44-4)
Bis-(2-chloroisopropyl)ether (108-60-1)
Bis-(2-ethylhexyl) adipate (103-23-1)
Bis-(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (117-81-7)
Butyl benzyl phthalate (85-68-7)
Carbazole (86-74-8)
Chrysene (218-01-9)
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene (53-70-3)
Dibenzofuran (132-64-9)
Diethyl phthalate (84-66-2)
Dimethyl phthalate (131-11-3)
Di-n-butyl phthalate (84-74-2)
Di-n-octyl phthalate (117-84-0)
Diphenylamine (122-39-4)
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
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
<1.00 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<2.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50U, J-
<1.00 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50U, J-
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<5.00 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
2.21 B
<1.00 U
<0.50 U
<0.50U, J-
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<3.00 U
<1.00 U
<3.00 U
<3.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00U, J-
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<3.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
9.33
<1.00 U
<3.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<3.00 U
<1.00 U
<3.00 U
<3.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<3.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<1.00 U
<3.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<3.00 U
<1.00 U
<3.00 U
<3.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<3.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<1.00 U
<3.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<2.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50U,J-
<1.00 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50U, J-
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<5.00 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
2.33 B
<1.00 U
<0.50 U
<0.50U, J-
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<3.00 U
<1.00 U
<3.00 U
<3.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00U, J-
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<3.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<1.00 U
<3.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<3.00 U
<1.00 U
<3.00 U
<3.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<3.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<1.00 U
<3.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<3.00 U
<1.00 U
<3.00 U
<3.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<3.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
11.5
<1.00 U
<3.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
-------
B-lll
Table B-6 Sample Results - Semivolatile Organic Compounds (Raton Basin, Colorado)
^^^^^^m ^^^^^^M ^^^^^^m ^^^^^^ ^^^^H
Parameter (CAS Number)
Unit Round 1 Round 2 Round 3 Round 4 Round 1 Round 2 Round 3
Sample DW10 DW10 DW10 DW10 DW11 DW11 DW11 DW11
Sample Date 10/5/11 5/17/12 11/8/12 5/1/13 10/6/11 5/15/12 11/7/12 4/29/13
Round 4
4-chloroaniline (106-47-8)
4-chlorophenyl phenyl ether (7005-72-3)
4-nitroaniline (100-01-6)
4-nitrophenol (100-02-7)
Acenaphthene (83-32-9)
Acenaphthylene (208-96-8)
Adamantane (281-23-2)
Aniline (62-53-3)
Anthracene (120-12-7)
Azobenzene (103-33-3)
Benzo(a)anthracene (56-55-3)
Benzo(a)pyrene (50-32-8)
Benzo(b)fluoranthene (205-99-2)
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene (191-24-2)
Benzo(k)fluoranthene (207-08-9)
Benzoic Acid (65-85-0)
Benzyl alcohol (100-51-6)
Bis-(2-chloroethoxy)methane (111-91-1)
Bis-(2-chloroethyl)ether (111-44-4)
Bis-(2-chloroisopropyl)ether (108-60-1)
Bis-(2-ethylhexyl) adipate (103-23-1)
Bis-(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (117-81-7)
Butyl benzyl phthalate (85-68-7)
Carbazole (86-74-8)
Chrysene (218-01-9)
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene (53-70-3)
Dibenzofuran (132-64-9)
Diethyl phthalate (84-66-2)
Dimethyl phthalate (131-11-3)
Di-n-butyl phthalate (84-74-2)
Di-n-octyl phthalate (117-84-0)
Diphenylamine (122-39-4)
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
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
<1.00 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<2.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50U, J-
<1.00 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50U, J-
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<5.00 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
2.31 B
<1.00 U
<0.50 U
<0.50U, J-
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<3.00 U
<1.00 U
<3.00 U
<3.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00U, J-
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<3.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<1.00 U
<3.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<3.00 U
<1.00 U
<3.00 U
<3.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<3.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<1.00 U
<3.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<3.00 U
<1.00 U
<3.00 U
<3.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<3.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<1.00 U
<3.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<2.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50U,J-
<1.00 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50U, J-
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<5.00 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
2.61 B
<1.00 U
<0.50 U
<0.50U, J-
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<3.00 U
<1.00 U
<3.00 U
<3.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00U, J-
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<3.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<1.00 U
<3.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<3.00 U
<1.00 U
<3.00 U
<3.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<3.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
3.84
<1.00 U
<3.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<3.00 U
<1.00 U
<3.00 U
<3.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<3.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
18.1 J-
<1.00 U
<3.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
-------
B-112
Table B-6 Sample Results - Semivolatile Organic Compounds (Raton Basin, Colorado)
^^^^^^m ^^^^^^M ^^^^^^m ^^^^^^ ^^^^H
Parameter (CAS Number)
Sample DW12 DW13 DW13 DW13 DW14 DW14 DW14 DW15
Sample Date 10/6/11 5/15/12 11/6/12 4/30/13 5/17/12 11/8/12 5/1/13 11/8/12
Unit Round 1 Round 2 Round 3 Round 4 Round 2 Round 3 Round 4 Round 3
4-chloroaniline (106-47-8)
4-chlorophenyl phenyl ether (7005-72-3)
4-nitroaniline (100-01-6)
4-nitrophenol (100-02-7)
Acenaphthene (83-32-9)
Acenaphthylene (208-96-8)
Adamantane (281-23-2)
Aniline (62-53-3)
Anthracene (120-12-7)
Azobenzene (103-33-3)
Benzo(a)anthracene (56-55-3)
Benzo(a)pyrene (50-32-8)
Benzo(b)fluoranthene (205-99-2)
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene (191-24-2)
Benzo(k)fluoranthene (207-08-9)
Benzoic Acid (65-85-0)
Benzyl alcohol (100-51-6)
Bis-(2-chloroethoxy)methane (111-91-1)
Bis-(2-chloroethyl)ether (111-44-4)
Bis-(2-chloroisopropyl)ether (108-60-1)
Bis-(2-ethylhexyl) adipate (103-23-1)
Bis-(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (117-81-7)
Butyl benzyl phthalate (85-68-7)
Carbazole (86-74-8)
Chrysene (218-01-9)
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene (53-70-3)
Dibenzofuran (132-64-9)
Diethyl phthalate (84-66-2)
Dimethyl phthalate (131-11-3)
Di-n-butyl phthalate (84-74-2)
Di-n-octyl phthalate (117-84-0)
Diphenylamine (122-39-4)
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
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
<1.00 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<2.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50U, J-
<1.00 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50U, J-
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<5.00 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
2.37 B
<1.00 U
<0.50 U
<0.50U, J-
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<3.00 U
<1.00 U
<3.00 U
<3.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00U, J-
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<3.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<1.00 U
<3.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<3.00 U
<1.00 U
<3.00 U
<3.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<3.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<1.00 U
<3.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<3.00 U
<1.00 U
<3.00 U
<3.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<3.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
9.66
<1.00 U
<3.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<3.00 U
<1.00 U
<3.00 U
<3.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00U,J-
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<3.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<1.00 U
<3.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<3.00 U
<1.00 U
<3.00 U
<3.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<3.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<1.00 U
<3.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<3.00 U
<1.00 U
<3.00 U
<3.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<3.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
5.71
<1.00 U
<3.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<3.00 U
<1.00 U
<3.00 U
<3.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<3.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<1.00 U
<3.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
-------
B-113
Table B-6 Sample Results - Semivolatile Organic Compounds (Raton Basin, Colorado)
^^^^^^m ^^^^^^M ^^^^^^m ^^^^^^ ^^^^H
Parameter (CAS Number)
Sample PW01 PW01 PW01 PW01 PW02 PW03 PW03 PW03
Sample Date 10/3/11 5/14/12 11/5/12 4/29/13 10/3/11 5/14/12 11/5/12 4/29/13
Unit Round 1 Round 2 Round 3 Round 4 Round 1 Round 2 Round 3 Round 4
4-chloroaniline (106-47-8)
4-chlorophenyl phenyl ether (7005-72-3)
4-nitroaniline (100-01-6)
4-nitrophenol (100-02-7)
Acenaphthene (83-32-9)
Acenaphthylene (208-96-8)
Adamantane (281-23-2)
Aniline (62-53-3)
Anthracene (120-12-7)
Azobenzene (103-33-3)
Benzo(a)anthracene (56-55-3)
Benzo(a)pyrene (50-32-8)
Benzo(b)fluoranthene (205-99-2)
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene (191-24-2)
Benzo(k)fluoranthene (207-08-9)
Benzoic Acid (65-85-0)
Benzyl alcohol (100-51-6)
Bis-(2-chloroethoxy)methane (111-91-1)
Bis-(2-chloroethyl)ether (111-44-4)
Bis-(2-chloroisopropyl)ether (108-60-1)
Bis-(2-ethylhexyl) adipate (103-23-1)
Bis-(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (117-81-7)
Butyl benzyl phthalate (85-68-7)
Carbazole (86-74-8)
Chrysene (218-01-9)
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene (53-70-3)
Dibenzofuran (132-64-9)
Diethyl phthalate (84-66-2)
Dimethyl phthalate (131-11-3)
Di-n-butyl phthalate (84-74-2)
Di-n-octyl phthalate (117-84-0)
Diphenylamine (122-39-4)
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
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
<1.00 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<2.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<1.00 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<5.00 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<3.00 U
<1.00 U
<3.00 U
<3.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00U, J-
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<3.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<1.00 U
<3.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<3.00 U
<1.00 U
<3.00 U
<3.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<3.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
2.36 B
<1.00 U
<3.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<3.00 U
<1.00 U
<3.00 U
<3.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<3.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
47.6 J-
<1.00 U
<3.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<2.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<1.00 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<5.00 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<3.00 U
<1.00 U
<3.00 U
<3.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00U, J-
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<3.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<1.00 U
<3.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<3.00 U
<1.00 U
<3.00 U
<3.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<3.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
2.22 B
<1.00 U
<3.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<3.00 U
<1.00 U
<3.00 U
<3.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<3.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
22.6 J-
<1.00 U
<3.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
-------
B-114
Table B-6 Sample Results - Semivolatile Organic Compounds (Raton Basin, Colorado)
^^^^^^m ^^^^^^M ^^^^^^m ^^^^^^ ^^^^H
Parameter (CAS Number)
Sample SW01 SW01 SW01 SW01 SW02 SW02 SW02
Sample Date 10/4/11 5/14/12 11/7/12 4/30/13 5/14/12 11/6/12 4/30/13
Unit Round 1 Round 2 Round 3 Round 4 Round 2 Round 3 Round 4
4-chloroaniline (106-47-8)
4-chlorophenyl phenyl ether (7005-72-3)
4-nitroaniline (100-01-6)
4-nitrophenol (100-02-7)
Acenaphthene (83-32-9)
Acenaphthylene (208-96-8)
Adamantane (281-23-2)
Aniline (62-53-3)
Anthracene (120-12-7)
Azobenzene (103-33-3)
Benzo(a)anthracene (56-55-3)
Benzo(a)pyrene (50-32-8)
Benzo(b)fluoranthene (205-99-2)
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene (191-24-2)
Benzo(k)fluoranthene (207-08-9)
Benzoic Acid (65-85-0)
Benzyl alcohol (100-51-6)
Bis-(2-chloroethoxy)methane (111-91-1)
Bis-(2-chloroethyl)ether (111-44-4)
Bis-(2-chloroisopropyl)ether (108-60-1)
Bis-(2-ethylhexyl) adipate (103-23-1)
Bis-(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (117-81-7)
Butyl benzyl phthalate (85-68-7)
Carbazole (86-74-8)
Chrysene (218-01-9)
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene (53-70-3)
Dibenzofuran (132-64-9)
Diethyl phthalate (84-66-2)
Dimethyl phthalate (131-11-3)
Di-n-butyl phthalate (84-74-2)
Di-n-octyl phthalate (117-84-0)
Diphenylamine (122-39-4)
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
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
<1.00 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<2.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<1.00 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<5.00 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<1.00 U
1.39
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<3.00 U
<1.00 U
<3.00 U
<3.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00U, J-
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<3.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<1.00 U
<3.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<3.00 U
<1.00 U
<3.00 U
<3.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<3.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<1.00 U
<3.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<3.00 U
<1.00 U
<3.00 U
<3.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<3.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<1.00 U
<3.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<3.00 U
<1.00 U
<3.00 U
<3.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00U, J-
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<3.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<1.00 U
<3.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<3.00 U
<1.00 U
<3.00 U
<3.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<3.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<1.00 U
<3.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<3.00 U
<1.00 U
<3.00 U
<3.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<3.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<1.00 U
<3.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
-------
B-115
Table B-6 Sample Results - Semivolatile Organic Compounds (Raton Basin, Colorado)
^^^^^^m ^^^^^^M ^^^^^^m ^^^^^^
Parameter (CAS Number)
Sample SW03 SW03 SW03
Sample Date 5/15/12 11/6/12 4/30/13
Unit Round 2 Round 3 Round 4
4-chloroaniline (106-47-8)
4-chlorophenyl phenyl ether (7005-72-3)
4-nitroaniline (100-01-6)
4-nitrophenol (100-02-7)
Acenaphthene (83-32-9)
Acenaphthylene (208-96-8)
Adamantane (281-23-2)
Aniline (62-53-3)
Anthracene (120-12-7)
Azobenzene (103-33-3)
Benzo(a)anthracene (56-55-3)
Benzo(a)pyrene (50-32-8)
Benzo(b)fluoranthene (205-99-2)
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene (191-24-2)
Benzo(k)fluoranthene (207-08-9)
Benzoic Acid (65-85-0)
Benzyl alcohol (100-51-6)
Bis-(2-chloroethoxy)methane (111-91-1)
Bis-(2-chloroethyl)ether (111-44-4)
Bis-(2-chloroisopropyl)ether (108-60-1)
Bis-(2-ethylhexyl) adipate (103-23-1)
Bis-(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (117-81-7)
Butyl benzyl phthalate (85-68-7)
Carbazole (86-74-8)
Chrysene (218-01-9)
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene (53-70-3)
Dibenzofuran (132-64-9)
Diethyl phthalate (84-66-2)
Dimethyl phthalate (131-11-3)
Di-n-butyl phthalate (84-74-2)
Di-n-octyl phthalate (117-84-0)
Diphenylamine (122-39-4)
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
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
<3.00 U
<1.00 U
<3.00 U
<3.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00U, J-
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<3.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<1.00 U
<3.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<3.00 U
<1.00 U
<3.00 U
<3.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<3.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<1.00 U
<3.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<3.00 U
<1.00 U
<3.00 U
<3.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<3.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<1.00 U
<3.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
-------
B-116
Table B-6 Sample Results - Semivolatile Organic Compounds (Raton Basin, Colorado)
^^^^^^m ^^^^^^M ^^^^^^m ^^^^^^ ^^^^H
Parameter (CAS Number)
Round 1 Round 2 Round 3 Round 4 Round 1 Round 2 Round 3
Sample MW01 MW01 MW01 MW01 MW02 MW02 MW02 MW02
Sample Date 10/3/11 5/15/12 11/5/12 4/29/13 10/4/11 5/15/12 11/6/12 4/30/13
Round 4
Fluoranthene (206-44-0)
Fluorene (86-73-7)
Hexachlorobenzene (118-74-1)
Hexachlorobutadiene (87-68-3)
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene (77-47-4)
Hexachloroethane (67-72-1)
lndeno(l,2,3-cd)pyrene (193-39-5)
Isophorone (78-59-1)
Naphthalene (91-20-3)
Nitrobenzene (98-95-3)
N-nitrosodimethylamine (62-75-9)
N-nitrosodi-n-propylamine (621-64-7)
Pentachlorophenol (87-86-5)
Phenanthrene (85-01-8)
Phenol (108-95-2)
Pyrene (129-00-0)
Pyridine (110-86-1)
Squalene (111-02-4)
Terpiniol (98-55-5)
tri-(2-butoxyethyl) phosphate (78-51-3)
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
tii/L
tii/L
tii/L
Hg/L
tii/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
< 1.00 U
<0.50 U
<1.0U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<1.00 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<1.00 U
<0.50 U
<1.00 U
<1.00U
<1.00U
<1.00U
<1.00 U
<1.00U
<1.00U
<1.00U
<1.00U
<1.00U
<1.00U
<1.00U
<1.00U
<2.00 U
<1.00U
<2.00 U
<1.00U
<1.00U
<2.00 U
<1.00U
<1.00U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00U, J-
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00U
<1.00U
<1.00U
<1.00 U
<1.00U
<1.00U
<1.00U
<1.00U
<1.00U
<1.00U
<1.00U
<1.00U
<2.00 U
<1.00U
<2.00 U
<1.00U
<1.00U
<2.00U, J-
<1.00U
<1.00U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
< 1.00 U
<0.50 U
<1.0U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<1.00 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<1.00 U
<0.50 U
<1.00 U
<1.00U
<1.00U
<1.00U
<1.00 U
<1.00U
<1.00U
<1.00U
<1.00U
<1.00U
<1.00U
<1.00U
<1.00U
<2.00 U
<1.00U
<2.00 U
<1.00U
<1.00U
<2.00 U
<1.00U
<1.00U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00U,J-
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00U
<1.00U
<1.00U
<1.00 U
<1.00U
<1.00U
<1.00U
<1.00U
<1.00U
<1.00U
<1.00U
<1.00U
<2.00 U
<1.00U
<2.00 U
<1.00U
<1.00U
<2.00 U
<1.00U
<1.00U
-------
B-117
Table B-6 Sample Results - Semivolatile Organic Compounds (Raton Basin, Colorado)
^^^^^^m ^^^^^^M ^^^^^^m ^^^^^^ ^^^^H
Parameter (CAS Number)
Round 1 Round 2 Round 3 Round 4 Round 1 Round 1 Round 1
Sample MW03 MW03 MW03 MW03 MW04 MW05 DW01 DW01
Sample Date 10/4/11 5/15/12 11/7/12 5/1/13 10/5/11 10/5/11 10/3/11 5/15/12
Round 2
Fluoranthene (206-44-0)
Fluorene (86-73-7)
Hexachlorobenzene (118-74-1)
Hexachlorobutadiene (87-68-3)
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene (77-47-4)
Hexachloroethane (67-72-1)
lndeno(l,2,3-cd)pyrene (193-39-5)
Isophorone (78-59-1)
Naphthalene (91-20-3)
Nitrobenzene (98-95-3)
N-nitrosodimethylamine (62-75-9)
N-nitrosodi-n-propylamine (621-64-7)
Pentachlorophenol (87-86-5)
Phenanthrene (85-01-8)
Phenol (108-95-2)
Pyrene (129-00-0)
Pyridine (110-86-1)
Squalene (111-02-4)
Terpiniol (98-55-5)
tri-(2-butoxyethyl) phosphate (78-51-3)
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
liS/L
lig/L
lig/L
Hg/L
liS/L
lig/L
lig/L
lig/L
Hg/L
liS/L
lig/L
tii/L
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
< 1.00 U
<0.50 U
<1.0U
<0.50 U
1.26
<0.50 U
0.63
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<1.00 U
<0.50 U
0.52
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
1.62
<0.50 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 H, U
<1.00 H, U
<1.00 H, U
<1.00H, U
<1.00 H, U
<1.00 H, U
<1.00 H, U
1.86 J, H
<1.00 H, U
<1.00 H, U
<1.00 H, U
<1.00 H, U
<2.00 H, U
<1.00 H, U
<2.00 H, U
<1.00 H, U
<1.00 H, U
<2.00 H, U
<1.00 H, U
<1.00 H, U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00U, J-
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
1.11
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
< 1.00 U
<0.50 U
<1.0U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<1.00 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<1.00 U
<0.50 U
<1.00 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
< 1.00 U
<0.50 U
<1.0U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<1.00 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<1.00 U
<0.50 U
<1.00 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
< 1.00 U
<0.50 U
<1.0U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<1.00 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
1.87
<0.50 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
-------
B-118
Table B-6 Sample Results - Semivolatile Organic Compounds (Raton Basin, Colorado)
^^^^^^m ^^^^^^M ^^^^^^m ^^^^^^ ^^^^H
Parameter (CAS Number)
Sample DW02 DW02 DW02 DW02 DW03 DW03 DW03 DW03
Sample Date 10/3/11 5/14/12 11/5/12 4/29/13 10/3/11 5/15/12 11/5/12 4/30/13
Unit Round 1 Round 2 Round 3 Round 4 Round 1 Round 2 Round 3 Round 4
Fluoranthene (206-44-0)
Fluorene (86-73-7)
Hexachlorobenzene (118-74-1)
Hexachlorobutadiene (87-68-3)
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene (77-47-4)
Hexachloroethane (67-72-1)
lndeno(l,2,3-cd)pyrene (193-39-5)
Isophorone (78-59-1)
Naphthalene (91-20-3)
Nitrobenzene (98-95-3)
N-nitrosodimethylamine (62-75-9)
N-nitrosodi-n-propylamine (621-64-7)
Pentachlorophenol (87-86-5)
Phenanthrene (85-01-8)
Phenol (108-95-2)
Pyrene (129-00-0)
Pyridine (110-86-1)
Squalene (111-02-4)
Terpiniol (98-55-5)
tri-(2-butoxyethyl) phosphate (78-51-3)
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
liS/L
lig/L
Hg/L
liS/L
lig/L
lig/L
lig/L
Hg/L
liS/L
lig/L
lig/L
tii/L
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
< 1.00 U
<0.50 U
<1.0U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<1.00 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<1.00 U
<0.50 U
1.22
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00U, J-
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00U, J-
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
< 1.00 U
<0.50 U
<1.0U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<1.00 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<1.00 U
<0.50 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00U,J-
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
-------
B-119
Table B-6 Sample Results - Semivolatile Organic Compounds (Raton Basin, Colorado)
^^^^^^m ^^^^^^M ^^^^^^m ^^^^^^ ^^^^H
Parameter (CAS Number)
Sample DW04 DW04 DW04 DW05 DW05 DW05 DW05
Sample Date 10/4/11 11/6/12 4/30/13 10/4/11 5/14/12 11/5/12 4/29/13
Unit Round 1 Round 3 Round 4 Round 1 Round 2 Round 3 Round 4
Fluoranthene (206-44-0)
Fluorene (86-73-7)
Hexachlorobenzene (118-74-1)
Hexachlorobutadiene (87-68-3)
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene (77-47-4)
Hexachloroethane (67-72-1)
lndeno(l,2,3-cd)pyrene (193-39-5)
Isophorone (78-59-1)
Naphthalene (91-20-3)
Nitrobenzene (98-95-3)
N-nitrosodimethylamine (62-75-9)
N-nitrosodi-n-propylamine (621-64-7)
Pentachlorophenol (87-86-5)
Phenanthrene (85-01-8)
Phenol (108-95-2)
Pyrene (129-00-0)
Pyridine (110-86-1)
Squalene (111-02-4)
Terpiniol (98-55-5)
tri-(2-butoxyethyl) phosphate (78-51-3)
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
liS/L
lig/L
Hg/L
liS/L
lig/L
lig/L
lig/L
Hg/L
liS/L
lig/L
lig/L
lig/L
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
< 1.00 U
<0.50 U
<1.0U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<1.00 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<1.00 U
<0.50 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00U, J-
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
< 1.00 U
<0.50 U
<1.0U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<1.00 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<1.00 U
<0.50 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00U, J-
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00U,J-
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
-------
B-120
Table B-6 Sample Results - Semivolatile Organic Compounds (Raton Basin, Colorado)
^^^^^^m ^^^^^^M ^^^^^^m ^^^^^^ ^^^^H
Parameter (CAS Number)
Sample DW06 DW06 DW06 DW06 DW07 DW07 DW07 DW07
Sample Date 10/6/11 5/16/12 11/8/12 5/2/13 10/6/11 5/16/12 11/6/12 5/1/13
Unit Round 1 Round 2 Round 3 Round 4 Round 1 Round 2 Round 3 Round 4
Fluoranthene (206-44-0)
Fluorene (86-73-7)
Hexachlorobenzene (118-74-1)
Hexachlorobutadiene (87-68-3)
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene (77-47-4)
Hexachloroethane (67-72-1)
lndeno(l,2,3-cd)pyrene (193-39-5)
Isophorone (78-59-1)
Naphthalene (91-20-3)
Nitrobenzene (98-95-3)
N-nitrosodimethylamine (62-75-9)
N-nitrosodi-n-propylamine (621-64-7)
Pentachlorophenol (87-86-5)
Phenanthrene (85-01-8)
Phenol (108-95-2)
Pyrene (129-00-0)
Pyridine (110-86-1)
Squalene (111-02-4)
Terpiniol (98-55-5)
tri-(2-butoxyethyl) phosphate (78-51-3)
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
liS/L
lig/L
Hg/L
liS/L
lig/L
lig/L
lig/L
Hg/L
liS/L
lig/L
lig/L
tii/L
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
< 1.00 U
<0.50 U
<1.0U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<1.00 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<1.00 U
<0.50 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00U, J-
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
< 1.00 U
<0.50 U
<1.0U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<1.00 U
<0.50 U
1.08
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<1.00 U
<0.50 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00U, J-
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
-------
B-121
Table B-6 Sample Results - Semivolatile Organic Compounds (Raton Basin, Colorado)
^^^^^^m ^^^^^^M ^^^^^^m ^^^^^^ ^^^^H
Parameter (CAS Number)
Sample DW08 DW08 DW08 DW08 DW09 DW09 DW09 DW09
Sample Date 10/5/11 5/16/12 11/7/12 5/1/13 10/5/11 5/16/12 11/8/12 5/1/13
Unit Round 1 Round 2 Round 3 Round 4 Round 1 Round 2 Round 3 Round 4
Fluoranthene (206-44-0)
Fluorene (86-73-7)
Hexachlorobenzene (118-74-1)
Hexachlorobutadiene (87-68-3)
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene (77-47-4)
Hexachloroethane (67-72-1)
lndeno(l,2,3-cd)pyrene (193-39-5)
Isophorone (78-59-1)
Naphthalene (91-20-3)
Nitrobenzene (98-95-3)
N-nitrosodimethylamine (62-75-9)
N-nitrosodi-n-propylamine (621-64-7)
Pentachlorophenol (87-86-5)
Phenanthrene (85-01-8)
Phenol (108-95-2)
Pyrene (129-00-0)
Pyridine (110-86-1)
Squalene (111-02-4)
Terpiniol (98-55-5)
tri-(2-butoxyethyl) phosphate (78-51-3)
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
liS/L
lig/L
Hg/L
liS/L
lig/L
lig/L
lig/L
Hg/L
liS/L
lig/L
lig/L
tii/L
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
< 1.00 U
<0.50 U
<1.0U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<1.00 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<1.00 U
<0.50 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00U, J-
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
< 1.00 U
<0.50 U
<1.0U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<1.00 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<1.00 U
<0.50 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00U, J-
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
-------
B-122
Table B-6 Sample Results - Semivolatile Organic Compounds (Raton Basin, Colorado)
^^^^^^m ^^^^^^M ^^^^^^m ^^^^^^ ^^^^H
Parameter (CAS Number)
Unit Round 1 Round 2 Round 3 Round 4 Round 1 Round 2 Round 3
Sample DW10 DW10 DW10 DW10 DW11 DW11 DW11 DW11
Sample Date 10/5/11 5/17/12 11/8/12 5/1/13 10/6/11 5/15/12 11/7/12 4/29/13
Round 4
Fluoranthene (206-44-0)
Fluorene (86-73-7)
Hexachlorobenzene (118-74-1)
Hexachlorobutadiene (87-68-3)
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene (77-47-4)
Hexachloroethane (67-72-1)
lndeno(l,2,3-cd)pyrene (193-39-5)
Isophorone (78-59-1)
Naphthalene (91-20-3)
Nitrobenzene (98-95-3)
N-nitrosodimethylamine (62-75-9)
N-nitrosodi-n-propylamine (621-64-7)
Pentachlorophenol (87-86-5)
Phenanthrene (85-01-8)
Phenol (108-95-2)
Pyrene (129-00-0)
Pyridine (110-86-1)
Squalene (111-02-4)
Terpiniol (98-55-5)
tri-(2-butoxyethyl) phosphate (78-51-3)
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
liS/L
lig/L
Hg/L
liS/L
lig/L
lig/L
lig/L
Hg/L
liS/L
lig/L
lig/L
tii/L
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
< 1.00 U
<0.50 U
<1.0U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<1.00 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<1.00 U
<0.50 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00U, J-
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
< 1.00 U
<0.50 U
<1.0U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<1.00 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<1.00 U
<0.50 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00U, J-
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
3.13 B, J-
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
-------
B-123
Table B-6 Sample Results - Semivolatile Organic Compounds (Raton Basin, Colorado)
^^^^^^m ^^^^^^M ^^^^^^m ^^^^^^ ^^^^H
Parameter (CAS Number)
Sample DW12 DW13 DW13 DW13 DW14 DW14 DW14 DW15
Sample Date 10/6/11 5/15/12 11/6/12 4/30/13 5/17/12 11/8/12 5/1/13 11/8/12
Unit Round 1 Round 2 Round 3 Round 4 Round 2 Round 3 Round 4 Round 3
Fluoranthene (206-44-0)
Fluorene (86-73-7)
Hexachlorobenzene (118-74-1)
Hexachlorobutadiene (87-68-3)
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene (77-47-4)
Hexachloroethane (67-72-1)
lndeno(l,2,3-cd)pyrene (193-39-5)
Isophorone (78-59-1)
Naphthalene (91-20-3)
Nitrobenzene (98-95-3)
N-nitrosodimethylamine (62-75-9)
N-nitrosodi-n-propylamine (621-64-7)
Pentachlorophenol (87-86-5)
Phenanthrene (85-01-8)
Phenol (108-95-2)
Pyrene (129-00-0)
Pyridine (110-86-1)
Squalene (111-02-4)
Terpiniol (98-55-5)
tri-(2-butoxyethyl) phosphate (78-51-3)
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
liS/L
lig/L
Hg/L
liS/L
lig/L
lig/L
lig/L
Hg/L
liS/L
lig/L
lig/L
tii/L
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
< 1.00 U
<0.50 U
<1.0U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<1.00 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<1.00 U
<0.50 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00U, J-
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<1.00 U
1.05 J
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00U, J-
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00U, J-
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
-------
B-124
Table B-6 Sample Results - Semivolatile Organic Compounds (Raton Basin, Colorado)
^^^^^^m ^^^^^^M ^^^^^^m ^^^^^^ ^^^^H
Parameter (CAS Number)
Sample PW01 PW01 PW01 PW01 PW02 PW03 PW03 PW03
Sample Date 10/3/11 5/14/12 11/5/12 4/29/13 10/3/11 5/14/12 11/5/12 4/29/13
Unit Round 1 Round 2 Round 3 Round 4 Round 1 Round 2 Round 3 Round 4
Fluoranthene (206-44-0)
Fluorene (86-73-7)
Hexachlorobenzene (118-74-1)
Hexachlorobutadiene (87-68-3)
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene (77-47-4)
Hexachloroethane (67-72-1)
lndeno(l,2,3-cd)pyrene (193-39-5)
Isophorone (78-59-1)
Naphthalene (91-20-3)
Nitrobenzene (98-95-3)
N-nitrosodimethylamine (62-75-9)
N-nitrosodi-n-propylamine (621-64-7)
Pentachlorophenol (87-86-5)
Phenanthrene (85-01-8)
Phenol (108-95-2)
Pyrene (129-00-0)
Pyridine (110-86-1)
Squalene (111-02-4)
Terpiniol (98-55-5)
tri-(2-butoxyethyl) phosphate (78-51-3)
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
liS/L
lig/L
Hg/L
liS/L
lig/L
lig/L
lig/L
Hg/L
liS/L
lig/L
lig/L
tii/L
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
< 1.00 U
<0.50 U
<1.0U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<1.00 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<1.00 U
<0.50 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00U, J-
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00U, J-
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
< 1.00 U
<0.50 U
<1.0U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<1.00 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<1.00 U
<0.50 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00U,J-
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00U, J-
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
-------
B-125
Table B-6 Sample Results - Semivolatile Organic Compounds (Raton Basin, Colorado)
^^^^^^m ^^^^^^M ^^^^^^m ^^^^^^ ^^^^H
Parameter (CAS Number)
Sample SW01 SW01 SW01 SW01 SW02 SW02 SW02
Sample Date 10/4/11 5/14/12 11/7/12 4/30/13 5/14/12 11/6/12 4/30/13
Unit Round 1 Round 2 Round 3 Round 4 Round 2 Round 3 Round 4
Fluoranthene (206-44-0)
Fluorene (86-73-7)
Hexachlorobenzene (118-74-1)
Hexachlorobutadiene (87-68-3)
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene (77-47-4)
Hexachloroethane (67-72-1)
lndeno(l,2,3-cd)pyrene (193-39-5)
Isophorone (78-59-1)
Naphthalene (91-20-3)
Nitrobenzene (98-95-3)
N-nitrosodimethylamine (62-75-9)
N-nitrosodi-n-propylamine (621-64-7)
Pentachlorophenol (87-86-5)
Phenanthrene (85-01-8)
Phenol (108-95-2)
Pyrene (129-00-0)
Pyridine (110-86-1)
Squalene (111-02-4)
Terpiniol (98-55-5)
tri-(2-butoxyethyl) phosphate (78-51-3)
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
liS/L
lig/L
Hg/L
liS/L
lig/L
lig/L
lig/L
Hg/L
liS/L
lig/L
lig/L
lig/L
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
< 1.00 U
<0.50 U
<1.0U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<1.00 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
<1.00 U
<0.50 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00U, J-
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00U, J-
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
-------
B-126
Table B-6 Sample Results - Semivolatile Organic Compounds (Raton Basin, Colorado)
^^^^^^m ^^^^^^M ^^^^^^m ^^^^^^
Parameter (CAS Number)
Sample SW03 SW03 SW03
Sample Date 5/15/12 11/6/12 4/30/13
Unit Round 2 Round 3 Round 4
Fluoranthene (206-44-0)
Fluorene (86-73-7)
Hexachlorobenzene (118-74-1)
Hexachlorobutadiene (87-68-3)
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene (77-47-4)
Hexachloroethane (67-72-1)
lndeno(l,2,3-cd)pyrene (193-39-5)
Isophorone (78-59-1)
Naphthalene (91-20-3)
Nitrobenzene (98-95-3)
N-nitrosodimethylamine (62-75-9)
N-nitrosodi-n-propylamine (621-64-7)
Pentachlorophenol (87-86-5)
Phenanthrene (85-01-8)
Phenol (108-95-2)
Pyrene (129-00-0)
Pyridine (110-86-1)
Squalene (111-02-4)
Terpiniol (98-55-5)
tri-(2-butoxyethyl) phosphate (78-51-3)
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
liS/L
Hg/L
liS/L
lig/L
lig/L
lig/L
Hg/L
liS/L
lig/L
lig/L
lig/L
Hg/L
liS/L
lig/L
tii/L
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00U, J-
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
-------
B-127
Table B-7 Sample Results - Water Isotopes and Strontium Isotopes (Raton Basin, Colorado)
Sample MW01 MW01 MW01 MW01 MW02 MW02 MW02 MW02
Sample Date 10/3/11 5/15/12 11/5/12 4/29/13 10/4/11 5/15/12 11/6/12 4/30/13
Parameter
Round 1 Round 2 Round 3 Round 4 Round 1 Round 2 Round 3 Round 4
Water Isotopes
62H
6180
%0
%0
Strontium Isotopes
Sr
Rb
87Sr/86Sr
1/Sr
Rb/Sr
Hg/L
uj/L
Atom Ratio
L/Hg
Weight Ratio
-76.34
-10.78
-76.37
-10.33
-76.22
-10.40
-76.29
-10.67
-71.24
-9.86
-71.48
-9.86
-71.42
-9.99
-72.08
-10.04
1190
0.83
0.712933
0.0008
0.0007
1220
0.9
0.71286
0.0008
0.0007
1260
1.0
0.71293
0.0008
0.0008
1220
0.9
0.712939
0.00082
0.00074
180
0.38
0.712937
0.0056
0.0021
165
0.4
0.71291
0.0061
0.0024
148
<0.5
0.71288
0.0068
NR
122
<0.5
0.712913
0.00820
NR
-------
B-128
Table B-7 Sample Results - Water Isotopes and Strontium Isotopes (Raton Basin, Colorado)
Parameter
Sample MW03 MW03 MW03 MW03 MW04 MW05 DW01 DW01
Sample Date 10/4/11 5/15/12 11/7/12 5/1/13 10/5/11 10/5/11 10/3/11 5/15/12
Unit Round 1 Round 2 Round 3 Round 4 Round 1 Round 1 Round 1 Round 2
Water Isotopes
62H
6180
%0
%0
Strontium Isotopes
Sr
Rb
87Sr/86Sr
1/Sr
Rb/Sr
Hg/L
uj/L
Atom Ratio
L/Hg
Weight Ratio
-66.93
-10.25
-66.89
-10.69
-66.95
-10.84
-67.56
-10.92
-94.43
-12.01
-95.08
-12.96
-101.74
-14.32
-100.38
-13.81
148
0.58
0.712620
0.0068
0.0039
144
0.9
0.71255
0.0069
0.0063
146
0.5
0.71259
0.0068
0.0034
135
0.5
0.712578
0.00741
0.00370
95
0.27
0.707833
0.0105
0.0028
40
0.20
0.707932
0.0250
0.0050
361
0.85
0.712374
0.0028
0.0023
368
0.8
0.71237
0.0027
0.0022
-------
B-129
Table B-7 Sample Results - Water Isotopes and Strontium Isotopes (Raton Basin, Colorado)
Parameter
Sample DW02 DW02 DW02 DW02 DW03 DW03 DW03 DW03 DW04 DW04 DW04
Sample Date 10/3/11 5/14/12 11/5/12 4/29/13 10/3/11 5/15/12 11/5/12 4/30/13 10/4/11 11/6/12 4/30/13
Unit Round 1 Round 2 Round 3 Round 4 Round 1 Round 2 Round 3 Round 4 Round 1 Round 3 Round 4
Water Isotopes
62H
6180
%0
%0
Strontium Isotopes
Sr
Rb
87Sr/86Sr
1/Sr
Rb/Sr
Hg/L
uj/L
Atom Ratio
L/Hg
Weight Ratio
-74.64
-10.29
-75.33
-10.37
-74.48
-10.17
-74.90
-10.37
-77.69
-10.86
-77.00
-10.29
-76.72
-10.30
-77.37
-10.40
-74.06
-10.01
-74.85
-10.10
-75.78
-10.16
352
0.36
0.713111
0.0028
0.0010
501
0.4
0.71311
0.0020
0.0008
374
<0.5
0.71309
0.0027
NR
347
<0.5
0.713096
0.00288
NR
532
0.40
0.713329
0.0019
0.0008
528
0.3
0.71336
0.0019
0.0006
580
0.5
0.71331
0.0017
0.0009
510
<0.5
0.713334
0.00196
NR
1110
1.32
0.712960
0.0009
0.0012
791
1.6
0.71282
0.0013
0.0020
705
1.4
0.712945
0.00142
0.00199
-------
B-130
Table B-7 Sample Results - Water Isotopes and Strontium Isotopes (Raton Basin, Colorado)
Parameter
Sample DW05 DW05 DW05 DW05 DW06 DW06 DW06 DW06
Sample Date 10/4/11 5/14/12 11/5/12 4/29/13 10/6/11 5/16/12 11/8/12 5/2/13
Unit Round 1 Round 2 Round 3 Round 4 Round 1 Round 2 Round 3 Round 4
Water Isotopes
62H
6180
%0
%0
Strontium Isotopes
Sr
Rb
87Sr/86Sr
1/Sr
Rb/Sr
Hg/L
uj/L
Atom Ratio
L/Hg
Weight Ratio
-67.06
-8.73
-67.87
-9.27
-68.26
-9.40
-69.00
-9.49
-86.68
-11.12
-92.53
-12.00
-92.05
-11.87
-93.72
-12.35
97
0.68
0.713416
0.0103
0.0070
92
0.7
0.71342
0.0109
0.0076
98
0.8
0.71336
0.0102
0.0082
66
0.6
0.713398
0.01515
0.00909
659
0.49
0.707256
0.0015
0.0007
460
0.5
0.70728
0.0022
0.0011
449
<0.5
0.70736
0.0022
NR
386
<0.5
0.707306
0.00259
NR
-------
B-131
Table B-7 Sample Results - Water Isotopes and Strontium Isotopes (Raton Basin, Colorado)
Parameter
Sample DW07 DW07 DW07 DW07 DW08 DW08 DW08 DW08
Sample Date 10/6/11 5/16/12 11/6/12 5/1/13 10/5/11 5/16/12 11/7/12 5/1/13
Unit Round 1 Round 2 Round 3 Round 4 Round 1 Round 2 Round 3 Round 4
Water Isotopes
62H
6180
%0
%0
Strontium Isotopes
Sr
Rb
87Sr/86Sr
1/Sr
Rb/Sr
Hg/L
uj/L
Atom Ratio
L/Hg
Weight Ratio
-89.19
-11.20
-89.97
-11.48
-89.81
-11.56
-89.86
-11.74
-90.72
-11.70
-92.10
-12.06
-92.23
-12.08
-92.91
-12.43
83
0.52
0.707795
0.0120
0.0063
100
0.6
0.70780
0.0100
0.0060
84
0.6
0.70778
0.0119
0.0071
67
0.6
0.707771
0.01493
0.00896
166
0.26
0.707623
0.0060
0.0016
183
0.3
0.70755
0.0055
0.0016
178
1.1
0.70764
0.0056
0.0062
152
0.8
0.707620
0.00658
0.00526
-------
B-132
Table B-7 Sample Results - Water Isotopes and Strontium Isotopes (Raton Basin, Colorado)
Parameter
Sample DW09 DW09 DW09 DW09 DW10 DW10 DW10 DW10
Sample Date 10/5/11 5/16/12 11/8/12 5/1/13 10/5/11 5/17/12 11/8/12 5/1/13
Unit Round 1 Round 2 Round 3 Round 4 Round 1 Round 2 Round 3 Round 4
Water Isotopes
62H
6180
%0
%0
Strontium Isotopes
Sr
Rb
87Sr/86Sr
1/Sr
Rb/Sr
Hg/L
uj/L
Atom Ratio
L/Hg
Weight Ratio
-94.95
-13.07
-95.70
-12.66
-95.55 J
-12.36 J
-97.04
-12.88
-97.28
-12.35
-97.66
-12.75
-98.34
-12.67
-99.15
-12.92
1790
0.64
0.707661
0.0006
0.0004
631
0.5
0.70774
0.0016
0.0008
504
0.5
0.70768
0.0020
0.0010
720
0.5
0.707663
0.00139
0.00069
88
0.24
0.707844
0.0114
0.0027
90
0.3
0.70786
0.0111
0.0033
87
<0.5
0.70783
0.0115
NR
88
<0.5
0.707828
0.01136
NR
-------
B-133
Table B-7 Sample Results - Water Isotopes and Strontium Isotopes (Raton Basin, Colorado)
Parameter
Sample DW11 DW11 DW11 DW11 DW12 DW13 DW13 DW13 DW14 DW14 DW14
Sample Date 10/6/11 5/15/12 11/7/12 4/29/13 10/6/11 5/15/12 11/6/12 4/30/13 5/17/12 11/8/12 5/1/13
Unit Round 1 Round 2 Round 3 Round 4 Round 1 Round 2 Round 3 Round 4 Round 2 Round 3 Round 4
Water Isotopes
62H
6180
%0
%0
Strontium Isotopes
Sr
Rb
87Sr/86Sr
1/Sr
Rb/Sr
Hg/L
uj/L
Atom Ratio
L/Hg
Weight Ratio
-80.83
-10.17
-81.45
-10.56
-80.63 J
-10.62 J
-81.59
-10.90
-80.33
-10.21
-101.07
-13.77
-100.37
-13.74
-100.80
-13.95
-98.14
-12.82
-96.25 J
-12.46 J
-97.99
-12.84
476
0.56
0.711314
0.0021
0.0012
604
0.6
0.71106
0.0017
0.0010
441
0.6
0.71130
0.0023
0.0014
377
0.6
0.711313
0.00265
0.00159
212
0.51
0.711218
0.0047
0.0024
287
0.2
0.71231
0.0035
0.0007
267
<0.5
0.71231
0.0037
NR
255
<0.5
0.712291
0.00392
NR
300
<0.5
0.70780
0.0033
NR
292
<1.0
0.70784
0.0034
NR
261
<0.5
0.707847
0.00383
NR
-------
B-134
Table B-7 Sample Results - Water Isotopes and Strontium Isotopes (Raton Basin, Colorado)
Parameter
Sample DW15 PW01 PW01 PW01 PW01 PW02 PW03 PW03 PW03
Sample Date 11/8/12 10/3/11 5/14/12 11/5/12 4/29/13 10/3/11 5/14/12 11/5/12 4/29/13
Unit Round 3 Round 1 Round 2 Round 3 Round 4 Round 1 Round 2 Round 3 Round 4
Water Isotopes
62H
6180
%0
%0
Strontium Isotopes
Sr
Rb
87Sr/86Sr
1/Sr
Rb/Sr
Hg/L
uj/L
Atom Ratio
L/Hg
Weight Ratio
-92.95
-11.94
-72.05
-10.77
-71.82
-9.91
-71.40
-9.87
-71.58
-10.21
-68.20
-10.13
-65.94
-9.11
-65.98
-9.21
-65.70
-9.39
625
7.4
0.70751
0.0016
0.0118
311
3.75
0.711915
0.0032
0.0121
379
4.3
0.71169
0.0026
0.0113
382
4.2
0.71174
0.0026
0.0110
357
4.4
0.711785
0.00280
0.01232
268
0.94
0.708331
0.0037
0.0035
734
2.0
0.70896
0.0014
0.0027
742
2.1
0.70893
0.0013
0.0028
643
2.3
0.709004
0.00156
0.00358
-------
B-135
Table B-7 Sample Results - Water Isotopes and Strontium Isotopes (Raton Basin, Colorado)
Parameter
Sample SW01 SW01 SW01 SW01 SW02 SW02 SW02 SW03 SW03 SW03
Sample Date 10/4/11 5/14/12 11/7/12 4/30/13 5/14/12 11/6/12 4/30/13 5/15/12 11/6/12 4/30/13
Unit Round 1 Round 2 Round 3 Round 4 Round 2 Round 3 Round 4 Round 2 Round 3 Round 4
Water Isotopes
62H
6180
%0
%0
Strontium Isotopes
Sr
Rb
87Sr/86Sr
1/Sr
Rb/Sr
Hg/L
uj/L
Atom Ratio
L/Hg
Weight Ratio
-69.22
-9.18
-71.50
-9.66
-71.97
-9.86
-72.28
-9.83
-71.76
-9.56
-71.52
-9.75
-72.56
-9.86
-72.04
-9.76
-73.33J
-10.14 J
-74.70
-10.33
287
0.55
0.712293
0.0035
0.0019
306
0.9
0.71211
0.0033
0.0029
386
1.1
0.71199
0.0026
0.0028
254
1.7
0.712151
0.00394
0.00669
598
1.1
0.71264
0.0017
0.0018
694
<1.0
0.71261
0.0014
NR
599
<1
0.712673
0.00167
NR
575
6.6
0.71098
0.0017
0.0115
294
3.6
0.71044
0.0034
0.0122
256
4.4
0.711946
0.00391
0.01719
-------
B-136
Table B-8 Sample Results - Isotech Gas Isotopes (Raton Basin, Colorado)
Parameter
Sample MW01 MW01 MW01 MW01 MW02 MW02 MW02 MW02
Sample Date 10/3/11 5/15/12 11/5/12 4/29/13 10/4/11 5/15/12 11/6/12 4/30/13
Unit Round 1 Round 2 Round 3 Round 4 Round 1 Round 2 Round 3 Round 4
Helium
Hydrogen
Argon
Oxygen
Carbon dioxide
Nitrogen
Carbon monoxide
Methane
Ethane
Ethene
Propane
Propylene
Isobutane
Normal Butane
Isopentane
Normal Pentane
Hexane Plus
K13/~
6 G!
6DCi
x13/-
6 C2
613C DIG
634S S042'
6180 S042"
634S H2S
Specific Gravity
BTU
Helium dilution
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%0
%0
%0
%0
%0
%0
%0
factor
NR
NR
1.80
5.08
2.51
90.4
0.020
0.16
ND
ND
ND
NR
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.0008
NR
NR
NR
-15.56
NR
NR
NR
0.995
2.00
0.76
NR
ND
1.830
4.600
2.410
90.99
ND
0.1680
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NR
NR
NR
-15.65
-9.1
3.2
NR
0.994
2
0.77
NA
ND
0.809
1.14
2.55
95.33
ND
0.175
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NR
NR
NR
-15.47
-9.3
3.9
NA
0.986
2
0.80
NA
ND
1.74
2.78
2.34
92.93
ND
0.2140
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NR
NR
NR
-15.19
-8.5
3.9
NA
0.990
2
0.79
NR
ND
1.15
2.69
0.24
66.6
ND
29.31
0.005
ND
ND
NR
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
-60.13
-225.9
NR
-15.36
NR
NR
NR
0.856
297
0.64
NR
ND
1.270
3.800
0.1400
70.47
ND
24.32
0.0037
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
-59.91
-221.6
NR
-14.94
-3.5
4.0
NR
0.878
246
0.64
NA
ND
0.941
2.15
0.16
70.97
ND
25.77
0.0043
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
-59.59
-220.4
NR
-15.69
-3.6
5.2
NRZ
0.868
261
0.72
NA
ND
1.17
2.71
0.12
68.48
ND
27.52
0.0042
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
-59.81
-222.9
NR
-15.25
-1.7
6.9
NRZ
0.863
279
0.64
-------
B-137
Table B-8 Sample Results - Isotech Gas Isotopes (Raton Basin, Colorado)
Parameter
Sample MW03 MW03 MW03 MW03 MW04 MW05 DW01 DW01
Sample Date 10/4/11 5/15/12 11/7/12 5/1/13 10/5/11 10/5/11 10/3/11 5/15/12
Unit Round 1 Round 2 Round 3 Round 4 Round 1 Round 1 Round 1 Round 2
Helium
Hydrogen
Argon
Oxygen
Carbon dioxide
Nitrogen
Carbon monoxide
Methane
Ethane
Ethene
Propane
Propylene
Isobutane
Normal Butane
Isopentane
Normal Pentane
Hexane Plus
c!3r
6 Q
6DCi
x13/-
6 C2
613C DIG
634S S042'
6180 S042"
634S H2S
Specific Gravity
BTU
Helium dilution
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%0
%0
%0
%0
%0
%0
%0
factor
NR
ND
0.89
7.28
0.62
52.2
0.011
38.93
0.041
0.0020
0.0045
NR
0.0017
0.0008
0.0003
ND
ND
-65.53
-252.0
NR
-2.38
NR
NR
NR
0.824
395
0.65
NR
ND
1.210
11.32
0.6000
62.91
0.0260
23.92
0.0171
0.0012
0.0004
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
-65.20
-236.6
NR
-1.06
NR
NR
NR
0.892
243
0.75
NA
ND
0.361
1.73
0.34
19.00
ND
78.51
0.0556
0.0014
0.0028
ND
0.0014
0.0006
ND
ND
ND
-65.79
-257.2
NR
-1.21
NR1
NR1
NA
0.649
797
0.64
NA
ND
1.02
6.67
0.66
54.23
ND
37.40
0.0206
0.0012
0.0004
ND
0.0004
ND
ND
ND
ND
-64.62
-238.9
NR
-1.44
NR1
NR1
NA
0.830
379
0.75
NR
ND
0.70
2.53
0.02
34.9
0.007
61.82
0.015
ND
0.0009
NR
0.0002
ND
ND
ND
ND
-47.95
-222.6
NR
-27.36
NR
NR
NR
0.718
627
0.57
NR
ND
0.39
0.01
0.02
18.7
ND
80.85
0.034
ND
0.0019
NR
0.0002
0.0002
ND
ND
ND
-45.41
-194.3
NR
-37.86
NR
NR
NR
0.635
820
0.52
NR
NR
1.55
16.88
4.87
76.7
0.047
0.00
ND
ND
ND
NR
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.0004
NR
NR
NR
-13.11
NR
NR
NR
1.024
0
0.75
NR
ND
1.550
16.29
4.900
77.21
ND
0.0513
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NR
NR
NR
-13.11
-4.0
3.8
NR
1.023
1
0.72
-------
B-138
Table B-8 Sample Results - Isotech Gas Isotopes (Raton Basin, Colorado)
Parameter
Sample DW02 DW02 DW02 DW02 DW03 DW03 DW03 DW03
Sample Date 10/3/11 5/14/12 11/5/12 4/29/13 10/3/11 5/15/12 11/5/12 4/30/13
Unit Round 1 Round 2 Round 3 Round 4 Round 1 Round 2 Round 3 Round 4
Helium
Hydrogen
Argon
Oxygen
Carbon dioxide
Nitrogen
Carbon monoxide
Methane
Ethane
Ethene
Propane
Propylene
Isobutane
Normal Butane
Isopentane
Normal Pentane
Hexane Plus
c!3r
6 Q
6DCi
x13/-
6 C2
613C DIG
634S S042'
6180 S042"
634S H2S
Specific Gravity
BTU
Helium dilution
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%0
%0
%0
%0
%0
%0
%0
factor
NR
NR
1.60
17.32
0.33
80.5
0.073
0.20
ND
ND
ND
NR
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.0008
NR
NR
NR
-16.09
NR
NR
NR
0.999
2.00
0.75
NR
ND
1.750
5.120
1.070
91.86
0.0980
0.1070
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NR
NR
NR
-16.02
-9.4
2.8
NR
0.987
1
0.78
NA
ND
1.06
8.02
1.38
88.99
ND
0.547
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NR
NR
NR
-16.03
-7.9
3.6
NA
0.988
6
0.79
NA
ND
1.44
27.66
0.71
70.18
ND
0.0145
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NR
NR
NR
-16.02
-6.9
4.6
NA
1.015
0
0.77
NR
NR
1.64
13.50
4.03
80.6
0.100
0.08
0.000
ND
0.0004
NR
ND
0.0004
ND
ND
0.0012
NR
NR
NR
-13.72
NR
NR
NR
1.014
1.00
0.75
NR
ND
1.640
15.80
4.270
78.25
0.0370
0.0013
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NR
NR
NR
-13.63
-7.6
2.7
NR
1.019
0
0.77
NA
ND
0.735
11.30
3.84
83.96
ND
0.165
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NR
NR
NR
-13.52
-8.1
3.4
NA
1.006
2
0.80
NA
ND
1.65
8.28
4.65
85.37
ND
0.0507
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NR
NR
NR
-12.94
-7.4
4.2
NA
1.011
1
0.79
-------
B-139
Table B-8 Sample Results - Isotech Gas Isotopes (Raton Basin, Colorado)
Parameter
Sample DW04 DW04 DW04 DW05 DW05 DW05 DW05
Sample Date 10/4/11 11/6/12 4/30/13 10/4/11 5/14/12 11/5/12 4/29/13
Unit Round 1 Round 3 Round 4 Round 1 Round 2 Round 3 Round 4
Helium
Hydrogen
Argon
Oxygen
Carbon dioxide
Nitrogen
Carbon monoxide
Methane
Ethane
Ethene
Propane
Propylene
Isobutane
Normal Butane
Isopentane
Normal Pentane
Hexane Plus
c!3r
6 Q
6DCi
x13/-
6 C2
613C DIG
634S S042'
6180 S042"
634S H2S
Specific Gravity
BTU
Helium dilution
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%0
%0
%0
%0
%0
%0
%0
factor
NR
ND
0.45
6.81
0.83
21.7
0.047
70.14
0.030
0.0004
0.0007
NR
0.0007
ND
ND
ND
ND
-56.77
-264.2
NR
-13.80
NR
NR
NR
0.693
711
0.71
NA
ND
0.403
6.68
0.65
21.29
ND
70.96
0.0190
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
-53.72
-248.0
NR
-9.87
-7.0
4.6
NA
0.688
719
0.72
NA
ND
0.248
3.79
0.56
13.63
ND
81.74
0.0308
ND
0.0003
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
-53.12
-247.1
NR
-9.23
-5.8
4.8
NA
0.639
829
0.67
NR
ND
1.71
13.31
0.34
84.6
0.023
0.03
ND
ND
ND
NR
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NR
NR
NR
-15.27
NR
NR
NR
0.994
0
0.77
NR
ND
1.800
8.060
0.2900
89.79
ND
0.0632
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NR
NR
NR
-15.77
-4.1
4.9
NR
0.987
1
0.78
NA
ND
0.834
8.42
0.28
89.95
ND
0.514
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NR
NR
NR
-15.05
-3.4
6.5
NA
0.982
5
0.79
NA
ND
1.73
4.72
0.30
93.07
ND
0.1780
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.0004
NR
NR
NR
-15.46
-2.2
7.6*
NA
0.982
2
0.76
-------
B-140
Table B-8 Sample Results - Isotech Gas Isotopes (Raton Basin, Colorado)
Parameter
Sample DW06 DW06 DW06 DW06 DW07 DW07 DW07 DW07
Sample Date 10/6/11 5/16/12 11/8/12 5/2/13 10/6/11 5/16/12 11/6/12 5/1/13
Unit Round 1 Round 2 Round 3 Round 4 Round 1 Round 2 Round 3 Round 4
Helium
Hydrogen
Argon
Oxygen
Carbon dioxide
Nitrogen
Carbon monoxide
Methane
Ethane
Ethene
Propane
Propylene
Isobutane
Normal Butane
Isopentane
Normal Pentane
Hexane Plus
c!3r
6 Q
6DCi
x13/-
6 C2
613C DIG
634S S042'
6180 S042"
634S H2S
Specific Gravity
BTU
Helium dilution
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%0
%0
%0
%0
%0
%0
%0
factor
NR
ND
0.65
0.09
0.40
31.4
ND
67.44
0.034
0.0004
0.0025
NR
0.0004
0.0004
0.0004
0.0004
ND
-48.72
-225.6
NR
-25.66
NR
NR
NR
0.694
684
0.71
NR
ND
1.100
0.0700
0.4900
56.30
ND
42.02
0.0225
ND
0.0015
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
-46.87
-204.7
NR
-24.87
35.9
9.9
-11.9
0.801
426
0.73
NA
ND
0.753
0.044
0.36
39.77
ND
59.04
0.0270
ND
0.0016
ND
0.0003
0.0003
ND
ND
ND
-49.21
-230.6
NR
-21.53
24.4
9.3
-15.8
0.728
599
0.68
NA
ND
0.889
0.15
0.40
45.41
ND
53.12
0.0264
ND
0.0015
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
-48.96
-221.4
NR
-21.93
27.7
11.1
-14.1
0.754
539
0.73
NR
ND
1.80
6.35
0.08
91.6
0.046
0.15
ND
ND
ND
NR
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NR
NR
NR
-13.81
NR
NR
NR
0.983
2.00
0.75
NR
ND
1.690
12.31
0.0750
85.81
ND
0.1140
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NR
NR
NR
-14.04
5.3
5.0
NR
0.991
1
0.77
NA
ND
1.62
13.09
0.082
85.08
ND
0.124
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NR
NR
NR
-13.88
5.2
6.9
NA
0.992
1
0.78
NA
ND
1.77
3.03
0.086
94.91
ND
0.2010
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NR
NR
NR
-13.61
7.1
7.7
NA
0.978
2
0.77
-------
B-141
Table B-8 Sample Results - Isotech Gas Isotopes (Raton Basin, Colorado)
Parameter
Sample DW08 DW08 DW08 DW08 DW09 DW09 DW09 DW09
Sample Date 10/5/11 5/16/12 11/7/12 5/1/13 10/5/11 5/16/12 11/8/12 5/1/13
Unit Round 1 Round 2 Round 3 Round 4 Round 1 Round 2 Round 3 Round 4
Helium
Hydrogen
Argon
Oxygen
Carbon dioxide
Nitrogen
Carbon monoxide
Methane
Ethane
Ethene
Propane
Propylene
Isobutane
Normal Butane
Isopentane
Normal Pentane
Hexane Plus
c!3r
6 Q
6DCi
x13/-
6 C2
613C DIG
634S S042'
6180 S042"
634S H2S
Specific Gravity
BTU
Helium dilution
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%0
%0
%0
%0
%0
%0
%0
factor
NR
ND
1.19
0.02
0.17
58.0
ND
40.56
0.026
0.0004
0.0008
NR
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
-38.75
-130.5
NR
-34.05
NR
NR
NR
0.806
411
0.75
NR
ND
1.030
0.1400
0.1400
49.29
ND
49.37
0.0311
ND
0.0012
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
-40.56
-142.6
NR
-35.96
24.4
5.6
-11.7
0.768
501
0.74
NA
ND
1.20
0.045
0.15
61.13
ND
37.45
0.0251
ND
0.0008
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
-41.28
-153.9
NR
-34.61
21.9
7.0
-17.2
0.818
380
0.76
NA
ND
1.03
1.06
0.18
50.42
ND
47.28
0.0313
ND
0.0011
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
-43.39
-175.0
NR
-33.33
24.2
7.3
-13.7
0.779
479
0.73
NR
ND
0.80
2.06
1.12
38.1
0.009
57.91
0.029
0.0003
0.0013
NR
0.0003
0.0003
ND
ND
ND
-48.40
-218.2
NR
-29.49
NR
NR
NR
0.740
587
0.62
NR
ND
0.9460
0.053
0.1800
47.28
ND
51.51
0.0292
ND
0.0009
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
-45.73
-186.7
NR
-31.33
8.1
-3.4
-15.5
0.759
522
0.68
NA
ND
0.993
0.025
0.31
54.31
ND
44.34
0.0261
ND
0.0009
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
-44.31
-167.7
NR
-32.51
9.5
-0.6
-11.0
0.790
450
0.67
NA
ND
0.819
0.073
0.22
51.18
ND
47.68
0.0305
ND
0.0010
ND
0.0002
ND
ND
ND
ND
-43.59
-158.9
NR
-33.42
5.9
-3.0
-6.0
0.775
484
0.50
-------
B-142
Table B-8 Sample Results - Isotech Gas Isotopes (Raton Basin, Colorado)
Parameter
Sample DW10 DW10 DW10 DW10 DW11 DW11 DW11 DW11 DW12
Sample Date 10/5/11 5/17/12 11/8/12 5/1/13 10/6/11 5/15/12 11/7/12 4/29/13 10/6/11
Unit Round 1 Round 2 Round 3 Round 4 Round 1 Round 2 Round 3 Round 4 Round 1
Helium
Hydrogen
Argon
Oxygen
Carbon dioxide
Nitrogen
Carbon monoxide
Methane
Ethane
Ethene
Propane
Propylene
Isobutane
Normal Butane
Isopentane
Normal Pentane
Hexane Plus
c!3r
6 Q
6DCi
x13/-
6 C2
613C DIG
634S S042'
6180 S042"
634S H2S
Specific Gravity
BTU
Helium dilution
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%0
%0
%0
%0
%0
%0
%0
factor
NR
ND
0.60
0.01
0.03
30.9
ND
68.41
0.026
0.0002
0.0012
NR
0.0002
0.0002
ND
ND
ND
-39.08
-152.7
NR
-40.18
NR
NR
NR
0.687
694
0.57
NR
ND
0.8290
0.084
0.0280
40.28
ND
58.75
0.0240
ND
0.0007
ND
ND
0.0007
ND
ND
ND
-39.40
-155.5
NR
-40.59
39.5
8.4
-9.0
0.728
596
0.71
NA
ND
0.780
0.077
ND
40.07
ND
59.05
0.0248
ND
0.0009
ND
ND
0.0006
ND
ND
ND
-38.03
-150.9
NR
-40.94
34.9
8.7
-9.9
0.727
599
0.68
NA
ND
0.807
0.093
0.04
41.97
ND
57.07
0.0251
ND
0.0007
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
-37.68
-147.4
NR
-39.59
32.5
9.8
-10.0
0.735
579
0.71
NR
ND
1.60
8.53
1.49
84.4
0.044
3.96
0.001
ND
ND
NR
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
-33.66
-51.5
NR
-16.47
NR
NR
NR
0.977
40.0
0.77
NR
ND
1.600
8.250
1.930
83.59
0.0720
4.560
0.0023
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
-43.53tt
-136tt
NR
-15.91
4.0
-0.4
NR
0.977
46
0.78
NA
ND
1.32
13.47
0.85
65.22
ND
19.13
0.0055
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
-52.36
-213.2
NR
-14.42
5.3
2.4
NA
0.917
194
0.76
NA
ND
1.50
3.30
1.48
73.20
ND
20.52
0.0034
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.0005
-46.68
-168.9
NR
-15.60
6.7
2.6
NA
0.901
208
0.79
NR
ND
1.63
6.92
0.19
84.0
ND
7.24
0.003
0.0004
0.0004
NR
ND
0.0004
ND
ND
ND
-60.83
-227.4
NR
-14.96
NR
NR
NR
0.955
73.0
0.73
-------
B-143
Table B-8 Sample Results - Isotech Gas Isotopes (Raton Basin, Colorado)
Parameter
Sample DW13 DW13 DW13 DW14 DW14 DW14 DW15
Sample Date 5/15/12 11/6/12 4/30/13 5/17/12 11/8/12 5/1/13 11/8/12
Unit Round 2 Round 3 Round 4 Round 2 Round 3 Round 4 Round 3
Helium
Hydrogen
Argon
Oxygen
Carbon dioxide
Nitrogen
Carbon monoxide
Methane
Ethane
Ethene
Propane
Propylene
Isobutane
Normal Butane
Isopentane
Normal Pentane
Hexane Plus
c!3r
6 Q
6DCi
x13/-
6 C2
613C DIG
634S S042'
6180 S042"
634S H2S
Specific Gravity
BTU
Helium dilution
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%0
%0
%0
%0
%0
%0
%0
factor
NR
ND
1.700
10.04
5.210
83.01
0.0370
0.0045
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NR
NR
NR
-12.76
-8.2
0.1
NR
1.017
0
0.77
NA
ND
1.68
5.42
5.21
87.68
ND
0.0092
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NR
NR
NR
-11.65
-10.4
-0.2
NA
1.010
0
0.80
NA
ND
1.70
8.86
5.03
84.40
ND
0.0150
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NR
NR
NR
-11.12
-9.4
2.2
NA
1.014
0
0.76
NR
ND
1.580
17.05
1.470
79.71
0.1800
0.0093
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NR
NR
NR
-12.54
-1.9
0.4
NR
1.005
1
0.78
NA
ND
1.59
13.32
0.087
84.97
ND
0.0344
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NR
NR
NR
-12.30
-2.2
0.6
NA
0.992
0
0.77
NA
ND
1.59
15.93
0.16
82.30
ND
0.0192
ND
0.0009
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NR
NR
NR
-12.01
-1.3
1.7
NA
0.997
0
0.77
NA
ND
1.78
3.14
1.49
93.58
ND
0.0058
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NR
NR
NR
-20.24
10.5
4.6
NRZ
0.987
0
0.79
-------
B-144
Table B-8 Sample Results - Isotech Gas Isotopes (Raton Basin, Colorado)
Parameter
Sample PW01 PW01 PW01 PW01 PW02 PW03 PW03 PW03
Sample Date 10/3/11 5/14/12 11/5/12 4/29/13 10/3/11 5/14/12 11/5/12 4/29/13
Unit Round 1 Round 2 Round 3 Round 4 Round 1 Round 2 Round 3 Round 4
Helium
Hydrogen
Argon
Oxygen
Carbon dioxide
Nitrogen
Carbon monoxide
Methane
Ethane
Ethene
Propane
Propylene
Isobutane
Normal Butane
Isopentane
Normal Pentane
Hexane Plus
c!3r
6 Q
6DCi
x13/-
6 C2
613C DIG
634S S042'
6180 S042"
634S H2S
Specific Gravity
BTU
Helium dilution
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%0
%0
%0
%0
%0
%0
%0
factor
0.0058
ND
0.05
0.99
0.26
2.2
ND
96.46
0.015
ND
0.0003
NR
0.0001
ND
ND
ND
0.0001
-52.74
-233.9
NR
16.53
NR
NR
NR
0.572
978
NR
NR
ND
0.1640
3.200
0.6900
6.950
ND
88.98
0.0175
ND
0.0004
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
-52.29
-238.4
NR
16.05
NR
NR
NR
0.608
902
0.72
NA
ND
0.054
0.22
0.70
2.39
ND
96.62
0.0197
ND
0.0003
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
-52.11
-230.4
NR
16.71
NR1
NR1
NA
0.572
980
0.70
NA
ND
0.067
0.94
0.69
2.83
ND
95.45
0.0199
ND
0.0003
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
-52.04
-234.1
NR
17.98
NR1
NR1
NA
0.578
968
0.69
NR
NR
0.12
1.90
0.53
5.7
ND
91.53
0.261
ND
0.0069
NR
0.0010
0.0005
ND
ND
0.0005
-47.67
-233.1
-22.1
1.23
NR
NR
NR
0.595
933
0.59
NR
ND
0.1300
0.3500
2.050
5.860
ND
91.58
0.0295
ND
0.0010
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
-45.59
-222.6
NR
10.16
NR
NR
NR
0.601
929
0.69
NA
ND
0.106
0.049
2.01
5.61
ND
92.19
0.0300
ND
0.0011
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
-45.68
-220.8
NR
6.45
NR1
NR1
NRZ
0.598
935
0.71
NA
ND
0.049
0.58
0.89
2.11
ND
96.34
0.0293
ND
0.0011
ND
0.0004
0.0004
0.0002
ND
0.0002
-46.69
-222.9
NR
12.50
NR1
NR1
NA
0.575
977
0.45
-------
B-145
Table B-8 Sample Results - Isotech Gas Isotopes (Raton Basin, Colorado)
Parameter
Round 1 Round 2 Round 3 Round 4 Round 2 Round 3
Sample SW01 SW01 SW01 SW01 SW02 SW02 SW02
Sample Date 10/4/11 5/14/12 11/7/12 4/30/13 5/14/12 11/6/12 4/30/13
Round 4
Helium
Hydrogen
Argon
Oxygen
Carbon dioxide
Nitrogen
Carbon monoxide
Methane
Ethane
Ethene
Propane
Propylene
Isobutane
Normal Butane
Isopentane
Normal Pentane
Hexane Plus
c!3r
6 Q
6DCi
x13/-
6 C2
613C DIG
634S S042'
6180 S042"
634S H2S
Specific Gravity
BTU
Helium dilution
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%0
%0
%0
%0
%0
%0
%0
factor
NR
ND
1.44
30.17
0.45
67.9
0.069
0.00
ND
ND
ND
NR
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NR
NR
NR
4.83
NR
NR
NR
1.017
0
0.78
NR
ND
1.410
30.59
0.5400
67.34
0.1100
0.0055
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NR
NR
NR
4.55
-3.4
4.1
NR
1.018
0
0.77
NA
ND
1.39
29.04
0.56
69.01
ND
0.0011
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NR
NR
NR
3.97
-0.4
2.8
NA
1.016
0
0.72
NA
ND
1.36
30.70
0.54
67.33
0.060
0.0141
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NR
NR
NR
4.47
0.5
2.6
NA
1.018
0
0.79
NR
ND
1.530
23.21
1.640
73.39
0.1700
0.0598
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NR
NR
NR
7.34
-4.3
7.6
NR
1.014
1
0.78
NA
ND
1.05
22.58
2.20
74.14
ND
0.0301
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NR
NR
NR
8.64
-6.0
9.4
NA
1.015
0
0.77
NA
ND
1.48
21.92
2.14
74.45
ND
0.0108
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NR
NR
NR
8.41
-3.7
9.4
NA
1.015
0
0.77
-------
B-146
Table B-8 Sample Results - Isotech Gas Isotopes (Raton Basin, Colorado)
Parameter
Sample SW03 SW03 SW03
Sample Date 5/15/12 11/6/12 4/30/13
Unit Round 2 Round 3 Round 4
Helium
Hydrogen
Argon
Oxygen
Carbon dioxide
Nitrogen
Carbon monoxide
Methane
Ethane
Ethene
Propane
Propylene
Isobutane
Normal Butane
Isopentane
Normal Pentane
Hexane Plus
c!3r
5 Q
6DCi
x13/-
6 C2
613C DIG
634S S042'
6180 S042"
634S H2S
Specific Gravity
BTU
Helium dilution
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%0
%0
%0
%0
%0
%0
%0
factor
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
8.71
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NA
ND
0.236
4.40
0.93
13.00
ND
81.41
0.0184
ND
0.0011
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.0004
-51.68
-230.3
NR
10.31
NR1
NR1
NA
0.643
826
0.72
NA
ND
0.187
3.58
0.95
9.83
ND
85.43
0.0227
ND
0.0006
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
-53.59
-235.2
NR
7.98
NR1
NR1
NA
0.625
866
0.68
-------
Appendix C Background Data, Retrospective Case Study in the Raton Basin, Colorado May 2015
Appendix C
Background Data
Retrospective Case Study in the Raton Basin, Colorado
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Research and Development
Washington, DC
May 2015
EPA/600/R-14/091
C-l
-------
Appendix C Background Data, Retrospective Case Study in the Raton Basin, Colorado May 2015
Table of Contents
Table of Contents C-2
List of Tables C-3
List of Figures C-5
C.I. Land Use C-6
C.2. Search Areas C-6
C.2.1. Land Use C-6
C.2.2. Crop Land C-7
C.2.3. Land Use Changes C-7
C.3. Environmental Records Search C-7
C.3.1. Oil and Gas Well Inventory C-8
C.3.2. State Record Summary C-8
C.4. Evaluation of Data for the North Fork Ranch and Arrowhead Ranchette in Las Animas
County C-9
C.4.1. EDR Search Results for North Fork Ranch in Las Animas County C-9
C.4.2. Oil and Gas Well Inventory Summary C-9
C.4.3. State Record Summary C-10
C.5. Evaluation of Data for Little Creek Field in Huerfano County C-10
C.5.1. EDR Search Results for Little Creek Field in Huerfano County C-10
C.5.2. Oil and Gas Well Inventory Summary C-ll
C.5.3. State Record Summary C-ll
C.6. References C-ll
Attachment 1 EDR Records Search C-95
C-2
-------
Appendix C Background Data, Retrospective Case Study in the Raton Basin, Colorado May 2015
List of Tables
Table C-la Major Agricultural Land Uses in Huerfano County in 2012 C-14
Table C-lb Major Agricultural Land Uses in Las Animas County in 2012 C-14
Table C-2a Changes in Land Use, 1992 to 2001 and 2001 to 2006, in Huerfano County C-14
Table C-2b Changes in Land Use, 1992 to 2001 and 2001 to 2006, in Las Animas County C-15
Table C-3 Largest Industries, by Employment, in Huerfano and Las Animas Counties in 2011 C-15
Table C-4 Land Use in Search Area A, Huerfano County, in 1992 and 2006 C-16
Table C-5 Land Use in Search Area A, Las Animas County, in 1992 and 2006 C-16
Table C-6 Land Use in Search Area B, Las Animas County, in 1992 and 2006 C-17
Table C-7 Land Use in Search Area C, Las Animas County, in 1992 and 2006 C-17
Table C-8 Major Agricultural Land Uses in Search Area A, Huerfano County, in 2012 C-18
Table C-9 Major Agricultural Land Uses in Search Area A, Las Animas County, in 2012 C-18
Table C-10 Major Agricultural Land Uses in Search Area B, Las Animas County, in 2012 C-18
Table C-ll Major Agricultural Land Uses in Search Area C, Las Animas County, in 2012 C-18
Table C-12 Changes in Land Use, 1992 to 2001 and 2001 to 2006, in Search Area A, Huerfano
County C-19
Table C-13 Changes in Land Use, 1992 to 2001 and 2001 to 2006, in Search Area A, Las Animas
County C-19
Table C-14 Changes in Land Use, 1992 to 2001 and 2001 to 2006, in Search Area B, Las Animas
County C-19
Table C-15 Changes in Land Use, 1992 to 2001 and 2001 to 2006, in Search Area C, Las Animas
County C-20
Table C-16 Well Inventory Summary, Raton Basin Retrospective Case Study Site, Colorado C-21
Table C-17 Number of Permitted Oil and Gas Wells in Raton Basin Retrospective Case Study Site
Areas, Colorado C-34
Table C-18 Environmental Database Review Summary, Raton Basin Retrospective Case Study,
Las Animas County, Colorado C-35
Table C-19 Notice of Violations, Raton Basin Retrospective Case Study, Las Animas County,
Colorado C-42
C-3
-------
Appendix C Background Data, Retrospective Case Study in the Raton Basin, Colorado May 2015
Table C-20 Notable Notice of Violations - Identified Potential Candidate Causes and Distances
from Raton Basin Retrospective Case Study, Las Animas County, Colorado C-66
Table C-21 Environmental Database Review Summary, Raton Basin Retrospective Case Study,
Huerfano County, Colorado C-68
Table C-22 Notice of Violations, Raton Basin Retrospective Case Study, Huerfano County,
Colorado C-71
Table C-23 Notable Notice of Violations - Identified Potential Candidate Causes and Distances
from Sampling Points, Raton Basin Retrospective Case Study, Huerfano County,
Colorado C-74
C-4
-------
Appendix C Background Data, Retrospective Case Study in the Raton Basin, Colorado May 2015
List of Figures
Figure C-la Crop Lands, Huerfano County, Colorado C-76
Figure C-lb 2012 Crops Lands, Las Animas County, Colorado C-77
Figure C-2a Land Use Changes 1992-2001 and 2001-2006, Huerfano County, Colorado C-78
Figure C-2b Land Use Changes 1992-2001 and 2001-2006, Las Animas County, Colorado C-79
Figure C-3 Population in Huerfano and Las Animas Counties, Colorado, 1950-2010 C-80
Figure C-4 Land Use/Land Cover, 1992 and 2006, Huerfano County, Colorado, Search Area C-81
Figure C-5 Land Use/Land Cover, 1992 and 2006, Las Animas County, Colorado, Search Area A C-82
Figure C-6 Land Use/Land Cover, 1992 and 2006, Las Animas County, Colorado, Search Area B C-83
Figure C-7 Land Use/Land Cover, 1992 and 2006, Las Animas County, Colorado, Search Area C C-84
Figure C-8 2012 Crop Lands, Huerfano County, Colorado, Search Area A C-85
Figure C-9 2012 Crop Lands, Las Animas County, Colorado, Search Area A C-86
Figure C-10 2012 Crop Lands, Las Animas County, Colorado, Search Area B C-87
Figure C-ll 2012 Crop Lands, Las Animas County, Colorado, Search Area C C-88
Figure C-12 Land Use Changes, 1992-2001 and 2001-2006, Huerfano County, Colorado, Search
Area A C-89
Figure C-13 Land Use Changes, 1992-2001 and 2001-2006, Las Animas County, Colorado, Search
Area A C-90
Figure C-14 Land Use Changes, 1992-2001 and 2001-2006, Las Animas County, Colorado, Search
AreaB C-91
Figure C-15 Land Use Changes, 1992-2001 and 2001-2006, Las Animas County, Colorado, Search
AreaC C-92
Figure C-16 Sampling Location Map, Las Animas County, Colorado C-93
Figure C-17 Sampling Location Map, Huerfano County, Colorado C-94
C-5
-------
Appendix C Background Data, Retrospective Case Study in the Raton Basin, Colorado May 2015
C.I. Land Use
This section presents descriptions of land uses in Huerfano and Las Animas counties as a whole,
followed by descriptions of land uses in and around the sampling points of this study. Building on
information provided in the Background section of this report, information on the use of agricultural
land was obtained from the Cropland Data Layer produced by the National Agricultural Statistics Service
(U.S. Department of Agriculture, 2012), which contains data on agricultural uses of land based on
satellite imagery and extensive agricultural ground checking of the imagery. Figures C-la and C-lb show
land uses, including agricultural uses, in Huerfano and Las Animas counties, respectively, in 2012. Tables
C-la and C-lb show the percentages of each county's land devoted to the largest agricultural uses.
Grassland herbaceous was the largest agricultural land use in both counties, accounting for
approximately 50% and 62%, respectively, of the land in Huerfano and Las Animas counties.
Land use change data from the U.S. Geological Survey's National Land Cover Database for 1992 and
2006 are not directly comparable (U.S. Geological Survey, 2012). However, it is possible to compare
data from 1992 with data from 2001 and to then compare data from 2001 with that from 2006 to
identify land use changes in the 1992 to 2001 and 2001 to 2006 sub-periods (Multi-Resolution Land
Characteristics Consortium, 2013). Figures C-2a and C-2b show land use changes in Huerfano and Las
Animas counties, respectively, between 1992 and 2001 and between 2001 and 2006. Tables C-2a and
C-2b present data on the changes in land use in the counties in the same two sub-periods. It can be
seen from the tables that only a very small proportion (i.e., less than 1%) of the land in the counties
changed use during either sub-period.
The populations in both counties (an indicator of the intensity of land use) were declining until 1990,
before increasing between 1990 and 2010 by approximately 12% in Huerfano County and approximately
13% in Las Animas County (see Figure C-3) (U.S. Census Bureau, 2013a-d). In 2011, the population
density was approximately 4 persons per square mile in Huerfano County and approximately 3 persons
per square mile in Las Animas County. The state as a whole has a population density of approximately
49 persons per square mile (U.S. Census Bureau, 2012a).
In 2010, 0.1% of the land area in both Huerfano and Las Animas counties was taken up by urban areas
(another indicator of the intensity of land use), whereas 1.5% of the land in the entire state was taken
up by urban areas (U.S. Census Bureau, 2012b).
Employment is another broad indicator of land use in a county. Table C-3 identifies the largest
industries, by employment, in Huerfano and Las Animas counties. The service industry categories of
health care and social assistance, retail trade, and accommodation and food services accounted for a
majority of employment in both counties.
C.2. Search Areas
C.2.1. Land Use
Figures C-4 through C-7, which were created using data from the National Land Cover Database, present
land use maps for the search area in 1992 and 2006. The search area in Huerfano County and Search
C-6
-------
Appendix C Background Data, Retrospective Case Study in the Raton Basin, Colorado May 2015
Area C in Las Animas County encompass a 3-mile search radius around the sampling points in the
counties, whereas Search Areas A and B in Las Animas County encompass a 1-mile search radius around
the sampling points in the county. The search areas are used to focus the analysis of land use patterns
and the environmental records searches. Tables C-4 through C-7 present data on land use in the search
areas in 1992 and 2006. In both years, grassland/herbaceous, shrub/scrub, and evergreen forest were
the largest land use categories in the search area in Huerfano County, and evergreen forest and
shrub/scrub were the largest land use categories in the search areas in Las Animas County.
C.2.2. Crop Land
Figures C-8 through C-ll show land uses, including agricultural land uses, in the search areas in 2012.
Tables C-8 through C-ll show the percentages of land devoted to the largest agricultural uses in the
search areas. Grassland herbaceous comprised the largest agricultural land use in all of the search
areas.
C.2.3. Land Use Changes
Figures C-12 through C-15 show land use changes in the search areas between 1992 and 2001 and
between 2001 and 2006. Tables C-12 through C-15 show the changes in land use in the search areas
during the two sub-periods. The tables show that, in general, there was either no change or extremely
small changes (less than 1%) in land use in the search areas during the sub-periods.
C.3. Environmental Records Search
Environmental record searches of the North Fork Ranch and Arrowhead Ranchette in Las Animas County
and Little Creek Field in Huerfano County were performed by Environmental Data Resources, Inc. (EDR).
EDR provides a service for searching publically available databases and also provides data from their
own proprietary databases. The database searches included records reviews of several federal, state,
and tribal environmental databases and proprietary EDR environmental databases for the two study
areas. The searches identified the documented use, storage, and release of hazardous materials and
petroleum products (see Attachment I).1 Record dates varied based on the particular database from
which the record was obtained. EDR began collecting a majority of the records in 1991 from the
standard databases (State Hazardous Sites Cleanup Act Site Lists [SHWS]; Landfills [LF]; Leaking
Underground Storage Tanks [LUST]; Underground Storage Tanks [UST]; Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act [RCRA]; National Priority List [NPL]; Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation and Liability Information System [CERCLIS]; etc.). However, some databases (e.g., Spills)
may have records dating back to the 1980s.
Environmental Data Resources, Inc. (EDR) does not search the EnviroFacts and its associated EnviroMapper databases but
searches 19 of the 20 environmental databases covered by EnviroFacts, either as standalone databases (such as CERCLIS,
RCRA, TSCA, etc.) or as databases searched as part of the Facility Index System/Facility Registry System (FINDS)
database. The only EnviroFacts database that is not reviewed as part of an EDR search is the Cleanups in My Community
(Cleanup) database, which maps and lists areas where hazardous waste is being or has been cleaned up throughout the
United States. However, it is likely the information in the Cleanup database is also found in other databases that are part of
EDR searches.
C-7
-------
Appendix C Background Data, Retrospective Case Study in the Raton Basin, Colorado May 2015
The record search areas were based on 1- and 3-mile-radii search areas centered around a single
sampling point or a cluster of EPA sampling points. These search areas were chosen based on
professional judgment considering the large size of the two study areas.
The identified records include historically contaminated properties; businesses that use, generate,
transport, or dispose of hazardous materials or petroleum products in their operations; active
contaminated sites that are currently under assessment and/or remediation; sites with NPDES and
SPDES permits; and active and abandoned mines and landfills. All of the properties listed on the
Environmental Records Search Report were reviewed and screened based on the EDR record search
findings to determine whether they are potential candidate causes. The criteria used for the screening
include relevant environmental information (including, but not limited to, notices of violations, current
and historical use of the site, materials and wastes at the site, releases and/or spills), and distance from
the sampling locations.
Sites that EDR could not automatically map due to poor or inadequate address information in the
searched databases were not included on the EDR radius map. However, EDR determined that, based
on the limited address information available, it is possible that these sites could be located within the
stated search radius (e.g., zip code listed within searched radius) and are, therefore, listed on the
Environmental Records Search Report as "orphan" sites. All orphan sites were screened to the extent
possible based on limited site information available through additional searches of the databases listed
above and information obtained through internet searches (i.e., on the EPA website and state websites).
Additionally, through a more extensive review of the available records (including EnviroFacts, business
listings, etc.), a location was determined for most orphan sites, and their approximate distance from the
sampling points was measured on a map.
C.3.1. Oil and Gas Well Inventory
Well inventories were prepared for the same search areas described above for the EDR reports. All
oil and gas wells identified within the search areas were selected for review. Specific focus was placed
on wells within 1 mile of EPA sampling locations. Information was obtained from desktop surveys
performed using searchable state agency databases. The oldest well spud date identified in this study
was March 1973.
C.3.2. State Record Summary
The Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (COGCC) Information System website
(http://cogcc.state.co.us/cogis) was used to find up-to-date well records for the study areas (see Tables
C-16 and C-17). This database provides information on inspection and pollution prevention visits,
including a listing of all inspections that have occurred at each well on record, whether violations were
noted, and any enforcement that may have resulted. The system provides multiple options to search for
records. Not all of the state's records may be included in the state's electronic database. Access to
additional paper records can be obtained by appointment only from the particular state regional office.
The oldest violation identified by the desktop survey for this investigation is from August 1995.
C-8
-------
Appendix C Background Data, Retrospective Case Study in the Raton Basin, Colorado May 2015
C.4. Evaluation of Data for the North Fork Ranch and Arrowhead Ranchette in
Las Animas County
C.4.1. EDR Search Results for North Fork Ranch in Las Animas County
Three separate search areas were established for the EDR database searches to capture the Las Animas
County sampling locations (see Figure C-16). The radii of these search areas were either 1 mile (search
areas A and B, Arrowhead Ranchette) or 3 miles (Search Area C, North Fork Ranch). The database search
identified 17 mapped sites/records within these search areas. An additional 20 orphan sites were
identified during the searches. Orphan sites are those sites with poor locational information in the
databases that may or may not exist outside the actual search radius. An attempt to locate these sites
with information available in the reports and through internet searches was performed to aid in
determining the potential for these sites to be candidate causes. Orphan sites often appear on more
than one database (e.g., UST, LUST). The evaluations of the sites are summarized in Table C-18.
Of the 37 sites identified in the EDR reports, only 17 incidents/records/sites were retained as potential
candidate causes. These sites were identified in the databases as described below:
• Mines: Twelve mine sites are or were located between 0.28 and 2.87 miles from the EPA Study
sampling locations. Most of these mines were coal mines, but the resources extracted from
some of them are unknown. Coal mines are potential sources of methane and other impacts on
water quality (e.g., metals, pH, turbidity, and TDS); therefore, these sites were retained as
potential candidate causes.
• Leaking underground storage tanks (LUST): Two LUST sites (1.3 miles and 1.6 miles from EPA
Study sampling locations) were retained as potential candidate causes because the tanks
contained gasoline and diesel, and some of the EPA Study samples contained gasoline-related
volatile organic compounds (VOCs).
• FINDS: One site was retained as a potential candidate cause. This site, located 4.1 miles from
RBSW01, was determined to be a coal mine listed under RCRA as a CESQG.
• NPDES: One site was retained as a potential candidate cause. This site was a potential mining
operation located 1.9 miles from RBSW01.
• RCRA CESQG: One site listed on the RCRA CESQG database was retained as a potential
candidate cause. The site was reported to be a source of ground water contamination and is
located about 1.1 miles from RBSW01.
C.4.2. Oil and Gas Well Inventory Summary
As described above, the EPA determined the distances of their sampling locations from the wells
identified in the COGCC database files (see Table C-16).
Three hundred and nine oil and gas wells are located in Las Animas County Search Areas A through C. Of
these wells, 191 are located within 1 mile of an EPA Study sampling location (see Table C-17 and Figure
C-16).
C-9
-------
Appendix C Background Data, Retrospective Case Study in the Raton Basin, Colorado May 2015
In summary, numerous oil and gas production wells are located in the study area. The presence of
numerous oil and gas wells increase the probability of one or more of these features being a potential
candidate cause for methane migration.
C.4.3. State Record Summary
Notice of Violations. Notices of violations (NOVs) were researched for all oil and gas wells within a 1-
mile radius of the EPA Study sampling locations (see Table C-19). A total of 117 records were identified.
Forty-three wells within 1 mile of an EPA Study sampling location were retained because they had
notable violations that could be linked to candidate causes (see Table C-20). Each of these wells has one
or more notable violations, including the following:
• Improper casing cementing,
• Erosion control resulting in migration of silt into waterways,
• Numerous spills of drill water and produced water from pits,
• Improper waste disposal, and
• Complaints about methane in domestic well water.
C.5. Evaluation of Data for Little Creek Field in Huerfano County
C.5.1. EDR Search Results for Little Creek Field in Huerfano County
Beginning in 1998, Petroglyph, Inc., began operating in the Little Creek Field to recover coalbed methane
from coal within the Vermejo Formation. This process involves dewatering of the coal seams to allow
release and eventual recovery of methane gas. In mid-2005, pumping rates were increased, lowering
the water table within the Vermejo Formation. As a result of this activity, methane gas escaped into the
overlying Poison Canyon Formation and was detected in domestic drinking water wells. Petroglyph shut
in all gas wells in July 2007 and began a program in conjunction with COGCC to investigate, monitor, and
mitigate methane within the Poison Canyon Formation. EPA sampling efforts were designed based on
the detections of methane within selected drinking water wells.
One 3-mile-radius search area was established for the EDR database searches to capture all of the EPA
sampling locations (see Figure C-17). The database search located two mapped sites/records within this
search area, as well as an additional 27 orphan sites. Orphan sites are those sites with poor locational
information in the databases that may or may not exist outside the actual search radius. An attempt to
locate these sites with information available in the reports and through internet searches was
performed to aid in determining the potential for these sites to be candidate causes. Orphan sites often
appear on more than one database (e.g., UST, LUST). The evaluations of the sites are summarized in
Table C-21.
Of the 29 sites identified in the EDR reports for Huerfano County, the incidents, records, and sites
represented sand and gravel mines, several solid waste facilities, several hazardous waste handlers, and
leaky underground storage tanks (USTs) and aboveground storage tanks (ASTs) containing gasoline,
diesel, propane, and liquefied petroleum gas. However, none of these sites was retained as a potential
C-10
-------
Appendix CBackground Data, Retrospective Case Study in the Raton Basin, Colorado May 2015
candidate cause because of excessive distance (i.e., several miles) from the EPA Study sampling
locations, the nature of site operations, or a lack of documented releases.
C.5.2. Oil and Gas Well Inventory Summary
As described above, the EPA determined the distances of their sampling locations from the wells
identified in the COGCC database files (see Table C-16).
Seventy-five oil and gas wells are located within the Huerfano County 3-mile-radius search area, and 39
of these wells are located within 1 mile of an EPA Study sampling location (see Table C-17).
In summary, the numerous oil and gas production wells in the study area increase the probability that
one or more of these features is the cause of the methane migration. However, it is likely that the
regional effort to develop coalbed methane, rather than a single well, is the potential candidate cause
that allowed the escape of methane gas into the overlying formation.
C.5.3. State Record Summary
Notice of Violations. NOVs were researched for all oil and gas wells within a 1-mile radius of the EPA
Study sampling locations (see Table C-22). A total of six records were identified, including violations for
the discharge of fluids from machinery; the need to produce, plug, or pass a mechanical integrity test;
not properly restoring a site; and administrative issues. One NOV for a well within 1 mile of an EPA
Study sampling location was retained as a notable violation that could be linked to candidate causes.
This violation was for a minor oil leak from machinery (see Table C-23).
C.6. References
Multi-Resolution Land Characteristics Consortium. 2013. Frequently Asked Questions. Available at:
http://www.mrlc.gov/faq Ic.php. Accessed on October 25, 2013.
U.S. Census Bureau. 2011a. Economic Planning and Coordination Division. Geography Area Series:
County Business Patterns: 2011. Huerfano County, Colorado.
http://factfinder2.census.Rov/faces/tableservices/isf/paRes/productview.xhtml?pid=BP 2011 OOAl&pr
odType=table. Accessed on November 11, 2013.
U.S. Census Bureau. 2011b. Economic Planning and Coordination Division. Geography Area Series:
County Business Patterns: 2011. Las Animas County, Colorado.
http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/tableservices/isf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=BP 2011 OOAl&pr
odType=table. Accessed on November 11, 2013.
U.S. Census Bureau. 2012a. Population Division. Tables 3. Cumulative Estimates of Resident
Population Change for the United States, States, Counties, Puerto Rico, and Puerto Rico Municipios:
April 1, 2010 to July 1, 2011 (MAPS-EST2011-03).
http://www.census.Rov/popest/data/maps/2011/Countv-Density-ll.html. Accessed on October 31,
2013.
C-ll
-------
Appendix C Background Data, Retrospective Case Study in the Raton Basin, Colorado May 2015
U.S. Census Bureau. 2012b. PctUrbanRural_County.xls and PctUrbanRural State.xls. Available at:
http://www2.census.gov/geo/ua. Accessed on November 5, 2013.
U.S. Census Bureau. 2013a. County Population Census Counts 1900-90.
http://www.census.gov/population/www/censusdata/cencounts/index.html. Accessed on November
11, 2013.
U.S. Census Bureau. 2013b. DP-1 Profile of General Demographic Characteristics: 2000. Census 2000
Summary File 1 (SF 1) 100-Percent Data. Huerfano County and Las Animas County, Colorado.
http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/tableservices/isf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=DEC 00 SF1 DP1&
prodType=table. Accessed on November 11, 2013.
U.S. Census Bureau. 2013c. Community Facts. Census 2010 Total Population. Huerfano County,
Colorado. Available at:
http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/nav/isf/pages/community facts.xhtmlffnone. Accessed on
November 11, 2013.
U.S. Census Bureau. 2013d. Community Facts. Census 2010 Total Population. Las Animas County,
Colorado. Available at:
http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/nav/isf/pages/community facts.xhtmlffnone. Accessed on
November 11, 2013.
U.S. Department of Agriculture. 2012. National Agricultural Statistics Service Cropland Data Layer.
Published crop-specific data layer. http://nassgeodata.gmu.edu/CropScape. Accessed on October 28,
2013.
U.S. Geological Survey. 2012. The National Land Cover Database.
http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2012/3020/fs2012-3020.pdf. Accessed on October 25, 2013.
C-12
-------
Appendix C Background Data, Retrospective Case Study in the Raton Basin, Colorado May 2015
Appendix C Tables
C-13
-------
C-14
Table C-la Major Agricultural Land
Uses in Huerfano County in
2012
Agricultural Land Use % of County Land
Grassland herbaceous
Alfalfa
Other hay/non-alfalfa
50.2
0.7
0.3
Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 2012.
Table C-lb Major Agricultural Land
Uses in Las Animas County
in 2012
Agricultural Land Use % of County Land
Grassland herbaceous
Alfalfa
Fallow/idle cropland
Winter wheat
62.2
0.4
0.3
0.1
Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 2012.
Table C-2a Changes in Land Use, 1992 to 2001 and
2001 to 2006, in Huerfano County
Change in Land Use
No change
Change in land use
- to grassland/shrub
-to agriculture
-to wetlands
-to herbaceous
-to shrub/scrub
-to hay/pasture
% of County Land Area
1992 to 2001 2001 to 2006
99.1
0.9
0.6
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
99.7
0.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.1
Source: U.S. Geological Survey, 2012.
Note: Excluded from the table are land use categories for which the area that changed use represent less
than one thousandth of the total county area. Consequently, the percentages in the columns may not sum
to 100%.
-------
C-15
Table C-2b Changes in Land Use, 1992 to 2001 and
2001 to 2006, in Las Animas County
Change in Land Use
No change
Change in land use
-to agriculture
- to grassland/shrub
-to herbaceous
-to shrub/scrub
% of County Land Area
1992 to 2001 2001 to 2006
99.6
0.4
0.2
0.1
0.0
0.0
99.4
0.6
0.0
0.0
0.2
0.4
Source: U.S. Geological Survey, 2012.
Note: Excluded from the table are land use categories for which the area that changed use represent less
than one thousandth of the total county area. Consequently, the percentages in the columns may not sum
to 100%.
Table C-3 Largest Industries, by Employment, in Huerfano and Las Animas
Counties in 2011
Industry
Huerfano County
Number of % of Total
Paid Paid
Employees Rank Employees
Las Animas County
Number of % of Total
Paid Paid
Employees Rank Employees
Health care and social
assistance
Retail trade
Accommodation and food
services
Professional, scientific, and
technical services
Other services (except
public administration)
Finance and insurance
Information
Construction
Manufacturing
Wholesale trade
Real estate and rental and
leasing
Administrative and support,
and waste management
and remediation services
456
264
187
67
49
27
20
0
0
0
0
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
35.5
20.6
14.6
5.2
3.8
2.1
1.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
783
685
598
111
181
0
41
299
73
63
60
48
1
2
3
6
5
0
11
4
7
8
9
10
23.4
20.4
17.8
3.3
5.4
0
1.2
8.9
2.2
1.9
1.8
1.4
Sources: US Census Bureau, 2011a, 2011b.
Note: N/A = Not applicable.
-------
C-16
Table C-4 Land Use in Search Area A, Huerfano
County, in 1992 and 2006
1992 2006
Square % of Square % of
Land Use Miles Total Miles Total
Grassland/herbaceous
Shrub/scrub
Evergreen forest
Pasture/hay
Deciduous forest
Row/cultivated crops
Barren
Developed
Open water
Woody wetlands
Emergent herbaceous
wetlands
Total
17.8
5.2
2.6
1.4
1.0
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
28.2
63.2
18.3
9.2
5.0
3.6
0.6
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
100.0
12.6
8.4
6.4
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.4
0.0
0.1
0.1
28.2
44.8
29.8
22.8
0.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.3
0.2
0.2
0.5
100.0
Source: US Geological Survey, 2012.
Note: Totals may not sum exactly due to rounding.
Table C-5 Land Use in Search Area A, Las
Animas County, in 1992 and 2006
1992 2006
Square % of Square % of
Land Use Miles Total Miles Total
Shrub/scrub
Evergreen forest
Grassland/herbaceous
Deciduous forest
Woody wetlands
Total
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.1
0.0
3.1
49.3
32.7
14.7
3.3
0.0
100.0
0.6
1.9
0.5
0.0
0.1
3.1
19.2
61.9
17.0
0.3
1.7
100.0
Source: US Geological Survey, 2012.
Note: Totals may not sum exactly due to rounding.
-------
C-17
Table C-6 Land Use in Search Area B, Las
Animas County, in 1992 and 2006
1992 2006
Square % of Square % of
Land Use Miles Total Miles Total
Evergreen forest
Shrub/scrub
Grassland/herbaceous
Deciduous forest
Woody wetlands
Emergent herbaceous
wetlands
Total
1.8
1.0
0.2
0.1
0.0
0 0
3.1
56.8
33.0
7.8
2.4
0.0
0 0
100.0
2.0
0.9
0.1
0.0
0.1
0 0
3.1
64.3
27.6
4.3
1.6
2.2
0 1
100.0
Source: US Geological Survey, 2012.
Note: Totals may not sum exactly due to rounding.
Table C-7 Land Use in Search Area C, Las
Animas County, in 1992 and 2006
1992 2006
Square % of Square % of
Land Use Miles Total Miles Total
Evergreen forest
Shrub/scrub
Grassland/herbaceous
Deciduous forest
Pasture/hay
Emergent herbaceous
wetlands
Woody wetlands
Total
20.5
4.3
1.6
1.5
0.4
0 0
0.0
28.2
72.5
15.1
5.6
5.5
1.3
0 0
0.0
100.0
17.7
7.8
0.4
1.5
0.5
0 0
0.4
28.2
62.6
27.5
1.4
5.2
1.8
0 1
1.4
100.0
Source: US Geological Survey, 2012.
Note: Totals may not sum exactly due to rounding.
-------
C-18
Table C-8 Major Agricultural Land
Uses in Search Area A,
Huerfano County, in 2012
Use % of Land
Grassland herbaceous
Alfalfa
Other hay/non-alfalfa
45.4
0.9
0.3
Source: US Department of Agriculture, 2012.
Table C-9 Major Agricultural Land
Uses in Search Area A, Las
Animas County, in 2012
Grassland herbaceous
% of Land
11.8
Source: US Department of Agriculture, 2012.
Table C-10 Major Agricultural Land
Uses in Search Area B, Las
Animas County, in 2012
Grassland herbaceous
% of Land
4.7
Source: US Department of Agriculture, 2012.
Table C-ll Major Agricultural Land
Uses in Search Area C, Las
Animas County, in 2012
Use % of Land
Grassland herbaceous
Alfalfa
Other hay/non-alfalfa
1.3
0.2
0.1
Source: US Department of Agriculture, 2012.
-------
C-19
Table C-12 Changes in Land Use, 1992 to
2001 and 2001 to 2006, in Search
Area A, Huerfano County
Change in Land Use
No change
Change in land use
- to grassland/shrub
-to agriculture
- to open water
-to wetlands
-to hay/pasture
% of Land
1992 to 2001 2001 to 2006
99.3
0.7
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.0
99.9
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
Source: US Geological Survey, 2012.
Table C-13 Changes in Land Use, 1992 to
2001 and 2001 to 2006, in Search
Area A, Las Animas County
Change in Land Use
No change
% of Land
1992 to 2001 2001 to 2006
Source: US Geological Survey, 2012.
Table C-14 Changes in Land Use, 1992 to
2001 and 2001 to 2006, in Search
Area B, Las Animas County
Change in Land Use
No change
Change in land use
-to shrub/scrub
% of Land
1992 to 2001 2001 to 2006
100.0
0.0
0.0
99.9
0.1
0.1
Source: US Geological Survey, 2012.
-------
C-20
Table C-15 Changes in Land Use, 1992 to
2001 and 2001 to 2006, in Search
Area C, Las Animas County
Change in Land Use
No change
Change in land use
-to agriculture
-to shrub/scrub
-to herbaceous
% of Land
1992 to 2001 2001 to 2006
99.8
0.2
0.2
0.0
0.0
99.7
0.3
0.0
0.2
0.1
Source: US Geological Survey, 2012.
-------
C-21
Table C-16 Well Inventory Summary, Raton Basin, Colorado, Retrospective Case Study
API Number
05-055-06191
05-055-05012
05-055-05027
05-055-06004
05-055-06023
05-055-06024
05-055-06034
05-055-06038
05-055-06060
05-055-06086
05-055-06146
05-055-06147
05-055-06148
05-055-06149
05-055-06150
05-055-06151
05-055-06152
05-055-06153
05-055-06154
05-055-06155
05-055-06156
05-055-06157
05-055-06158
05-055-06159
05-055-06160
05-055-06161
05-055-06162
05-055-06163
05-055-06165
05-055-06166
05-055-06167
05-055-06168
05-055-06169
05-055-06170
05-055-06171
05-055-06172
05-055-06173
05-055-06174
05-055-06175
05-055-06176
05-055-06177
05-055-06178
05-055-06179
05-055-06213
05-055-06214
05-055-06215
05-055-06216
05-055-06217
05-055-06218
05-055-06219
05-055-06220
05-055-06221
Operator
PETROGLYPH ENERGY INC
PAN AMERICAN PETROLEUM
CORP
PETROGLYPH ENERGY INC
CLARK, E.B.SR.
MINERALS MANAGEMENT INC
FILON EXPLORATION CORP
JORDAN, TOM
AMOCO PRODUCTION CO.
ALAMOSA DRILLING INC
PETROGLYPH ENERGY INC
PETROGLYPH ENERGY INC
PETROGLYPH ENERGY INC
PETROGLYPH ENERGY INC
PETROGLYPH ENERGY INC
PETROGLYPH ENERGY INC
PETROGLYPH ENERGY INC
PETROGLYPH ENERGY INC
PETROGLYPH ENERGY INC
PETROGLYPH ENERGY INC
PETROGLYPH ENERGY INC
PETROGLYPH ENERGY INC
PETROGLYPH ENERGY INC
PETROGLYPH ENERGY INC
PETROGLYPH ENERGY INC
PETROGLYPH ENERGY INC
PETROGLYPH ENERGY INC
PETROGLYPH ENERGY INC
PETROGLYPH ENERGY INC
PETROGLYPH ENERGY INC
PETROGLYPH ENERGY INC
PETROGLYPH ENERGY INC
PETROGLYPH ENERGY INC
PETROGLYPH ENERGY INC
PETROGLYPH ENERGY INC
PETROGLYPH ENERGY INC
PETROGLYPH ENERGY INC
PETROGLYPH ENERGY INC
PETROGLYPH ENERGY INC
PETROGLYPH ENERGY INC
PETROGLYPH ENERGY INC
PETROGLYPH ENERGY INC
PETROGLYPH ENERGY INC
PETROGLYPH ENERGY INC
PETROGLYPH ENERGY INC
PETROGLYPH ENERGY INC
PETROGLYPH ENERGY INC
PETROGLYPH ENERGY INC
PETROGLYPH ENERGY INC
PETROGLYPH ENERGY INC
PETROGLYPH ENERGY INC
PETROGLYPH ENERGY INC
PETROGLYPH ENERGY INC
Well Name
MCCONNELL 01-04
FERDINAND BROHR1
DICK REALTY & INVCO1
GOEMMERLANDC01
GOLDEN CYCLE 1
GOLDEN CYCLE 2
GOLDEN CYCLE 2-A
GOLDEN CYCLE LAND CO
1
STAN SEARLE 1
LIVELY 03-03
LIVELY 3-10
LIVELY 3-12
LIVELY 10-02
LIVELY 10-04
LIVELY 10-12
LIVELY 2-12
LIVELY 34-09
LIVELY 35-07
LIVELY 35-09
STATE 36-11
LIVELY 02-02
LIVELY 02-03
LIVELY 03-04
LIVELY 35-11
LIVELY 03-01
STATE 36-05
MARTINEZ 07-04
MARTINEZ 07-02
ROHR 09-10
ROHR 04-10
MARTINEZ 12-09
HURTADO 13-04
ANDREATTA 13-12
ANDREATTA 14-10
HURTADO 13-02
MARTINEZ 7-11
LIVELY 35-04
LIVELY 04-02
LIVELY 01-12
LIVELY 35-11 B
MCCONNELL 01-07
LIVELY 02-10
STATE 36-02
STATE 1W
STATE 2W
STATE 3W
STATE 4W
STATE 5W
STATE 6W
STATE 7W
STATE 8W
STATE 9W
Facility ID
89076
211730
211737
211769
211788
211789
211799
211803
211823
211849
211908
211909
211910
211911
211912
211913
211914
211915
211916
211917
211918
211919
211920
211921
211922
211923
211924
211925
211927
211928
211929
211930
211931
211932
211933
211934
211935
211936
211937
211938
211939
211940
211941
256976
256977
256978
256979
256980
256981
256982
256983
256984
Status
AL
DA
DA
DA
DA
DA
DA
DA
DA
DA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
AL
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
DA
PA
PA
DA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
AL
AL
AL
PA
AL
AL
PA
AL
PA
PA
PA
AL
AL
PA
AL
PA
Operator
Number
8667
66802
8667
17538
100806
100018
45006
2500
900
8667
8667
8667
8667
8667
8667
8667
8667
8667
8667
8667
8667
8667
8667
8667
8667
8667
8667
8667
8667
8667
8667
8667
8667
8667
8667
8667
8667
8667
8667
8667
8667
8667
8667
8667
8667
8667
8667
8667
8667
8667
8667
8667
Field
Code
99999
99999
99999
99999
99999
99999
99999
99999
99999
99999
70830
70830
99999
70830
70830
70830
99999
70830
70830
70830
70830
70830
70830
99999
70830
70830
99999
70830
70830
70830
70830
99999
70830
99999
70830
70830
99999
99999
99999
70830
99999
99999
70830
99999
70830
70830
70830
99999
99999
70830
99999
70830
Distance N/S
of Section
Line
1020
672
2000
660
660
2180
1397
592
2020
698
1885
1993
648
664
1982
2637
1414
1551
1667
1648
772
618
981
2106
748
2239
214
788
2071
1987
2165
864
2186
2176
302
1842
882
218
1780
2106
1697
2027
536
205
242
435
750
1040
1355
1534
1960
2145
Direction
from Section
Line
N
N
N
N
N
S
S
N
S
N
S
S
N
N
S
S
S
N
S
S
N
N
N
S
N
N
N
N
S
S
S
N
S
S
N
S
N
N
S
S
N
S
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
Distance E/W
of Section
Line
727
2031
660
660
760
1955
1843
948
650
1914
2123
661
1983
660
660
660
527
1613
507
1691
1373
1652
821
2426
1109
675
1163
2123
2087
2022
292
241
551
2389
1662
2100
882
2010
345
2399
1707
1980
1604
206
761
1190
1525
1860
2170
2000
2377
1900
Direction
Section
Line
W
E
E
W
W
E
E
W
E
W
E
W
E
W
W
W
E
E
E
W
E
W
W
W
E
W
W
E
E
E
E
W
W
E
E
W
W
E
W
W
E
E
E
W
W
W
W
W
W
E
E
E
Quarter
NWNW
NWNE
SENE
NWNW
NWNW
NWSE
NWSE
NWNW
NESE
NENW
NWSE
NWSW
NWNE
NWNW
NWSW
NWSW
NESE
SWNE
NESE
NESW
NWNE
NENW
NWNW
NESW
NENE
SWNW
NWNW
NWNE
NWSE
NWSE
NESE
NWNW
NWSW
NWSE
NWNE
NESW
NWNW
NWNE
NWSW
NESW
SWNE
NWSE
NWNE
NWNW
NWNW
NENW
NENW
NENW
SENW
SWNE
SWNE
SWNE
Section
1
9
3
11
11
2
2
11
33
3
3
3
10
10
10
2
34
35
35
36
2
2
3
35
3
36
7
7
9
4
12
13
13
14
13
7
35
4
1
35
1
2
36
36
36
36
36
36
36
36
36
36
Township
29S
29S
29S
29S
29S
29S
29S
29S
28S
29S
29S
29S
29S
29S
29S
29S
28S
28S
28S
28S
29S
29S
29S
28S
29S
28S
29S
29S
29S
29S
29S
29S
29S
29S
29S
29S
28S
29S
29S
28S
29S
29S
28S
28S
28S
28S
28S
28S
28S
28S
28S
28S
Range
67W
67W
67W
67W
67W
67W
67W
67W
67W
67W
67W
67W
67W
67W
67W
67W
67W
67W
67W
67W
67W
67W
67W
67W
67W
67W
66W
66W
67W
67W
67W
67W
67W
67W
67W
66W
67W
67W
67W
67W
67W
67W
67W
67W
67W
67W
67W
67W
67W
67W
67W
67W
Latitude
37.557115
37.544215
37.554845
37.543361
37.543526
37.551315
37.549165
37.543716
37.566083
37.558475
37.550699
37.551379
37.543755
37.544001
37.536750
37.552411
37.563875
37.570621
37.564717
37.564380
37.558017
37.558371
37.558692
37.565765
37.558077
37.568427
37.543816
37.542310
37.537311
37.551583
37.535956
37.528496
37.522477
37.522366
37.529501
37.534545
37.572365
37.560185
37.550145
37.565823
37.554835
37.550895
37.572682
37.574035
37.573907
37.573293
37.572366
37.571385
37.570455
37.570011
37.568775
37.568173
Longitude
-104.846871
-104.892833
-104.869809
-104.865472
-104.865192
-104.856182
-104.855812
-104.864552
-104.887917
-104.879052
-104.875072
-104.883431
-104.874341
-104.883368
-104.883793
-104.865375
-104.869452
-104.855188
-104.851035
-104.843494
-104.853967
-104.861890
-104.883385
-104.859242
-104.871393
-104.846902
-104.829281
-104.822021
-104.892921
-104.892615
-104.834059
-104.848771
-104.847258
-104.857872
-104.838696
-104.825757
-104.864492
-104.892563
-104.848251
-104.859054
-104.839201
-104.856272
-104.838740
-104.848412
-104.846476
-104.845011
-104.843875
-104.842751
-104.841701
-104.840162
-104.841351
-104.837566
Ground
Elevation
6615
6754
6666
6826
6830
6670
6684
6835
6645
6647
6659
6678
6767
6737
6825
6702
6562
6526
6557
6579
6598
6603
6665
6541
6588
6527
6639
6744
6803
6700
6704
6167
6874
6828
6753
6789
6533
6670
6686
6541
6687
6678
6572
6473
6492
6518
6527
6542
6576
6612
6639
6655
Location Quality
Planned LatLong
Planned LatLong
Actual LatLong
Actual LatLong
Planned LatLong
Planned LatLong
Planned LatLong
Planned LatLong
Actual LatLong
Planned LatLong
Actual LatLong
Actual LatLong
Actual LatLong
Actual LatLong
Actual LatLong
Actual LatLong
Planned LatLong
Actual LatLong
Actual LatLong
Actual LatLong
Actual LatLong
Actual LatLong
Actual LatLong
Planned LatLong
Actual LatLong
Actual LatLong
Planned LatLong
Actual LatLong
Actual LatLong
Actual LatLong
Actual LatLong
Planned LatLong
Actual LatLong
Planned LatLong
Actual LatLong
Actual LatLong
Planned LatLong
Planned LatLong
Planned LatLong
Actual LatLong
Planned LatLong
Planned LatLong
Actual LatLong
Planned LatLong
Actual LatLong
Actual LatLong
Actual LatLong
Planned LatLong
Planned LatLong
Actual LatLong
Planned LatLong
Actual LatLong
Field Name
Wildcat
Wildcat
Wildcat
Wildcat
Wildcat
Wildcat
Wildcat
Wildcat
Wildcat
Wildcat
Purgatoire River
Purgatoire River
Wildcat
Purgatoire River
Purgatoire River
Purgatoire River
Wildcat
Purgatoire River
Purgatoire River
Purgatoire River
Purgatoire River
Purgatoire River
Purgatoire River
Wildcat
Purgatoire River
Purgatoire River
Wildcat
Purgatoire River
Purgatoire River
Purgatoire River
Purgatoire River
Wildcat
Purgatoire River
Wildcat
Purgatoire River
Purgatoire River
Wildcat
Wildcat
Wildcat
Purgatoire River
Wildcat
Wildcat
Purgatoire River
Wildcat
Purgatoire River
Purgatoire River
Purgatoire River
Wildcat
Wildcat
Purgatoire River
Wildcat
Purgatoire River
Location ID
383613
383461
383467
383496
383513
383514
383521
383522
383540
383546
324511
324512
383592
324513
324514
324515
383593
324516
324517
324518
324519
324520
324521
324532
324522
324523
383594
324524
324526
324527
324528
383595
324529
383596
324530
324531
383597
383598
383599
324532
383600
383601
324533
383632
324536
324537
324538
383633
383634
324539
383635
324540
County
Huerfano
Huerfano
Huerfano
Huerfano
Huerfano
Huerfano
Huerfano
Huerfano
Huerfano
Huerfano
Huerfano
Huerfano
Huerfano
Huerfano
Huerfano
Huerfano
Huerfano
Huerfano
Huerfano
Huerfano
Huerfano
Huerfano
Huerfano
Huerfano
Huerfano
Huerfano
Huerfano
Huerfano
Huerfano
Huerfano
Huerfano
Huerfano
Huerfano
Huerfano
Huerfano
Huerfano
Huerfano
Huerfano
Huerfano
Huerfano
Huerfano
Huerfano
Huerfano
Huerfano
Huerfano
Huerfano
Huerfano
Huerfano
Huerfano
Huerfano
Huerfano
Huerfano
Search
Area
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
-------
C-22
Table C-16 Well Inventory Summary, Raton Basin, Colorado, Retrospective Case Study
Distance N/S Direction Distance E/W Direction
Operator Field of Section from Section of Section Section Ground Search
API Number Operator Well Name Facility ID Status Number Code Line Line Line Line Quarter Section Township Range Latitude Longitude Elevation Location Quality Field Name Location ID County Area
05-055-06222
05-055-06223
05-055-06242
05-055-06243
05-055-06244
05-055-06255
05-055-06256
05-055-06257
05-055-06258
05-055-06261
05-055-06265
05-055-06268
05-055-06269
05-055-06266
05-055-06271
05-055-06272
05-055-06273
05-055-06274
05-055-06292
05-055-06291
05-055-06290
05-055-06289
05-055-06288
05-071-06296
05-071-06876
05-071-06963
05-071-07089
05-071-07134
05-071-07472
05-071-07534
05-071-07550
05-071-07704
05-071-07881
05-071-07896
05-071-08238
05-071-08545
05-071-08623
05-071-08642
05-071-08707
05-071-08743
PETROGLYPH ENERGY INC
PETROGLYPH ENERGY INC
PETROGLYPH ENERGY INC
PETROGLYPH ENERGY INC
PETROGLYPH ENERGY INC
PETROGLYPH ENERGY INC
PETROGLYPH ENERGY INC
PETROGLYPH ENERGY INC
PETROGLYPH ENERGY INC
PETROGLYPH ENERGY INC
PETROGLYPH ENERGY INC
PETROGLYPH ENERGY INC
PETROGLYPH ENERGY INC
PETROGLYPH ENERGY INC
PETROGLYPH ENERGY INC
PETROGLYPH ENERGY INC
PETROGLYPH ENERGY INC
PETROGLYPH ENERGY INC
PETROGLYPH ENERGY INC
PETROGLYPH ENERGY INC
PETROGLYPH ENERGY INC
PETROGLYPH ENERGY INC
PETROGLYPH ENERGY INC
PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES
USA INC
PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES
USA INC
PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES
USA INC
PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES
USA INC
PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES
USA INC
PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES
USA INC
PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES
USA INC
PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES
USA INC
PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES
USA INC
PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES
USA INC
PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES
USA INC
PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES
USA INC
PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES
USA INC
PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES
USA INC
PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES
USA INC
PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES
USA INC
PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES
USA INC
STATE 10W
STATE 11W
ANSELMO 07-05
MARTINEZ 07-06
MARTINEZ 07-01
MARTINEZ 07-14
MARTINEZ 07-03
MARTINEZ 06-16
MARTINEZ 07-07
STATE 10WB
ANSELMO 07-12
ANSELMO 07-13
ANSELMO 18-03
ANSELMO 12-16
ANSELMO 18-04
MARTINEZ 06-15
MARTINEZ 06-09
MARTINEZ 07-10
ROHR8-1
ROHR4-14
ROHR 09-04
ROHR9-05
ROHR 5-16
WHARTON 33-32
BONNEVILLE31-6
MONTEREY 33-6
MONTE CARLO 31-7
BAKERSFIELD 11-5
PONY EXPRESS 44-31
COTTER 44-32
MONTEREY 33-6TR
BONNEVILLE31-6TR
MOLSON 23-8
SALTY 42-6
SALTY 42-6 TR
PONY EXPRESS 44-31 TR
JOPLIN 44-5
ALABASTER 11-8
WILDCARD 31-5
PANHEAD 32-8
256985
256986
258074
258075
258076
260564
260565
260566
260567
261770
263156
263157
263159
263161
263164
263165
263166
263167
272799
272800
272801
272802
272803
217519
256234
256911
258247
258700
260770
261970
262314
264519
268485
268861
274520
280226
281479
281856
283138
284122
DA
AL
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
AL
PA
AL
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PR
PR
PR
PR
PR
PR
PR
PR
PR
PR
PR
PR
PR
PR
PR
PR
PR
8667
8667
8667
8667
8667
8667
8667
8667
8667
8667
8667
8667
8667
8667
8667
8667
8667
8667
8667
8667
8667
8667
8667
10084
10084
10084
10084
10084
10084
10084
10084
10084
10084
10084
10084
10084
10084
10084
10084
10084
99999
99999
70830
70830
70830
70830
70830
70830
70830
70830
70830
70830
70830
70830
70830
70830
70830
70830
70830
70830
70830
70830
70830
70830
70830
70830
70830
70830
70830
70830
70830
70830
70830
70830
70830
70830
70830
70830
70830
70830
2442
2520
1831
2271
1351
578
517
572
2460
2440
1983
611
559
403
605
410
1985
1817
715
757
736
1995
615
1523
1111
1808
290
379
475
522
Ylll
1111
2246
2380
2409
384
262
1249
624
1503
N
S
N
N
N
S
N
S
N
N
S
S
N
S
N
S
S
S
N
S
N
N
S
S
N
S
N
N
S
S
S
N
S
N
N
S
S
N
N
N
1662
1400
660
1960
982
1939
1553
634
1803
1707
717
481
1939
640
647
1873
688
1884
553
2157
803
805
558
1733
2078
1637
2390
1248
853
156
1783
1978
1841
695
599
847
418
215
1852
2269
E
E
W
W
E
W
W
E
E
E
W
W
W
E
W
E
E
E
E
W
W
W
E
E
E
E
E
W
E
E
E
E
W
E
E
E
E
W
E
E
SENE
NESE
SWNW
SENW
NENE
SESW
NENW
SESE
SWNE
SENE
NWSW
SWSW
NENW
SESE
NWNW
SWSE
NESE
NWSE
NENE
SESW
NWNW
SWNW
SESE
NWSE
NWNE
NWSE
NWNE
NWNW
SESE
SESE
NWSE
NWNE
NESW
SENE
SENE
SESE
SESE
NWNW
NWNE
SWNE
36
36
7
7
7
7
7
6
7
36
7
7
18
12
18
6
6
7
8
4
9
9
5
32
6
6
7
5
31
32
6
6
8
6
6
31
5
8
5
8
28S
28S
29S
29S
29S
29S
29S
29S
29S
28S
29S
29S
29S
29S
29S
29S
29S
29S
29S
29S
29S
29S
29S
32S
33S
33S
33S
33S
32S
32S
33S
33S
33S
33S
33S
32S
33S
33S
33S
33S
67W
67W
66W
66W
66W
66W
66W
66W
66W
67W
66W
66W
66W
67W
66W
66W
66W
66W
67W
67W
67W
67W
67W
66W
66W
66W
66W
66W
66W
66W
66W
66W
66W
66W
66W
66W
66W
66W
66W
66W
37.567295
37.566365
37.539651
37.538345
37.540673
37.531183
37.543193
37.545930
37.537687
37.567248
37.535267
37.531532
37.528076
37.531196
37.528046
37.545584
37.549811
37.534298
37.544630
37.548359
37.544443
37.540978
37.548421
37.211780
37.204610
37.197920
37.192230
37.206680
37.208990
37.208990
37.197860
37.204560
37.184820
37.201100
37.201040
37.208710
37.193200
37.189520
37.205900
37.188586
-104.838911
-104.838031
-104.830862
-104.826353
-104.817962
-104.826300
-104.827846
-104.816947
-104.820612
-104.836857
-104.830584
-104.831335
-104.826321
-104.835189
-104.830771
-104.821234
-104.817071
-104.820685
-104.906195
-104.896800
-104.901514
-104.901631
-104.906190
-104.799510
-104.818780
-104.818310
-104.820060
-104.807430
-104.814630
-104.794020
-104.818840
-104.818440
-104.805690
-104.813820
-104.813500
-104.814650
-104.795070
-104.811460
-104.799990
-104.801357
6626
6635
6705
6760
6770
6811
6669
6760
6782
6626
6755
6769
6863
6745
6821
6759
6735
6802
6820
6741
6818
6851
6784
7400
7295
7250
7240
7411
7355
7475
7170
7295
7196
7338
7338
7367
7300
7249
7390
7220
Planned LatLong
Planned LatLong
Actual LatLong
Actual LatLong
Actual LatLong
Actual LatLong
Actual LatLong
Actual LatLong
Actual LatLong
Actual LatLong
Actual LatLong
Actual LatLong
Planned LatLong
Actual LatLong
Planned LatLong
Actual LatLong
Actual LatLong
Actual LatLong
Actual LatLong
Actual LatLong
Actual LatLong
Actual LatLong
Actual LatLong
Actual LatLong
Actual LatLong
Actual LatLong
Actual LatLong
Actual LatLong
Actual LatLong
Actual LatLong
Actual LatLong
Actual LatLong
Actual LatLong
Actual LatLong
Actual LatLong
Actual LatLong
Actual LatLong
Actual LatLong
Actual LatLong
Actual LatLong
Wildcat
Wildcat
Purgatoire River
Purgatoire River
Purgatoire River
Purgatoire River
Purgatoire River
Purgatoire River
Purgatoire River
Purgatoire River
Purgatoire River
Purgatoire River
Purgatoire River
Purgatoire River
Purgatoire River
Purgatoire River
Purgatoire River
Purgatoire River
Purgatoire River
Purgatoire River
Purgatoire River
Purgatoire River
Purgatoire River
Purgatoire River
Purgatoire River
Purgatoire River
Purgatoire River
Purgatoire River
Purgatoire River
Purgatoire River
Purgatoire River
Purgatoire River
Purgatoire River
Purgatoire River
Purgatoire River
Purgatoire River
Purgatoire River
Purgatoire River
Purgatoire River
Purgatoire River
324551
383636
324542
324543
324544
324547
324548
324549
324550
324551
324553
324556
383660
324554
383661
324558
324559
324560
324570
324569
324568
324567
324566
307345
333872
333691
333416
307875
333903
308110
333691
333872
308355
333905
333905
333903
308785
308796
308839
308865
Huerfano
Huerfano
Huerfano
Huerfano
Huerfano
Huerfano
Huerfano
Huerfano
Huerfano
Huerfano
Huerfano
Huerfano
Huerfano
Huerfano
Huerfano
Huerfano
Huerfano
Huerfano
Huerfano
Huerfano
Huerfano
Huerfano
Huerfano
Las Animas
Las Animas
Las Animas
Las Animas
Las Animas
Las Animas
Las Animas
Las Animas
Las Animas
Las Animas
Las Animas
Las Animas
Las Animas
Las Animas
Las Animas
Las Animas
Las Animas
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
-------
C-23
Table C-16 Well Inventory Summary, Raton Basin, Colorado, Retrospective Case Study
Distance N/S Direction Distance E/W Direction
Operator Field of Section from Section of Section Section Ground Search
API Number Operator Well Name Facility ID Status Number Code Line Line Line Line Quarter Section Township Range Latitude Longitude Elevation Location Quality Field Name Location ID County Area
05-071-08777
05-071-08949
05-071-08975
05-071-09018
05-071-09144
05-071-09192
05-071-09250
05-071-09439
05-071-09588
05-071-09671
05-071-09752
05-071-09775
05-071-09793
05-071-09795
05-071-09486
05-071-06985
05-071-07628
05-071-07633
05-071-07653
05-071-07780
05-071-07783
05-071-07826
05-071-07833
05-071-07834
05-071-07837
05-071-07840
05-071-07849
05-071-07877
05-071-07909
PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES
USA INC
PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES
USA INC
PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES
USA INC
PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES
USA INC
PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES
USA INC
PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES
USA INC
PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES
USA INC
PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES
USA INC
PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES
USA INC
PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES
USA INC
PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES
USA INC
PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES
USA INC
PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES
USA INC
PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES
USA INC
PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES
USA INC
PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES
USA INC
PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES
USA INC
PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES
USA INC
PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES
USA INC
PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES
USA INC
PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES
USA INC
PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES
USA INC
PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES
USA INC
PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES
USA INC
PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES
USA INC
PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES
USA INC
PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES
USA INC
PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES
USA INC
PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES
USA INC
CROCKET 11-4
STORM PEAK 44-6
MONTE CARLO 31-7 TR
LOBO 13-4
CROCKET 11-4 TR
HOMESTEAD 14-5
HELLZAPOPPIN 24-32
NORTHER 23-6
HOLE IN THE WALL 42-5
PANTHER 33-5
PANTHER 35-5 TR
HOLST41-6
HELLZAPOPPIN 24-32 TR
SALUKI 41-8
MARILYN DEEP 24-3
SURFERS 44-34
SCAMPER 44-3
CELTIC 43-3
COMET 31-3
SHINARUMP 11-11 TR
BUTCH 33-10
MADISON 14-2
DUKE 12-10
AVANT 14-3
GAMMA 13-3
SCHNEIDER 12-3
FUTURA 32-10
GRAFF 31-9V
MADISON 14-2 KV
284520
286419
286684
287509
288632
289198
290232
293725
295810
299153
301615
414636
415349
415674
246
256947
263375
263380
263988
265603
265607
266520
266711
266743
266793
266838
267096
268338
269310
PR
PR
PR
PR
PR
PR
PR
PR
AL
PR
AL
AL
PR
AL
PR
PR
PR
PR
PR
PR
PR
PR
PR
PR
PR
PR
PR
PR
PR
10084
10084
10084
10084
10084
10084
10084
10084
10084
10084
10084
10084
10084
10084
10084
10084
10084
10084
10084
10084
10084
10084
10084
10084
10084
10084
10084
10084
10084
70830
70830
70830
70830
70830
70830
70830
70830
70830
70830
70830
70830
70830
70830
70830
70830
70830
70830
70830
70830
70830
70830
70830
70830
70830
70830
70830
70830
70830
895
208
180
2167
920
1309
907
2650
2425
2299
2334
1145
964
1116
1271
600
573
2184
1070
947
2196
727
2240
223
2058
1488
1404
690
628
N
S
N
S
N
S
S
N
N
N
S
N
S
N
S
S
S
S
N
N
S
S
N
S
S
N
N
N
S
1107
490
2286
1254
1176
1029
2129
2470
417
2622
2638
152
2109
799
2217
913
884
1162
2081
414
1450
1028
455
1266
700
493
2134
1819
1039
W
E
E
W
W
W
W
W
E
E
E
E
W
E
W
E
E
E
E
W
E
W
W
W
W
W
E
E
W
NWNW
SESE
NWNE
NWSW
NWNW
SWSW
SESW
NESW
SENE
NWSE
NWSE
NE/NE
SESW
NENE
SESW
SESE
SESE
NESE
NWNE
NWNW
NWSE
SWSW
SWNW
SWSW
NWSW
SWNW
SWNE
NWNE
SWSW
4
6
7
4
4
5
32
6
5
5
5
6
32
8
3
34
3
3
3
11
10
2
10
3
3
3
10
9
2
33S
33S
33S
33S
33S
33S
32S
33S
33S
33S
33S
33S
32S
33s
33S
32S
33S
33S
33S
33S
33S
33S
33S
33S
33S
33S
33S
33S
33S
66W
66W
66W
66W
66W
66W
66W
66W
66W
66W
66W
66W
66W
66W
67W
67W
67W
67W
67W
67W
67W
67W
67W
67W
67W
67W
67W
67W
67W
37.205149
37.193530
37.192470
37.198550
37.205050
37.196430
37.210110
37.200370
37.200900
37.199060
37.199160
37.204510
37.210260
37.189530
37.197060
37.209410
37.195000
37.200100
37.204810
37.190790
37.185080
37.195410
37.187400
37.194270
37.199370
37.203750
37.189560
37.191580
37.195200
-104.789763
-104.813680
-104.819920
-104.789300
-104.789430
-104.808440
-104.804450
-104.821420
-104.794990
-104.802580
-104.802630
-104.812290
-104.804460
-104.796430
-104.876380
-104.868710
-104.869220
-104.869460
-104.872670
-104.864830
-104.870290
-104.862690
-104.882390
-104.879750
-104.881710
-104.882170
-104.873590
-104.889990
-104.862640
7596
7179
7224
7444
7591
7262
7492
7297
7426
7267
7269
7484
7488
7260
7534
7715
7644
7555
7552
7518
7560
7585
7320
7540
7470
7518
7570
7560
7585
Actual LatLong
Actual LatLong
Actual LatLong
Actual LatLong
Actual LatLong
Actual LatLong
Actual LatLong
Actual LatLong
Planned LatLong
Actual LatLong
Planned LatLong
Planned LatLong
Actual LatLong
Planned LatLong
Actual LatLong
Actual LatLong
Actual LatLong
Actual LatLong
Actual LatLong
Actual LatLong
Actual LatLong
Actual LatLong
Actual LatLong
Actual LatLong
Actual LatLong
Actual LatLong
Actual LatLong
Actual LatLong
Actual LatLong
Purgatoire River
Purgatoire River
Purgatoire River
Purgatoire River
Purgatoire River
Purgatoire River
Purgatoire River
Purgatoire River
Purgatoire River
Purgatoire River
Purgatoire River
Purgatoire River
Purgatoire River
Purgatoire River
Purgatoire River
Purgatoire River
Purgatoire River
Purgatoire River
Purgatoire River
Purgatoire River
Purgatoire River
Purgatoire River
Purgatoire River
Purgatoire River
Purgatoire River
Purgatoire River
Purgatoire River
Purgatoire River
Purgatoire River
333389
309006
333416
309046
333389
309167
309213
309358
309481
309541
309541
414606
309213
415706
311883
307810
333656
333896
308195
308294
308297
333689
308327
333667
333885
308332
333663
333742
333689
Las Animas
Las Animas
Las Animas
Las Animas
Las Animas
Las Animas
Las Animas
Las Animas
Las Animas
Las Animas
Las Animas
Las Animas
Las Animas
Las Animas
Las Animas
Las Animas
Las Animas
Las Animas
Las Animas
Las Animas
Las Animas
Las Animas
Las Animas
Las Animas
Las Animas
Las Animas
Las Animas
Las Animas
Las Animas
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
-------
C-24
Table C-16 Well Inventory Summary, Raton Basin, Colorado, Retrospective Case Study
Distance N/S Direction Distance E/W Direction
Operator Field of Section from Section of Section Section Ground Search
API Number Operator Well Name Facility ID Status Number Code Line Line Line Line Quarter Section Township Range Latitude Longitude Elevation Location Quality Field Name Location ID County Area
05-071-07911
05-071-07910
05-071-07926
05-071-07931
05-071-07976
05-071-08037
05-071-08071
05-071-08092
05-071-08123
05-071-08292
05-071-08463
05-071-08524
05-071-08649
05-071-08675
05-071-09214
05-071-09261
05-071-09260
05-071-09551
05-071-09552
05-071-09665
05-071-09709
05-071-09712
05-071-09754
05-071-09765
05-071-09784
05-071-09881
05-071-08913
05-071-09492
05-071-06154
PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES
USA INC
PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES
USA INC
PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES
USA INC
PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES
USA INC
PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES
USA INC
PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES
USA INC
PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES
USA INC
PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES
USA INC
PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES
USA INC
PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES
USA INC
PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES
USA INC
PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES
USA INC
PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES
USA INC
PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES
USA INC
PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES
USA INC
PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES
USA INC
PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES
USA INC
PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES
USA INC
PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES
USA INC
PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES
USA INC
PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES
USA INC
PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES
USA INC
PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES
USA INC
PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES
USA INC
PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES
USA INC
PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES
USA INC
PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES
USA INC
PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES
USA INC
PRECISIONEERING INC
CELTIC 43-3 TR
SCAMPER 44-3 TR
PEGASIS 31-4
FUTURA 32-10 TR
CAVE CANYON 23-4
GRAFF 31-9R
MCLEOD42-9V
MCLEOD42-9R
LYNN 32-4
PEGASIS 31-4 TR
AVANT 14-3 TR
GAMMA 13-3 TR
BUTCH 33-10 TR
HORSEFEATHERS 24-34
BACKYARD 34-34
MAUER41-3
BOOF 12-2
MARILYN 23-3
MARILYN 24-3 TR
CAVE CANYON 23-4 TR
RAINBOW TROUT 23-3
LYNN 32-4 TR
BOOF 12-2 TR
SHINARUMP 11-11 KP
HB
SHINARUMP 11-11 KV
REDMOND 44-33
MONTOYA 11-6V
MICHELLE DEEP 31-25
O'NEAL 1-10B
269318
269319
269704
269892
271175
271872
272388
272576
273038
275634
279052
279743
282121
282630
289704
290365
290366
295446
295448
298443
300205
300358
301617
302101
415060
424565
47
319
217378
PR
PR
PR
PR
PR
PR
PR
PR
PR
PR
PR
PR
PR
PR
PR
PR
PR
AL
AL
PR
AL
PR
PR
AL
AL
XX
PR
SI
AL
10084
10084
10084
10084
10084
10084
10084
10084
10084
10084
10084
10084
10084
10084
10084
10084
10084
10084
10084
10084
10084
10084
10084
10084
10084
10084
10084
10084
71800
70830
70830
70830
70830
70830
70830
70830
70830
70830
70830
70830
70830
70830
70830
70830
70830
70830
70830
70830
70830
70830
70830
70830
70830
70830
70830
70830
70830
99999
2200
467
536
1471
1827
707
1658
1748
2088
607
170
2127
2309
183
1165
954
2107
1307
1225
1792
2356
2117
2119
772
892
202
286
51
6
S
S
N
N
S
N
N
N
N
N
S
S
S
S
S
N
N
S
S
S
S
N
N
N
N
S
N
N
S
1063
912
2242
2028
2225
1713
415
372
1598
2385
1174
738
1337
1570
2303
702
353
2191
2247
2216
1978
1598
398
194
308
249
638
2459
258
E
E
E
E
W
E
E
E
E
E
W
W
E
W
E
E
W
W
W
W
W
E
W
W
W
E
W
E
W
NESE
SESE
NWNE
SWNE
NESW
NWNE
SENE
SENE
SWNE
NWNE
SWSW
NWSW
NWSE
SESW
SWSE
NENE
SWNW
NESW
SESW
NESW
NESW
SWNE
SWNW
NWNW
NWNW
SESE
NWNW
NWNE
SWSW
3
3
4
10
4
9
9
9
4
4
3
3
10
34
34
3
2
3
3
4
3
4
2
11
11
33
6
25
10
33S
33S
33S
33S
33S
33S
33S
33S
33S
33S
33S
33S
33S
32S
32S
33S
33S
33S
33S
33S
33S
33S
33S
33S
33S
32S
33S
32S
33S
67W
67W
67W
67W
67W
67W
67W
67W
67W
67W
67W
67W
67W
67W
67W
67W
67W
67W
67W
67W
67W
67W
67W
67W
67W
67W
67W
68W
68W
37.200080
37.194620
37.206340
37.189370
37.198490
37.191550
37.188870
37.188680
37.202050
37.206130
37.194080
37.199170
37.185290
37.208230
37.210950
37.205110
37.201900
37.197160
37.196940
37.198690
37.200060
37.202010
37.201910
37.191290
37.190950
37.208390
37.207010
37.236990
37.181851
-104.869770
-104.869310
-104.891550
-104.873260
-104.894320
-104.889660
-104.885200
-104.885100
-104.889230
-104.892080
-104.879990
-104.881460
-104.870450
-104.878430
-104.873510
-104.868050
-104.864590
-104.876480
-104.876290
-104.894360
-104.877170
-104.889420
-104.864440
-104.865480
-104.865070
-104.884710
-104.935850
-104.946100
-104.992253
7555
7622
7525
7563
7675
7554
7425
7415
7549
7525
7535
7423
7571
7651
7716
7695
7712
7531
7529
7710
7548
7530
7710
7538
7536
7442
8272
8336
8398
Actual LatLong
Actual LatLong
Actual LatLong
Actual LatLong
Actual LatLong
Actual LatLong
Actual LatLong
Actual LatLong
Actual LatLong
Actual LatLong
Actual LatLong
Actual LatLong
Actual LatLong
Actual LatLong
Actual LatLong
Actual LatLong
Actual LatLong
Planned LatLong
Planned LatLong
Actual LatLong
Planned LatLong
Actual LatLong
Actual LatLong
Planned LatLong
Planned LatLong
Planned LatLong
Actual LatLong
Actual LatLong
Planned LatLong
Purgatoire River
Purgatoire River
Purgatoire River
Purgatoire River
Purgatoire River
Purgatoire River
Purgatoire River
Purgatoire River
Purgatoire River
Purgatoire River
Purgatoire River
Purgatoire River
Purgatoire River
Purgatoire River
Purgatoire River
Purgatoire River
Purgatoire River
Purgatoire River
Purgatoire River
Purgatoire River
Purgatoire River
Purgatoire River
Purgatoire River
Purgatoire River
Purgatoire River
Purgatoire River
Purgatoire River
Purgatoire River
Wildcat
333896
333656
333747
333663
333654
333742
333748
333748
333968
333747
333667
333885
308297
308814
309180
309222
309221
311883
311883
333654
309571
333968
386827
386835
308294
424571
333365
309407
386486
Las Animas
Las Animas
Las Animas
Las Animas
Las Animas
Las Animas
Las Animas
Las Animas
Las Animas
Las Animas
Las Animas
Las Animas
Las Animas
Las Animas
Las Animas
Las Animas
Las Animas
Las Animas
Las Animas
Las Animas
Las Animas
Las Animas
Las Animas
Las Animas
Las Animas
Las Animas
Las Animas
Las Animas
Las Animas
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
C
C
C
-------
C-25
Table C-16 Well Inventory Summary, Raton Basin, Colorado, Retrospective Case Study
Distance N/S Direction Distance E/W Direction
Operator Field of Section from Section of Section Section Ground Search
API Number Operator Well Name Facility ID Status Number Code Line Line Line Line Quarter Section Township Range Latitude Longitude Elevation Location Quality Field Name Location ID County Area
05-071-06155
05-071-06156
05-071-07850
05-071-07885
05-071-07886
05-071-07887
05-071-07890
05-071-07918
05-071-07917
05-071-07939
05-071-07940
05-071-07949
05-071-07953
05-071-08021
05-071-08020
05-071-08019
05-071-08018
05-071-08022
05-071-08023
05-071-08035
05-071-08038
05-071-08094
05-071-08093
05-071-08091
05-071-08090
05-071-08089
05-071-08121
05-071-08138
05-071-08137
PRECISIONEERINGINC
PRECISIONEERINGINC
PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES
USA INC
PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES
USA INC
PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES
USA INC
PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES
USA INC
PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES
USA INC
PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES
USA INC
PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES
USA INC
PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES
USA INC
PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES
USA INC
PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES
USA INC
PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES
USA INC
PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES
USA INC
PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES
USA INC
PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES
USA INC
PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES
USA INC
PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES
USA INC
PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES
USA INC
PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES
USA INC
PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES
USA INC
PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES
USA INC
PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES
USA INC
PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES
USA INC
PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES
USA INC
PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES
USA INC
PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES
USA INC
PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES
USA INC
PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES
USA INC
O'NEAL 1-14A
O'NEAL 1-16C
VALEJO 12-8V
KING KONG 41-26
MONTOYA 11-18R
MONTOYA 12-7V
LATILUPPE 13-8V
MONTOYA 13-18V
YWAM 32-7V
LAVEDURE 44-7V
ANDERSON 42-18V
SMITH 22-18V
MCCULLOUGH 34-32
MONTOYA 41-13V
MONTOYA 14-6V
MONTOYA 14- 7V
MONTOYA 21-7V
MELANIE 44-23
IRON MAN 14-24
LATILUPPE 13-8R
VALEJO 12-8R
MONTOYA 44-12V
J&P21-13R
J & P 33-12V
LAVEDURE 44-7R
J&P21-13V
MASTERS 33-32
J & P 24-12V
J & P 24-12R
217379
217380
267366
268644
268679
268680
268708
269551
269552
270282
270298
270633
270661
271532
271533
271534
271535
271606
271607
271868
271871
272574
272575
272577
272579
272580
272945
273079
273080
SI
SI
PR
PA
PR
SI
SI
PR
PR
PR
PR
PR
PR
PR
PR
PR
PR
PR
PR
PR
PR
PR
PR
PR
PR
WO
PR
PR
PR
71800
71800
10084
10084
10084
10084
10084
10084
10084
10084
10084
10084
10084
10084
10084
10084
10084
10084
10084
10084
10084
10084
10084
10084
10084
10084
10084
10084
10084
99999
99999
70830
70830
70830
70830
70830
70830
70830
70830
70830
70830
70830
70830
70830
70830
70830
70830
70830
70830
70830
70830
70830
70830
70830
70830
70830
70830
70830
715
2550
1510
468
964
1764
1433
1360
2423
969
1668
1966
261
449
765
535
735
790
906
1495
1351
698
749
2005
976
718
1431
803
649
N
N
N
N
N
N
S
S
N
S
N
N
S
N
S
S
N
S
S
S
N
S
N
S
S
N
S
S
S
743
976
1460
5
1062
728
885
1075
2412
601
1110
1922
2098
891
790
501
2070
1050
701
946
1562
699
2082
1928
521
1988
2144
2007
2391
W
E
W
E
W
W
W
W
E
E
E
W
E
E
W
W
W
E
W
W
W
E
W
E
E
W
E
W
W
NWNW
SENE
SENW
NENE
NWNW
SWNW
NWSW
NWSW
SWNE
SESE
SENE
SENW
SWSE
NENE
SWSW
SWSW
NENW
SESE
SWSW
NWSW
SENW
SESE
NENW
NWSE
SESE
NENW
NWSE
SESW
SESW
14
16
8
26
18
7
8
18
7
7
18
18
32
13
6
7
7
23
24
8
8
12
13
12
7
13
32
12
12
33S
33S
33S
32S
33S
33S
33S
33S
33S
33S
33S
33S
32S
33S
33S
33S
33S
32S
32S
33S
33S
33S
33S
33S
33S
33S
32S
33S
33S
68W
68W
67W
68W
67W
67W
67W
67W
67W
67W
67W
67W
67W
68W
67W
67W
67W
68W
68W
67W
67W
68W
68W
68W
67W
68W
67W
68W
68W
37.177709
37.174509
37.189830
37.236190
37.176010
37.188140
37.182940
37.168055
37.186510
37.181550
37.174240
37.173340
37.208510
37.177430
37.195160
37.180340
37.191080
37.239590
37.239680
37.183100
37.189650
37.180590
37.176920
37.184310
37.181550
37.177010
37.211740
37.181210
37.180710
-104.971379
-104.995203
-104.914980
-104.956470
-104.934050
-104.934930
-104.917160
-104.934090
-104.928490
-104.922210
-104.923960
-104.931140
-104.909120
-104.940770
-104.934870
-104.935930
-104.930350
-104.960100
-104.953810
-104.917020
-104.914850
-104.940090
-104.948490
-104.944190
-104.921960
-104.948780
-104.909260
-104.948730
-104.947440
8065
8189
7804
8430
7830
7831
7906
7884
7710
7745
7429
7787
7560
7870
7814
7797
7657
8378
8275
7895
7801
7877
8013
7957
7742
8009
7598
7966
7981
Actual LatLong
Actual LatLong
Actual LatLong
Actual LatLong
Actual LatLong
Actual LatLong
Actual LatLong
Actual LatLong
Actual LatLong
Actual LatLong
Actual LatLong
Actual LatLong
Actual LatLong
Actual LatLong
Actual LatLong
Actual LatLong
Actual LatLong
Actual LatLong
Actual LatLong
Actual LatLong
Actual LatLong
Actual LatLong
Actual LatLong
Actual LatLong
Actual LatLong
Actual LatLong
Actual LatLong
Actual LatLong
Actual LatLong
Wildcat
Wildcat
Purgatoire River
Purgatoire River
Purgatoire River
Purgatoire River
Purgatoire River
Purgatoire River
Purgatoire River
Purgatoire River
Purgatoire River
Purgatoire River
Purgatoire River
Purgatoire River
Purgatoire River
Purgatoire River
Purgatoire River
Purgatoire River
Purgatoire River
Purgatoire River
Purgatoire River
Purgatoire River
Purgatoire River
Purgatoire River
Purgatoire River
Purgatoire River
Purgatoire River
Purgatoire River
Purgatoire River
307289
307290
308085
386782
308357
333922
333957
333944
333926
333897
308375
308379
333657
333391
333695
333715
308432
333739
333681
333957
308085
333755
333740
333394
333897
333740
308495
308506
308505
Las Animas
Las Animas
Las Animas
Las Animas
Las Animas
Las Animas
Las Animas
Las Animas
Las Animas
Las Animas
Las Animas
Las Animas
Las Animas
Las Animas
Las Animas
Las Animas
Las Animas
Las Animas
Las Animas
Las Animas
Las Animas
Las Animas
Las Animas
Las Animas
Las Animas
Las Animas
Las Animas
Las Animas
Las Animas
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
-------
C-26
Table C-16 Well Inventory Summary, Raton Basin, Colorado, Retrospective Case Study
Distance N/S Direction Distance E/W Direction
Operator Field of Section from Section of Section Section Ground Search
API Number Operator Well Name Facility ID Status Number Code Line Line Line Line Quarter Section Township Range Latitude Longitude Elevation Location Quality Field Name Location ID County Area
05-071-08139
05-071-08141
05-071-08142
05-071-08143
05-071-08144
05-071-08157
05-071-08170
05-071-08171
05-071-08192
05-071-08194
05-071-08227
05-071-08239
05-071-08240
05-071-08241
05-071-08242
05-071-08257
05-071-08261
05-071-08266
05-071-08265
05-071-08270
05-071-08281
05-071-08294
05-071-08359
05-071-08371
05-071-08372
05-071-08374
05-071-08381
05-071-08421
05-071-08435
PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES
USA INC
PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES
USA INC
PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES
USA INC
PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES
USA INC
PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES
USA INC
PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES
USA INC
PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES
USA INC
PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES
USA INC
PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES
USA INC
PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES
USA INC
PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES
USA INC
PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES
USA INC
PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES
USA INC
PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES
USA INC
PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES
USA INC
PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES
USA INC
PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES
USA INC
PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES
USA INC
PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES
USA INC
PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES
USA INC
PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES
USA INC
PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES
USA INC
PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES
USA INC
PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES
USA INC
PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES
USA INC
PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES
USA INC
PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES
USA INC
PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES
USA INC
PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES
USA INC
MONTOYA41-12V
MONTOYA 11- IV
MONTOYA44-1V
SILVA22-6V
MONTOYA 41- IV
MCCULLOUGH 34-32 TR
LYNCH 43-30
MONTOYA 22- IV
CODY 44-1 IV
MONTOYA 24- IV
YWAM 23-7V
MONTOYA 44-1R
MONTOYA 12-7R
MONTOYA 41-12R
MONTOYA 14-6R
DUDE CANYON 22-32
NORTH FORK RANCH 11-
12V
FURU 6-23
NORTH FORK RANCH 11-
12R
FURU 23-6V
UNDERWORLD 31-36
NIAGARA 23-35
CACTUS FLOWER 13-24
SILVA43-1V
SILVA43-1R
GRANITE 21-25
HAVANA 12-25
DUDE CANYON 22-32TR
MONTOYA 21-7R
273081
273135
273136
273137
273138
273307
273424
273432
273552
273584
273974
274551
274554
274555
274556
274911
274980
275006
275009
275074
275326
275644
276908
277461
277462
277529
277815
278291
278542
SI
PR
PR
PR
SI
PR
PR
PR
PR
PR
PR
PR
PR
PR
PR
PR
PR
PR
TA
PA
PR
DA
PR
PR
PR
PR
PR
PR
PR
10084
10084
10084
10084
10084
10084
10084
10084
10084
10084
10084
10084
10084
10084
10084
10084
10084
10084
10084
10084
10084
10084
10084
10084
10084
10084
10084
10084
10084
70830
70830
70830
70830
70830
70830
70830
70830
70830
70830
70830
70830
70830
70830
70830
70830
70830
70830
70830
70830
70830
70830
70830
70830
70830
70830
70830
70830
70830
1081
1134
753
1936
610
394
1438
2385
652
605
1596
668
1769
1086
867
1662
937
2211
953
2111
483
2001
2092
2010
1971
217
1981
1741
445
N
N
S
N
N
S
S
N
S
S
S
S
N
N
S
N
N
S
N
S
N
N
S
S
S
N
N
N
N
530
618
990
1798
1205
2077
429
2511
715
2557
1795
1052
658
610
751
2446
522
1780
448
1774
2620
995
625
614
526
2482
535
2331
1942
E
W
E
W
E
E
E
W
E
W
W
E
W
E
W
W
W
W
W
W
E
W
W
E
E
W
W
W
W
NENE
NWNW
SESE
SENW
NENE
SWSE
NESE
SENW
SESE
SESW
NESW
SESE
SWNW
NENE
SWSW
SENW
NWNW
NESW
NWNW
NESW
NWNE
NESW
NWSW
NESE
NESE
NENW
SWNW
SENW
NENW
12
1
1
6
1
32
30
1
11
1
7
1
7
12
6
32
12
6
12
6
36
35
24
1
1
25
25
32
7
33S
33S
33S
33S
33S
32S
32S
33S
33S
33S
33S
33S
33S
33S
33S
32S
33S
33S
33S
33S
32S
32S
32S
33S
33S
32S
32S
32S
33S
68W
68W
68W
67W
68W
67W
67W
68W
68W
68W
67W
68W
67W
68W
67W
67W
68W
67W
68W
67W
68W
68W
68W
68W
68W
68W
68W
67W
67W
37.190130
37.204840
37.195150
37.202500
37.206360
37.208870
37.226380
37.201630
37.180720
37.194940
37.183090
37.194960
37.188200
37.190090
37.195430
37.217800
37.190880
37.199190
37.190860
37.198940
37.221080
37.213920
37.243170
37.198640
37.198491
37.236580
37.231950
37.217700
37.191893
-104.939290
-104.953570
-104.940980
-104.931840
-104.941960
-104.909040
-104.921720
-104.947210
-104.958050
-104.946980
-104.931450
-104.941160
-104.935230
-104.939530
-104.934990
-104.911890
-104.953912
-104.931830
-104.954160
-104.931670
-104.946820
-104.969220
-104.954270
-104.940040
-104.939630
-104.947860
-104.954530
-104.912210
-104.930747
7960
8244
7925
7890
8211
7560
7724
7826
7795
7725
7776
7925
7831
7956
7924
7670
7809
7889
7802
7913
8160
8011
8337
8002
7991
8365
8438
7657
7680
Actual LatLong
Actual LatLong
Actual LatLong
Actual LatLong
Actual LatLong
Actual LatLong
Actual LatLong
Actual LatLong
Actual LatLong
Actual LatLong
Actual LatLong
Actual LatLong
Actual LatLong
Actual LatLong
Actual LatLong
Actual LatLong
Actual LatLong
Actual LatLong
Actual LatLong
Actual LatLong
Actual LatLong
Actual LatLong
Actual LatLong
Actual LatLong
Actual LatLong
Actual LatLong
Actual LatLong
Actual LatLong
Actual LatLong
Purgatoire River
Purgatoire River
Purgatoire River
Purgatoire River
Purgatoire River
Purgatoire River
Purgatoire River
Purgatoire River
Purgatoire River
Purgatoire River
Purgatoire River
Purgatoire River
Purgatoire River
Purgatoire River
Purgatoire River
Purgatoire River
Purgatoire River
Purgatoire River
Purgatoire River
Purgatoire River
Purgatoire River
Purgatoire River
Purgatoire River
Purgatoire River
Purgatoire River
Purgatoire River
Purgatoire River
Purgatoire River
Purgatoire River
333893
308508
333684
308509
308510
333657
333664
312003
311908
311940
333377
333684
333922
333893
333695
333746
333378
333369
333378
333369
333359
386800
308622
333423
333423
334164
308638
333746
308677
Las Animas
Las Animas
Las Animas
Las Animas
Las Animas
Las Animas
Las Animas
Las Animas
Las Animas
Las Animas
Las Animas
Las Animas
Las Animas
Las Animas
Las Animas
Las Animas
Las Animas
Las Animas
Las Animas
Las Animas
Las Animas
Las Animas
Las Animas
Las Animas
Las Animas
Las Animas
Las Animas
Las Animas
Las Animas
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
-------
C-27
Table C-16 Well Inventory Summary, Raton Basin, Colorado, Retrospective Case Study
Distance N/S Direction Distance E/W Direction
Operator Field of Section from Section of Section Section Ground Search
API Number Operator Well Name Facility ID Status Number Code Line Line Line Line Quarter Section Township Range Latitude Longitude Elevation Location Quality Field Name Location ID County Area
05-071-08431
05-071-08443
05-071-08447
05-071-08450
05-071-08461
05-071-08475
05-071-08510
05-071-08518
05-071-08536
05-071-08537
05-071-08538
05-071-08539
05-071-08546
05-071-08554
05-071-08564
05-071-08566
05-071-08567
05-071-08602
05-071-08616
05-071-08626
05-071-08645
05-071-08668
05-071-08673
05-071-08704
05-071-08721
05-071-08730
05-071-08738
05-071-08826
05-071-08827
PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES
USA INC
PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES
USA INC
PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES
USA INC
PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES
USA INC
PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES
USA INC
PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES
USA INC
PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES
USA INC
PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES
USA INC
PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES
USA INC
PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES
USA INC
PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES
USA INC
PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES
USA INC
PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES
USA INC
PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES
USA INC
PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES
USA INC
PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES
USA INC
PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES
USA INC
PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES
USA INC
PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES
USA INC
PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES
USA INC
PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES
USA INC
PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES
USA INC
PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES
USA INC
PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES
USA INC
PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES
USA INC
PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES
USA INC
PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES
USA INC
PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES
USA INC
PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES
USA INC
MELANIE 44-23 TR
SHADOWLAND 33-24
LYNCH 43-30 TR
BLACK CAT 13-32
IRON MAN 14-24TR
MICHELLE 31-25
SCHWEITZER 22-30
YWAM 32-7R
MONTOYA 21- IV
MONTOYA22-1R
MONTOYA 44-12R
MONTOYA 11-18V-B
GREY GOOSE 33-30
MONTOYA 14-7R
TOUCHSTONE 11-32
MONTOYA 13-18R
SMITH 22-18R
FLASH BACK 32-27
SPYGLASS 13-30
TOUCHSTONE 11-32 TR
UNDERWORLD 31-36 TR
SLATE 23-30
TALON 34-25
SPIKE 33-23
BLACK CAT 13-32 TR
KENNEDY 14-22
ELTON 34-22
MONTOYA 31-6R
MONTOYA 31-6V
278546
278639
278884
278887
279050
279205
279627
279672
280040
280041
280042
280043
280228
280385
280544
280568
280571
280929
281266
281723
282116
282389
282535
282946
283463
283660
284015
285222
285223
PR
PR
PR
PR
PR
PR
PR
PR
PR
PR
PR
PR
PR
PR
PR
PR
WO
WO
PR
PR
PR
PR
PR
PR
SI
PA
SI
PR
PR
10084
10084
10084
10084
10084
10084
10084
10084
10084
10084
10084
10084
10084
10084
10084
10084
10084
10084
10084
10084
10084
10084
10084
10084
10084
10084
10084
10084
10084
70830
70830
70830
70830
70830
70830
70830
70830
70830
70830
70830
70830
70830
70830
70830
70830
70830
70830
70830
70830
70830
70830
70830
70830
70830
70830
70830
70830
70830
871
1469
1431
1665
899
422
2407
2355
601
2517
713
848
1607
628
853
1458
2066
1538
2450
782
421
1320
784
2185
1679
872
695
714
616
S
S
S
S
S
N
N
N
N
N
S
N
S
S
N
S
N
N
S
N
N
S
S
S
S
S
S
N
N
922
1575
301
1120
908
1522
1966
2376
2284
2492
798
619
1793
454
407
1045
1923
2319
12
480
2502
1511
1535
1480
1150
811
2186
1871
1851
E
E
E
W
W
E
W
E
W
W
E
W
E
W
W
W
W
E
W
W
E
W
E
E
W
W
E
E
E
SESE
NWSE
NESE
NWSW
SWSW
NWNE
SENW
SWNE
NENW
SENW
SESE
NWNW
NWSE
SWSW
NWNW
NWSW
SENW
SWNE
NWSW
NWNW
NWNE
NESW
SWSE
NWSE
NWSW
SWSW
SWSE
NWNE
NWNE
23
24
30
32
24
25
30
7
1
1
12
18
30
7
32
18
18
27
30
32
36
30
25
23
32
22
22
6
6
32S
32S
32S
32S
32S
32S
32S
33S
33S
33S
33S
33S
32S
33S
32S
33S
33S
32S
32S
32S
32S
32S
32S
32S
32S
32S
32S
33S
33S
68W
68W
67W
67W
68W
68W
67W
67W
68W
68W
68W
67W
67W
67W
67W
67W
67W
68W
67W
67W
68W
67W
68W
68W
67W
68W
68W
67W
67W
37.239690
37.241190
37.226320
37.212470
37.239800
37.235930
37.230370
37.186200
37.206500
37.201270
37.180640
37.176288
37.226750
37.180540
37.220070
37.168315
37.173032
37.232300
37.229060
37.220270
37.221220
37.225980
37.224510
37.243210
37.212650
37.238910
37.238440
37.205860
37.206140
-104.959660
-104.943030
-104.921370
-104.916330
-104.953390
-104.942880
-104.931260
-104.928300
-104.947760
-104.947260
-104.940390
-104.935593
-104.926500
-104.936160
-104.918810
-104.934140
-104.931134
-104.982600
-104.937530
-104.918610
-104.946530
-104.932270
-104.943220
-104.961500
-104.916030
-104.990130
-104.982040
-104.926690
-104.926600
8378
8279
7724
7800
8275
8206
8005
7710
7867
7818
7875
7850
7943
7795
7834
7886
7826
8360
8200
7829
8122
8110
8143
8362
7767
8618
8459
7957
7958
Actual LatLong
Actual LatLong
Actual LatLong
Actual LatLong
Actual LatLong
Actual LatLong
Actual LatLong
Actual LatLong
Actual LatLong
Actual LatLong
Actual LatLong
Actual LatLong
Actual LatLong
Actual LatLong
Actual LatLong
Actual LatLong
Actual LatLong
Actual LatLong
Actual LatLong
Actual LatLong
Actual LatLong
Actual LatLong
Actual LatLong
Actual LatLong
Actual LatLong
Actual LatLong
Actual LatLong
Actual LatLong
Actual LatLong
Purgatoire River
Purgatoire River
Purgatoire River
Purgatoire River
Purgatoire River
Purgatoire River
Purgatoire River
Purgatoire River
Purgatoire River
Purgatoire River
Purgatoire River
Purgatoire River
Purgatoire River
Purgatoire River
Purgatoire River
Purgatoire River
Purgatoire River
Purgatoire River
Purgatoire River
Purgatoire River
Purgatoire River
Purgatoire River
Purgatoire River
Purgatoire River
Purgatoire River
Purgatoire River
Purgatoire River
Purgatoire River
Purgatoire River
333739
308682
333664
333425
333681
308698
308721
333926
311919
312003
333755
308734
308739
333715
334167
333944
308748
308772
334166
334167
333359
308809
308812
308836
333425
308856
308863
333390
333390
Las Animas
Las Animas
Las Animas
Las Animas
Las Animas
Las Animas
Las Animas
Las Animas
Las Animas
Las Animas
Las Animas
Las Animas
Las Animas
Las Animas
Las Animas
Las Animas
Las Animas
Las Animas
Las Animas
Las Animas
Las Animas
Las Animas
Las Animas
Las Animas
Las Animas
Las Animas
Las Animas
Las Animas
Las Animas
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
-------
C-28
Table C-16 Well Inventory Summary, Raton Basin, Colorado, Retrospective Case Study
Distance N/S Direction Distance E/W Direction
Operator Field of Section from Section of Section Section Ground Search
API Number Operator Well Name Facility ID Status Number Code Line Line Line Line Quarter Section Township Range Latitude Longitude Elevation Location Quality Field Name Location ID County Area
05-071-08834
05-071-08835
05-071-08836
05-071-08837
05-071-08838
05-071-08839
05-071-08840
05-071-08845
05-071-08846
05-071-08847
05-071-08853
05-071-08852
05-071-08850
05-071-08849
05-071-08871
05-071-08870
05-071-08872
05-071-08875
05-071-08874
05-071-08873
05-071-08878
05-071-08877
05-071-08876
05-071-08879
05-071-08880
05-071-08881
05-071-08882
05-071-08883
05-071-08884
PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES
USA INC
PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES
USA INC
PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES
USA INC
PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES
USA INC
PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES
USA INC
PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES
USA INC
PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES
USA INC
PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES
USA INC
PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES
USA INC
PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES
USA INC
PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES
USA INC
PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES
USA INC
PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES
USA INC
PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES
USA INC
PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES
USA INC
PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES
USA INC
PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES
USA INC
PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES
USA INC
PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES
USA INC
PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES
USA INC
PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES
USA INC
PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES
USA INC
PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES
USA INC
PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES
USA INC
PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES
USA INC
PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES
USA INC
PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES
USA INC
PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES
USA INC
PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES
USA INC
KAUAI 23-36 TR
KAUAI 23-36
JEEP TRAIL 43-36 TR
MOLOKAI 13-36 TR
MOLOKAI 13-36
HAWAII 44-36
HAWAII 44-36 TR
JEEP TRAIL 43-36
SANCHINATOR 11-36 TR
SANCHINATOR 11-36
CROSSWORD 41-36
CROSSWORD 41-36 TR
GRAND VALLEY 22-36
GRAND VALLEY 22-36 TR
NORTH FORK RANCH 14-
IV
NORTH FORK RANCH 14-
1R
CODY44-11R
MONTOYA 24-1R
MONTOYA41-13R
KEYTON 41-7V
KING KONG 11-25
MONTOYA 11-1R
MONTOYA 41-1R
YWAM 23-7R
CRUM 33-5R
CRUM 33-5V
MONTOYA 42-1V
MONTOYA 42-1R
MONTOYA 11-6R
285478
285482
285483
285484
285485
285486
285487
285494
285562
285563
285607
285608
285610
285611
285679
285680
285807
285864
285865
285866
285916
285917
285918
285935
285936
285937
285938
285939
285940
PR
PR
PR
DA
PR
PR
PR
PR
PR
PR
PR
PR
PR
PR
PR
PR
PR
PR
PR
PR
DA
WO
PR
PR
PR
PR
PR
PR
PR
10084
10084
10084
10084
10084
10084
10084
10084
10084
10084
10084
10084
10084
10084
10084
10084
10084
10084
10084
10084
10084
10084
10084
10084
10084
10084
10084
10084
10084
70830
70830
70830
70830
70830
70830
70830
70830
70830
70830
70830
70830
70830
70830
70830
70830
70830
70830
70830
70830
70830
70830
70830
70830
70830
70830
70830
70830
70830
1601
1684
2436
1536
1438
1023
923
2506
1068
971
1114
1163
2039
2033
1031
967
554
610
524
641
473
1171
471
1657
1454
1369
1923
1972
319
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
N
N
N
N
N
N
S
S
S
S
N
N
N
N
N
S
S
S
N
N
N
2574
2509
1210
631
616
520
538
1273
259
233
393
484
1637
1740
638
698
684
2477
891
603
47
713
1161
1738
2398
2330
701
617
528
W
W
E
W
W
E
E
E
W
W
E
E
W
W
W
W
E
W
E
E
W
W
E
W
E
E
E
E
W
NESW
NESW
NESE
NWSW
NWSW
SESE
SESE
NESE
NWNW
NWNW
NENE
NENE
SENW
SENW
SWSW
SWSW
SESE
SESW
NENE
NENE
NWNW
NWNW
NENE
NESW
NWSE
NWSE
SENE
SENE
NWNW
36
36
36
36
36
36
36
36
36
36
36
36
36
36
1
1
11
1
13
7
25
1
1
7
5
5
1
1
6
32S
32S
32S
32S
32S
32S
32S
32S
32S
32S
32S
32S
32S
32S
33S
33S
33S
33S
33S
33S
32S
33S
33S
33S
33S
33S
33S
33S
33S
68W
68W
68W
68W
68W
68W
68W
68W
68W
68W
68W
68W
68W
68W
68W
68W
68W
68W
68W
67W
68W
68W
68W
67W
67W
67W
68W
68W
67W
37.212620
37.212804
37.214740
37.212190
37.211930
37.210680
37.210440
37.214880
37.219750
37.220000
37.219230
37.219100
37.216890
37.216900
37.196250
37.196090
37.180560
37.195010
37.177240
37.191480
37.236150
37.204750
37.206680
37.183260
37.197400
37.197190
37.202610
37.202470
37.206930
-104.946860
-104.947120
-104.942070
-104.953560
-104.953590
-104.939830
-104.939840
-104.942330
-104.955080
-104.955190
-104.939320
-104.939570
-104.950220
-104.949920
-104.953600
-104.953390
-104.957970
-104.947250
-104.940740
-104.922280
-104.956290
-104.953260
-104.942020
-104.931580
-104.910040
-104.909820
-104.940440
-104.940120
-104.936220
8074
8075
8125
8187
8204
8164
8162
8129
8399
8392
8073
8078
8065
8076
7930
7931
7784
7726
7868
7890
8429
8245
8225
7770
7687
7693
8069
8066
8277
Actual LatLong
Actual LatLong
Actual LatLong
Actual LatLong
Actual LatLong
Actual LatLong
Actual LatLong
Actual LatLong
Actual LatLong
Actual LatLong
Actual LatLong
Actual LatLong
Actual LatLong
Actual LatLong
Actual LatLong
Actual LatLong
Actual LatLong
Actual LatLong
Actual LatLong
Actual LatLong
Actual LatLong
Actual LatLong
Actual LatLong
Actual LatLong
Actual LatLong
Actual LatLong
Actual LatLong
Actual LatLong
Actual LatLong
Purgatoire River
Purgatoire River
Purgatoire River
Purgatoire River
Purgatoire River
Purgatoire River
Purgatoire River
Purgatoire River
Purgatoire River
Purgatoire River
Purgatoire River
Purgatoire River
Purgatoire River
Purgatoire River
Purgatoire River
Purgatoire River
Purgatoire River
Purgatoire River
Purgatoire River
Purgatoire River
Purgatoire River
Purgatoire River
Purgatoire River
Purgatoire River
Purgatoire River
Purgatoire River
Purgatoire River
Purgatoire River
Purgatoire River
333381
333381
334091
386812
308941
311945
311945
334091
334110
334110
334100
334100
334101
334101
311942
311942
311908
311940
333391
311941
309088
308963
308962
333377
311962
311921
333361
333361
333365
Las Animas
Las Animas
Las Animas
Las Animas
Las Animas
Las Animas
Las Animas
Las Animas
Las Animas
Las Animas
Las Animas
Las Animas
Las Animas
Las Animas
Las Animas
Las Animas
Las Animas
Las Animas
Las Animas
Las Animas
Las Animas
Las Animas
Las Animas
Las Animas
Las Animas
Las Animas
Las Animas
Las Animas
Las Animas
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
-------
C-29
Table C-16 Well Inventory Summary, Raton Basin, Colorado, Retrospective Case Study
Distance N/S Direction Distance E/W Direction
Operator Field of Section from Section of Section Section Ground Search
API Number Operator Well Name Facility ID Status Number Code Line Line Line Line Quarter Section Township Range Latitude Longitude Elevation Location Quality Field Name Location ID County Area
05-071-08902
05-071-08897
05-071-08896
05-071-08894
05-071-08893
05-071-08892
05-071-08911
05-071-08907
05-071-08906
05-071-08938
05-071-08933
05-071-08945
05-071-08944
05-071-08957
05-071-08956
05-071-08968
05-071-08967
05-071-08972
05-071-08982
05-071-08981
05-071-08978
05-071-08977
05-071-08974
05-071-08991
05-071-08992
05-071-08993
05-071-08997
05-071-08996
05-071-09008
PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES
USA INC
PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES
USA INC
PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES
USA INC
PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES
USA INC
PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES
USA INC
PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES
USA INC
PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES
USA INC
PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES
USA INC
PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES
USA INC
PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES
USA INC
PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES
USA INC
PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES
USA INC
PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES
USA INC
PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES
USA INC
PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES
USA INC
PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES
USA INC
PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES
USA INC
PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES
USA INC
PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES
USA INC
PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES
USA INC
PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES
USA INC
PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES
USA INC
PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES
USA INC
PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES
USA INC
PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES
USA INC
PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES
USA INC
PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES
USA INC
PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES
USA INC
PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES
USA INC
DUNN 14- 5V
HOFFMAN 43-31
HOFFMAN 43-31 TR
BRUSCHER 13-5V
BRUSCHER 13-5R
DUNN 14-5R
LEFT HAND FORK 32-31
KING SALMON 24-31
KING SALMON 24-31 TR
KEYSTONE 11-35
DIVIDE 14-26
MACGREGOR 32-25 TR
MACGREGOR 32-25
MONTOYA21-1R
J&P33-12R
RULLESTAD 13-12R
RULLESTAD 13-12V
TREBOR 32-5V
GLORIA 42-25
GLORIA 42-25 TR
MAUI 13-31
MAUI 13-31 TR
TREBOR 32-5R
ANDERSON 42-18R
TYCER 32-6R
TYCER 32-6V
SHADOW 33-31 TR
SHADOW 33-31
WOOD 43-2V
286044
286049
286050
286052
286053
286054
286103
286107
286108
286289
286294
286325
286327
286431
286432
286467
286468
286574
286677
286678
286681
286682
286685
286820
286822
286823
286840
286841
287189
PR
PR
AL
SI
PR
PR
PR
PR
PR
SI
XX
PR
PR
PR
WO
PR
PR
PR
PR
PR
PR
PR
PR
PR
PR
SI
AL
PR
PR
10084
10084
10084
10084
10084
10084
10084
10084
10084
10084
10084
10084
10084
10084
10084
10084
10084
10084
10084
10084
10084
10084
10084
10084
10084
10084
10084
10084
10084
70830
70830
70830
70830
70830
70830
70830
70830
70830
70830
70830
70830
70830
70830
70830
70830
70830
70830
70830
70830
70830
70830
70830
70830
70830
70830
70830
70830
70830
1126
1378
1877
2548
2557
1130
1869
848
851
162
989
1825
1812
699
1926
2424
2339
2384
1349
1344
2242
2221
2329
1751
2117
2115
1618
1664
1675
S
S
S
S
S
S
N
S
S
N
S
N
N
N
S
S
S
N
N
N
S
S
N
N
N
N
S
S
S
1140
1267
886
1190
1289
1060
1705
1425
1326
410
1269
2176
2078
2280
1869
307
354
1525
293
197
926
829
1608
1052
1521
1421
2571
2491
111
W
E
E
W
W
W
E
W
W
W
W
E
E
W
E
W
W
E
E
E
W
W
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
SWSW
NESE
NESE
NWSW
NWSW
SWSW
SWNE
SESW
SESW
NWNW
SWSW
SWNE
SWNE
NENW
NWSE
NWSW
NWSW
SWNE
SENE
SENE
NWSW
NWSW
SWNE
SENE
SWNE
SWNE
NWSE
NWSE
NESE
5
31
31
5
5
5
31
31
31
35
26
25
25
1
12
12
12
5
25
25
31
31
5
18
6
6
31
31
2
33S
32S
32S
33S
33S
33S
32S
32S
32S
32S
32S
32S
32S
33S
33S
33S
33S
33S
32S
32S
32S
32S
33S
33S
33S
33S
32S
32S
33S
67W
67W
67W
67W
67W
67W
67W
67W
67W
68W
68W
68W
68W
68W
68W
68W
68W
67W
68W
68W
67W
67W
67W
67W
67W
67W
67W
67W
68W
37.196420
37.211600
37.213030
37.200350
37.200390
37.196440
37.217210
37.210130
37.210140
37.220670
37.224130
37.232100
37.232140
37.206230
37.184310
37.185880
37.185630
37.201290
37.233340
37.233380
37.213970
37.213920
37.201430
37.174010
37.202000
37.202050
37.212260
37.212380
37.197840
-104.916320
-104.924570
-104.923320
-104.916150
-104.915800
-104.916580
-104.926110
-104.933450
-104.933140
-104.973230
-104.970310
-104.945440
-104.945080
-104.947800
-104.944170
-104.954610
-104.954450
-104.907110
-104.938840
-104.938520
-104.934810
-104.935150
-104.907360
-104.923800
-104.925490
-104.925145
-104.929110
-104.928810
-104.958480
7742
7804
7804
7671
7670
7755
7802
7920
7914
7991
8217
8275
8270
7869
7955
7850
7850
7651
8075
8061
7972
7975
7650
7427
7869
7869
7918
7907
7910
Actual LatLong
Actual LatLong
Planned LatLong
Actual LatLong
Actual LatLong
Actual LatLong
Actual LatLong
Actual LatLong
Actual LatLong
Actual LatLong
Planned LatLong
Actual LatLong
Actual LatLong
Actual LatLong
Actual LatLong
Actual LatLong
Actual LatLong
Actual LatLong
Actual LatLong
Actual LatLong
Actual LatLong
Actual LatLong
Actual LatLong
Actual LatLong
Actual LatLong
Actual LatLong
Planned LatLong
Actual LatLong
Actual LatLong
Purgatoire River
Purgatoire River
Purgatoire River
Purgatoire River
Purgatoire River
Purgatoire River
Purgatoire River
Purgatoire River
Purgatoire River
Purgatoire River
Purgatoire River
Purgatoire River
Purgatoire River
Purgatoire River
Purgatoire River
Purgatoire River
Purgatoire River
Purgatoire River
Purgatoire River
Purgatoire River
Purgatoire River
Purgatoire River
Purgatoire River
Purgatoire River
Purgatoire River
Purgatoire River
Purgatoire River
Purgatoire River
Purgatoire River
311922
308973
308972
333366
333366
311922
334108
311982
311982
308998
308995
333380
333380
311919
333394
311943
311943
311944
334118
334118
334146
334424
311944
308375
333424
333424
386813
309030
333358
Las Animas
Las Animas
Las Animas
Las Animas
Las Animas
Las Animas
Las Animas
Las Animas
Las Animas
Las Animas
Las Animas
Las Animas
Las Animas
Las Animas
Las Animas
Las Animas
Las Animas
Las Animas
Las Animas
Las Animas
Las Animas
Las Animas
Las Animas
Las Animas
Las Animas
Las Animas
Las Animas
Las Animas
Las Animas
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
-------
C-30
Table C-16 Well Inventory Summary, Raton Basin, Colorado, Retrospective Case Study
Distance N/S Direction Distance E/W Direction
Operator Field of Section from Section of Section Section Ground Search
API Number Operator Well Name Facility ID Status Number Code Line Line Line Line Quarter Section Township Range Latitude Longitude Elevation Location Quality Field Name Location ID County Area
05-071-09009
05-071-09021
05-071-09019
05-071-09052
05-071-09063
05-071-09071
05-071-09070
05-071-09090
05-071-09091
05-071-09100
05-071-09095
05-071-09105
05-071-09119
05-071-09118
05-071-09169
05-071-09182
05-071-09181
05-071-09180
05-071-09194
05-071-09193
05-071-09211
05-071-09210
05-071-09229
05-071-09308
05-071-09313
05-071-09367
05-071-09374
05-071-09373
05-071-09371
PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES
USA INC
PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES
USA INC
PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES
USA INC
PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES
USA INC
PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES
USA INC
PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES
USA INC
PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES
USA INC
PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES
USA INC
PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES
USA INC
PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES
USA INC
PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES
USA INC
PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES
USA INC
PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES
USA INC
PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES
USA INC
PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES
USA INC
PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES
USA INC
PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES
USA INC
PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES
USA INC
PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES
USA INC
PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES
USA INC
PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES
USA INC
PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES
USA INC
PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES
USA INC
PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES
USA INC
PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES
USA INC
PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES
USA INC
PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES
USA INC
PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES
USA INC
PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES
USA INC
WOOD 43-2 R
KENNEDY 34- 34
KENNEDY 11-34
KENNEDY 23-28
KING KONG 11-25R
KENNEDY 43-28
LEFT HAND FORK 32-31
TR
WOOD 31-2 R
WOOD 31-2
LADYHAWKE 41-31
BASELINE 21-31
KEYTON 41-7R
BASELINE 21-31 TR
LADYHAWKE 41-31 TR
KENNEDY 12-34
MAGNUM 43-26
TAILGATE 14-25 TR
TAILGATE 14-25
OUTPOST 22-24
OUTPOST 22-24 TR
VALDEZ44-6R
VALDEZ44-6V
LEFT HAND FORK DEEP
32-31
FLASHBACK DEEP 22-27
KENNEDY DEEP 12-34
KEY LARGO 41-30
MONTOYA 12-1V
MONTOYA 12-1R
SAVANNAH 12-23
287191
287523
287525
287729
287898
287979
287980
288154
288155
288260
288265
288305
288535
288536
289013
289046
289047
289048
289277
289278
289668
289669
289951
290804
290885
291751
291813
291814
291816
AL
PR
PR
PR
PR
PR
AL
AL
PR
PR
PR
AL
AL
PR
AL
PR
PR
PR
PR
PR
AL
TA
SI
PR
AL
PR
AL
AL
PR
10084
10084
10084
10084
10084
10084
10084
10084
10084
10084
10084
10084
10084
10084
10084
10084
10084
10084
10084
10084
10084
10084
10084
10084
10084
10084
10084
10084
10084
70830
70830
70830
70830
70830
70830
70830
70830
70830
70830
70830
70830
70830
70830
70830
70830
70830
70830
70830
70830
70830
70830
70830
70830
70830
70830
70830
70830
70830
1637
548
597
1678
417
1405
1957
906
941
169
233
688
262
208
2539
1784
634
555
1997
1980
914
830
2257
1813
2549
657
2470
2460
2389
S
S
N
S
N
S
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
S
S
S
N
N
S
S
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
715
2567
1293
1450
58
985
1752
1399
1452
1275
1769
514
1868
1187
185
213
840
800
2392
2491
1076
1130
2127
2376
86
1148
1041
1140
1014
E
E
W
W
W
E
E
E
E
E
W
E
W
E
W
E
W
W
W
W
E
E
E
W
W
E
W
W
W
NESE
SWSE
NWNW
NESW
NWNW
NESE
SWNE
NW/NE
NWNE
NENE
NENW
NENE
NENW
NENE
SWNW
NESE
SWSW
SWSW
SENW
SENW
SESE
SESE
SWNE
SENW
SWNW
NENE
SWNW
SWNW
SWNW
2
34
34
28
25
28
31
2
2
31
31
7
31
31
34
26
25
25
24
24
6
6
31
27
34
30
1
1
23
33S
32S
32S
32S
32S
32S
32S
33S
33S
32S
32S
33S
32S
32S
32S
32S
32S
32S
32S
32S
33S
33S
32S
32S
32S
32S
33S
33S
32S
68W
68W
68W
68W
68W
68W
67W
68W
68W
67W
67W
67W
67W
67W
68W
68W
68W
68W
68W
68W
67W
67W
67W
68W
68W
67W
68W
68W
68W
37.197810
37.207920
37.219800
37.226100
37.236290
37.225410
37.216980
37.205060
37.204950
37.221910
37.221670
37.191350
37.221610
37.221800
37.214560
37.227790
37.224360
37.224130
37.245930
37.245950
37.195720
37.195490
37.216140
37.231530
37.214540
37.235130
37.201210
37.201248
37.244910
-104.958270
-104.983340
-104.988290
-105.006020
-104.956250
-104.996160
-104.926270
-104.960490
-104.960670
-104.924610
-104.931810
-104.921980
-104.931510
-104.924320
-104.992080
-104.956890
-104.953220
-104.953380
-104.948110
-104.947770
-104.923930
-104.924140
-104.927550
-104.984710
-104.992420
-104.924230
-104.952276
-104.951935
-104.971290
7913
7830
7936
8544
8444
8284
7810
8197
8194
7924
7902
7884
7879
7926
8129
8382
8247
8254
8035
8025
7833
7832
7922
8439
8127
7810
7927
7924
8432
Planned LatLong
Actual LatLong
Actual LatLong
Actual LatLong
Actual LatLong
Actual LatLong
Planned LatLong
Planned LatLong
Actual LatLong
Actual LatLong
Actual LatLong
Planned LatLong
Planned LatLong
Actual LatLong
Planned LatLong
Actual LatLong
Actual LatLong
Actual LatLong
Actual LatLong
Actual LatLong
Planned LatLong
Actual LatLong
Actual LatLong
Actual LatLong
Planned LatLong
Actual LatLong
Planned LatLong
Planned LatLong
Actual LatLong
Purgatoire River
Purgatoire River
Purgatoire River
Purgatoire River
Purgatoire River
Purgatoire River
Purgatoire River
Purgatoire River
Purgatoire River
Purgatoire River
Purgatoire River
Purgatoire River
Purgatoire River
Purgatoire River
Purgatoire River
Purgatoire River
Purgatoire River
Purgatoire River
Purgatoire River
Purgatoire River
Purgatoire River
Purgatoire River
Purgatoire River
Purgatoire River
Purgatoire River
Purgatoire River
Purgatoire River
Purgatoire River
Purgatoire River
333358
309049
309047
309077
309088
309093
334108
333974
333974
334219
334241
311941
334241
334219
334346
309160
334206
334206
334199
334199
333977
333977
309194
309260
334346
309304
333972
333972
309308
Las Animas
Las Animas
Las Animas
Las Animas
Las Animas
Las Animas
Las Animas
Las Animas
Las Animas
Las Animas
Las Animas
Las Animas
Las Animas
Las Animas
Las Animas
Las Animas
Las Animas
Las Animas
Las Animas
Las Animas
Las Animas
Las Animas
Las Animas
Las Animas
Las Animas
Las Animas
Las Animas
Las Animas
Las Animas
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
-------
C-31
Table C-16 Well Inventory Summary, Raton Basin, Colorado, Retrospective Case Study
Distance N/S Direction Distance E/W Direction
Operator Field of Section from Section of Section Section Ground Search
API Number Operator Well Name Facility ID Status Number Code Line Line Line Line Quarter Section Township Range Latitude Longitude Elevation Location Quality Field Name Location ID County Area
05-071-09375
05-071-09384
05-071-09390
05-071-09398
05-071-09397
05-071-09415
05-071-09416
05-071-09444
05-071-09445
05-071-09446
05-071-09462
05-071-09463
05-071-09497
05-071-09498
05-071-09502
05-071-09503
05-071-09527
05-071-09518
05-071-09540
05-071-09541
05-071-09543
05-071-09598
05-071-09593
05-071-09653
05-071-09658
05-071-09677
05-071-09685
05-071-09708
05-071-09710
PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES
USA INC
PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES
USA INC
PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES
USA INC
PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES
USA INC
PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES
USA INC
PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES
USA INC
PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES
USA INC
PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES
USA INC
PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES
USA INC
PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES
USA INC
PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES
USA INC
PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES
USA INC
PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES
USA INC
PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES
USA INC
PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES
USA INC
PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES
USA INC
PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES
USA INC
PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES
USA INC
PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES
USA INC
PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES
USA INC
PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES
USA INC
PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES
USA INC
PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES
USA INC
PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES
USA INC
PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES
USA INC
PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES
USA INC
PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES
USA INC
PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES
USA INC
PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES
USA INC
CACTUS FLOWER DEEP
13-24
IRELAND 14-32 TR
NIAGARA 23-35 R
SHINING 33-22
GRANITE 21-25TR
SAINT ANTHONY 32-11V
SAINT FRANCIS 32-HR
ZAMORA 22-14V
ZAMORA43-14V
SVOBODA21-15V
FILIPEK22-10V
FILIPEK11-10V
MAZATLAN 23-25TR
MAZATLAN 23-25
FANTASY ISLAND 42-31
KEY LARGO 42-30TR
REEF DEEP 41-35
HAWAII 43-36 H
KENNEDY 14-27
KENNEDY 14-34
KEY LARGO DEEP 41-30
FANTASY ISLAND 42-13
KPHA
SPYGLASS 13-30 TR
HAWAII 43-36 H-R
REEF 32-35
MIDNIGHT 12-11
MAXIMUS 12-2
KENT 44-25
HAUGHT 42-30
291860
292157
292312
292378
292389
292997
292998
293792
293793
293794
294062
294064
294681
294682
294687
294693
294944
294964
295255
295256
295390
296087
296090
297956
298166
299636
299670
300206
300354
PA
PR
PR
PR
AL
AL
AL
WO
AL
AL
WO
AL
PR
PR
PR
AL
PR
DA
PR
PR
AL
AL
PR
PA
AL
SI
WO
AL
PR
10084
10084
10084
10084
10084
10084
10084
10084
10084
10084
10084
10084
10084
10084
10084
10084
10084
10084
10084
10084
10084
10084
10084
10084
10084
10084
10084
10084
10084
70830
70830
70830
70830
70830
70830
70830
70830
70830
70830
70830
70830
70830
70830
70830
70830
70830
70830
70830
70830
70830
70830
70830
70830
70830
70830
70830
70830
70830
1545
290
2578
2238
200
1677
1593
1605
2025
537
1683
956
1623
1677
2173
362
265
1905
1026
983
268
2150
2552
1905
1331
1380
1834
222
2457
S
S
S
S
N
N
N
N
S
N
N
N
S
S
N
N
N
S
S
S
N
N
S
S
N
N
N
S
N
799
1265
1468
1813
2577
1685
1642
2124
671
2054
2875
873
2201
2123
313
1097
325
547
625
306
1127
265
155
542
1520
809
522
274
1040
W
W
W
E
W
E
E
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
E
E
E
E
W
W
E
E
W
E
E
W
W
E
E
NWSW
SWSW
NESW
NWSE
NENW
SWNE
SWNE
SENW
NESE
NENW
SENW
NWNW
NESW
NESW
SENE
NENE
NENE
NESE
SWSW
SWSW
NENE
SENE
NWSW
NESE
SWNE
SWNW
SWNW
SES
SENE
24
32
35
22
25
11
11
14
14
15
10
10
25
25
31
30
35
36
27
34
30
31
30
36
35
11
2
25
30
32S
32S
32S
32S
32S
33S
33S
33S
33S
33S
33S
33S
32S
32S
32S
32S
32S
32S
32S
32S
32S
32S
32S
32S
32S
33S
33S
32S
32S
68W
67W
68W
68W
68W
68W
68W
68W
68W
68W
68W
68W
68W
68W
67W
67W
68W
68W
68W
68W
67W
67W
67W
68W
68W
68W
68W
68W
67W
37.241630
37.208670
37.213990
37.242590
37.236610
37.188330
37.188570
37.173860
37.169481
37.176137
37.187290
37.189317
37.226880
37.227070
37.216430
37.235940
37.221900
37.213120
37.224320
37.209280
37.236200
37.216800
37.229310
37.213140
37.218560
37.188290
37.201530
37.222910
37.230210
-104.953690
-104.915930
-104.969440
-104.981000
-104.947610
-104.961460
-104.961320
-104.966290
-104.957966
-104.985931
-104.983350
-104.990273
-104.948630
-104.948880
-104.921300
-104.924050
-104.957150
-104.939850
-104.990640
-104.991660
-104.924150
-104.921480
-104.937600
-104.939850
-104.961150
-104.970750
-104.972350
-104.938880
-104.924000
8380
7895
8062
8588
8367
7872
7879
8029
7549
8317
7929
8142
8149
8147
7825
7794
8252
8154
7989
8086
7884
7811
8142
8154
8020
7676
7920
8016
7826
Actual LatLong
Actual LatLong
Actual LatLong
Actual LatLong
Planned LatLong
Planned LatLong
Planned LatLong
Actual LatLong
Planned LatLong
Planned LatLong
Actual LatLong
Planned LatLong
Actual LatLong
Actual LatLong
Actual LatLong
Planned LatLong
Actual LatLong
Actual LatLong
Actual LatLong
Actual LatLong
Planned LatLong
Planned LatLong
Actual LatLong
Actual LatLong
Planned LatLong
Actual LatLong
Actual LatLong
Planned LatLong
Actual LatLong
Purgatoire River
Purgatoire River
Purgatoire River
Purgatoire River
Purgatoire River
Purgatoire River
Purgatoire River
Purgatoire River
Purgatoire River
Purgatoire River
Purgatoire River
Purgatoire River
Purgatoire River
Purgatoire River
Purgatoire River
Purgatoire River
Purgatoire River
Purgatoire River
Purgatoire River
Purgatoire River
Purgatoire River
Purgatoire River
Purgatoire River
Purgatoire River
Purgatoire River
Purgatoire River
Purgatoire River
Purgatoire River
Purgatoire River
386819
309316
309320
309326
334164
333979
333979
309363
309364
309365
309381
309382
334205
334205
334122
334406
309432
309531
309445
309446
334406
334122
334166
309531
309533
309545
309553
334392
309572
Las Animas
Las Animas
Las Animas
Las Animas
Las Animas
Las Animas
Las Animas
Las Animas
Las Animas
Las Animas
Las Animas
Las Animas
Las Animas
Las Animas
Las Animas
Las Animas
Las Animas
Las Animas
Las Animas
Las Animas
Las Animas
Las Animas
Las Animas
Las Animas
Las Animas
Las Animas
Las Animas
Las Animas
Las Animas
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
-------
C-32
Table C-16 Well Inventory Summary, Raton Basin, Colorado, Retrospective Case Study
Distance N/S Direction Distance E/W Direction
Operator Field of Section from Section of Section Section Ground Search
API Number Operator Well Name Facility ID Status Number Code Line Line Line Line Quarter Section Township Range Latitude Longitude Elevation Location Quality Field Name Location ID County Area
05-071-09713
05-071-09735
05-071-09736
05-071-09737
05-071-09738
05-071-09759
05-071-09762
05-071-09770
05-071-09799
05-071-09803
05-071-09814
05-071-09815
05-071-09817
05-071-09818
05-071-09819
05-071-09824
05-071-09825
05-071-09826
05-071-09827
05-071-09829
05-071-09830
05-071-09841
05-071-09842
05-071-09843
05-071-09845
05-071-09847
05-071-09855
05-071-09856
05-071-09857
PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES
USA INC
PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES
USA INC
PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES
USA INC
PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES
USA INC
PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES
USA INC
PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES
USA INC
PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES
USA INC
PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES
USA INC
PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES
USA INC
PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES
USA INC
PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES
USA INC
PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES
USA INC
PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES
USA INC
PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES
USA INC
PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES
USA INC
PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES
USA INC
PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES
USA INC
PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES
USA INC
PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES
USA INC
PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES
USA INC
PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES
USA INC
PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES
USA INC
PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES
USA INC
PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES
USA INC
PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES
USA INC
PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES
USA INC
PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES
USA INC
PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES
USA INC
PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES
USA INC
KENT44-25TR
HERA 12-29
HERA12-29TR
N.F.R.A. 24-35
SCOTTSDALE 34-26
SINCLAIR 11-30TR
SINCLAIR 11-30
PARRAS 21-12 KP HA
ALIBI 23-2
ALIBI 23-2 TR
DJEMBE 21-12
DJEMBE 21-12 TR
TIMBALE 32-12
TIMBALE 32-12 TR
POMPEII 43-7
ZATHURA 41-14
POPEYE 32-14
MONTOYA 44-13 TR
MONTOYA 44-13
MONTOYA 33-13 TR
MONTOYA 33-13
FLAGSTONE 44-24
CLAVE 43-11 TR
CLAVE 43-11
POMPEII 43-7 TR
TALON 34-25 TR
HAVANA 12-25 TR
LARISSA 32-35
LARISSA 32-35 TR
300360
300754
300755
300806
300807
301685
301871
412915
415990
416091
418227
418229
418396
418405
418409
418785
418787
419342
419347
419485
419496
420941
420975
420976
421059
421175
422531
422582
422583
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
PR
AL
PR
AL
PR
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
PR
AL
PR
XX
PR
XX
10084
10084
10084
10084
10084
10084
10084
10084
10084
10084
10084
10084
10084
10084
10084
10084
10084
10084
10084
10084
10084
10084
10084
10084
10084
10084
10084
10084
10084
70830
70830
70830
70830
70830
70830
70830
70830
70830
70830
70830
70830
70830
70830
70830
70830
70830
70830
70830
70830
70830
70830
70830
70830
70830
70830
70830
70830
70830
253
2474
2456
908
10
254
237
155
1451
1468
788
820
1569
1592
2541
737
2141
450
403
2632
2606
1040
2428
2378
2482
753
1958
2611
2616
S
N
N
S
S
N
N
N
S
S
N
N
N
N
S
N
N
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
N
N
N
271
651
693
2325
2205
144
189
2129
2173
2134
2203
2138
1854
1786
779
1292
1410
989
955
1485
1540
186
1304
1262
799
1556
475
1685
1628
E
W
W
W
E
E
W
E
W
W
W
W
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
W
E
E
SESE
SWNW
SWNW
SESW
SWSE
NWNW
NWNW
NENW
NESW
NESW
NENW
NE/NW
SWNE
SWNE
NESE
NE/NE
SW/NE
SE/SE
SE/SE
NWSE
NWSE
SESE
NESE
NESE
NESE
SWSE
SW/NW
SWNE
SWNE
25
29
29
35
26
30
30
12
2
2
12
12
12
12
7
14
14
13
13
13
13
24
11
11
7
25
25
35
35
32S
32S
32S
32S
32S
32S
32S
33S
33S
33S
33S
33S
33S
33S
33S
33S
33S
33S
33S
33S
33S
32S
33S
33S
33S
32S
32S
32S
32S
68W
67W
67W
68W
68W
67W
67W
68W
68W
68W
68W
68W
68W
68W
67W
68W
68W
68W
68W
68W
68W
68W
68W
68W
67W
68W
68W
68W
68W
37.222990
37.230110
37.230160
37.209610
37.222040
37.236340
37.236380
37.192870
37.196120
37.196150
37.191190
37.191100
37.188930
37.188880
37.185770
37.176820
37.172960
37.165280
37.165150
37.171280
37.171210
37.239900
37.185480
37.185380
37.185610
37.224420
37.232060
37.214990
37.214990
-104.938870
-104.918190
-104.918040
-104.966530
-104.963640
-104.937180
-104.937010
-104.948420
-104.966280
-104.966420
-104.948130
-104.948340
-104.943610
-104.943390
-104.922810
-104.961330
-104.961730
-104.941170
-104.941060
-104.942780
-104.942970
-104.938290
-104.960050
-104.959940
-104.922880
-104.943310
-104.954710
-104.961600
-104.961400
8016
8049
8053
7862
7977
8134
8121
7869
7932
7932
7717
7709
7894
7895
7757
7494
7881
7719
7703
7891
7882
8181
7980
7976
7757
8133
8429
7994
7996
Planned LatLong
Planned LatLong
Planned LatLong
Planned LatLong
Planned LatLong
Planned LatLong
Planned LatLong
Planned LatLong
Actual LatLong
Planned LatLong
Actual LatLong
Planned LatLong
Actual LatLong
Planned LatLong
Planned LatLong
Planned LatLong
Planned LatLong
Planned LatLong
Planned LatLong
Planned LatLong
Planned LatLong
Planned LatLong
Planned LatLong
Actual LatLong
Planned LatLong
Actual LatLong
Planned LatLong
Actual LatLong
Planned LatLong
Purgatoire River
Purgatoire River
Purgatoire River
Purgatoire River
Purgatoire River
Purgatoire River
Purgatoire River
Purgatoire River
Purgatoire River
Purgatoire River
Purgatoire River
Purgatoire River
Purgatoire River
Purgatoire River
Purgatoire River
Purgatoire River
Purgatoire River
Purgatoire River
Purgatoire River
Purgatoire River
Purgatoire River
Purgatoire River
Purgatoire River
Purgatoire River
Purgatoire River
Purgatoire River
Purgatoire River
Purgatoire River
Purgatoire River
334392
334420
334420
309582
309583
386833
386833
413838
415926
415926
418223
418223
418411
418411
418402
418786
418788
419356
419356
419481
419481
420942
420989
420989
418402
308812
308638
422584
422584
Las Animas
Las Animas
Las Animas
Las Animas
Las Animas
Las Animas
Las Animas
Las Animas
Las Animas
Las Animas
Las Animas
Las Animas
Las Animas
Las Animas
Las Animas
Las Animas
Las Animas
Las Animas
Las Animas
Las Animas
Las Animas
Las Animas
Las Animas
Las Animas
Las Animas
Las Animas
Las Animas
Las Animas
Las Animas
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
-------
C-33
Table C-16 Well Inventory Summary, Raton Basin, Colorado, Retrospective Case Study
Distance N/S Direction Distance E/W Direction
Operator Field of Section from Section of Section Section Ground Search
API Number Operator Well Name Facility ID Status Number Code Line Line Line Line Quarter Section Township Range Latitude Longitude Elevation Location Quality Field Name Location ID County Area
05-071-09860
05-071-09861
PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES
USA INC
PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES
USA INC
KOSAR 21-11 TR
KOSAR 21-11
423089
423093
XX
PR
10084
10084
70830
70830
598
534
N
N
2534
2537
W
W
NE/NW
NENW
11
11
33S
33S
68W
68W
37.191030
37.191210
-104.964750
-104.964730
7943
7939
Planned LatLong
Actual LatLong
Purgatoire River
Purgatoire River
423090
423090
Las Animas
Las Animas
C
C
Source: Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, http://cogcc.state.co.us/cogis/
Key:
AL = Abandoned Location.
API = American Petroleum Institute.
DA = Dry and Abandoned.
E = East.
ID = Identification number.
N = North.
Nl = No information available.
PA = Plugged and Abandoned.
PR= Producing.
S = South.
SI = Shut In.
TA = Temporarily Abandoned.
W = West.
WO = Waiting on Completion.
XX = Permitted Location.
-------
C-34
Table C-17 Number of Permitted Oil and Gas Wells in Raton Basin
Retrospective Case Study Site Areas, Colorado
Search Area
Search Area
Radius (miles)
Oil and Gas Wells
EPA HF Study within 1 Mile of EPA
Sampling Total Number of HF Study Sampling
Locations Oil and Gas wells Locations
Las Animas County
A
B
C
1
1
3
RBDW11
RBDW12
RBSW02
RBDW01
RBDW02
RBDW03
RBDW04
RBDW05
RBDW13
RBMW01
RBMW02
RBMW03
RBPW01
RBPW02
RBPW03
RBSW01
RBSW03
31
41
237
31
41
119
Huerfano County
A
3
RBDW06
RBDW07
RBDW08
RBDW09
RBDW10
RBDW14
RBMW04
RBMW05
75
39
Source: http://cogcc.state.co.us/home/gismain.cfm, accessed February 4, 2014. Specific metadata for "Oil and Gas Well
Locations In Colorado" accessed from
http://cogcc.state.co.us/COGIS Help/GIS Help/Documents/well meta.htm
-------
C-35
Table C-18 Environmental Database Review Summary, Raton Basin Retrospective Case Study, Las Animas County, Colorado
Potential Candidate Cause
Distance from Nearest Yes Groundwater Search
Database Name of Facility Site Location and Address Sample Point /No Details/Justification Wells Area
MINES
Orphan FINDS, AIRS
(AFS)
Orphan FINDS, AIRS
(AFS)
Orphan FINDS, AIRS
(AFS)
Orphan FINDS, AIRS
(AFS)
Orphan FINDS, AIRS
(AFS)
Basin Resources, Inc.
Summit Gas - Apache
Canyon
KLTGas- Golden Eagle
Mine (#2871)
KLT Gas - Golden Eagle
Mine (#2329)
Summit Gas- Golden
Eagle #7
Michael Browning -
Wet Canyon Mine
Latitude: 37.18583
Longitude: -104.80278
9100 County Road 31.9
Weston, CO 81091
Latitude: 37.122082
Longitude: -104.859123
3 mi. W of Weston, CO
81091
3 mi. W of Weston, CO
81091
NW NW SEC 21 T33S R67W
15.3 mi. W of Cokedale, CO
81091
NW SE SEC 28 T32S R67W
15.7 mi. W of Cokedale, CO
81082
0.9 mi. SofRBDW12
5. 6 mi. SofRBSW02
(B)
6 mi. SWofRBDWll
(B)
6.5 mi. SE of
RBWW01 (B)
>4mi. SEofRBSWOl
>4mi. SEofRBSWOl
2.8 mi. SSWof
RBSW02
2 mi. NNWof
RBSW02
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
Coal exploration; no violations cited.
Coal mines are a potential source of
contamination.
Crude petroleum and natural gas extraction.
In Air Facility System, Emission Inventory
System, National Emissions Inventory (for
several pollutants); no violations cited. Not a
likely source of contamination due to distance
from nearest sampling locations.
Crude petroleum and natural gas extraction.
In Air Facility System and National Emissions
Inventory. Not a likely source of contamination
due to distance from nearest sampling locations.
Crude petroleum and natural gas extraction.
In Air Facility System and National Emissions
Inventory. Not a likely source of contamination
due to distance from nearest sampling locations.
Natural gas transmission and distribution; no
violations cited. Not a likely source of
contamination due to distance from nearest
sampling locations.
Construction sand and gravel mining quarry. No
violations cited.
Not a likely source of contamination due to
distance from nearest sampling locations.
6 Federal USGS
Wells
0 Federal FRDS
Public Water
Supply System
89 State Wells
A
A
A
A
A
A
-------
C-36
Table C-18 Environmental Database Review Summary, Raton Basin Retrospective Case Study, Las Animas County, Colorado
Potential Candidate Cause
Distance from Nearest Yes Groundwater Search
Database Name of Facility Site Location and Address Sample Point /No Details/Justification Wells Area
Orphan FINDS, AIRS
(AFS)
Orphan FINDS, AIRS
(AFS)
Orphan FINDS, AIRS
(AFS)
Orphan LUST TRUST,
LUST, UST
Orphan LUST TRUST,
LUST, NPDES, AST,
UST, FTTP, FINDS,
HISTFTTS
Orphan FINDS, LUST,
UST
Pioneer Natural
Resources - Wet
Canyon
Summit Gas- Hill
Ranch 3 CS
XTO Energy, Inc-
Apache Canyon
Picketwire Lodge
Primero High School
Wyoming Fuel Co -
New Elk Mine
NWSESEC23T33SR67W
12. 8 mi. WofCokedale, CO
81091
Latitude: 37.15601
Longitude: -104.855881
SEC8T35S R67W
18.0 mi. SWofCokedale,
CO 81091
SEC 16 T34S R67W
15.3 mi. WofCokedale, CO
81082
7600 Highway 12
Weston, CO 81091
20200 Highway 12
Weston, CO 81091
10250 Highway 12 (6 mi. W
of town)
Weston, CO 81091
Latitude: 37.159299
Longitude: -104.9657
3. 7 mi. SEofRBSW02
3. 9 mi. SEofRBSWOl
12. 2 mi. SSEof
RBSW01
Exact location
unknown
Apache Canyon is
approx: 7 mi. SW of
RBDW11, 3.9 mi. SW
ofRBSW02, and 2.77
mi. SE of RBSW01
3.7 mi. SW of
RBDW13
5 mi. SofRBDWll
and RBDW12
1.3 mi. SSWof
RBDW01
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
Crude petroleum and natural gas extraction.
In Air Facility System and National Emissions
Inventory. Not a likely source of contamination
due to distance from nearest sampling locations.
Crude petroleum and natural gas extraction; no
violations cited. Not a likely source of
contamination due to distance from nearest
sampling locations.
Crude petroleum and natural gas extraction.
In Air Facility System and National Emissions
Inventory. Not a likely source of contamination
due to distance from nearest sampling locations.
1 closed UST (gasoline), 1 open UST (diesel), 2
open USTs (gasoline), 1 state lead LUST with a
confirmed release on 06/19/2008. Not a likely
source of contamination due to distance from
nearest sampling locations.
2 closed USTs (gasoline), 2 closed AST (1 -
gasoline, 1 - diesel), 1 closed LUST with a
confirmed release on 11/16/1998. Not a likely
source of contamination due to distance from
nearest sampling locations.
Listed under RCRA as a CESQG, but no details
were found.
Confirmed release in 1990, tank now closed.
7 closed USTs (2 gasoline, 2 diesel, 2 unknown, 1
hazardous substance).
A
A
A
A, B,C
A, B, C
A
-------
C-37
Table C-18 Environmental Database Review Summary, Raton Basin Retrospective Case Study, Las Animas County, Colorado
Potential Candidate Cause
Distance from Nearest Yes Groundwater Search
Database Name of Facility Site Location and Address Sample Point /No Details/Justification Wells Area
Orphan FINDS, LUST,
CO ERNS
Orphan AST
Orphan AST
Orphan RCRA-NLR
MINES
MINES
MINES
MINES
Basin Resources -
Golden Eagle
Monument Lake Resort
Roundhouse Shop New
Alta Mine
Lorencito Coal Co LLC
Golden Eagle
Exploration 1989
93 Exploration
New Elk Mine 2010
Exploration
Golden Eagle
Exploration
14300 Highway 12
Weston, CO 81091
4787 Highway 12
Weston, CO 81091
9100 Highway 12
Weston, CO 81091
20500 Highway 12
Weston, CO 81091
Latitude:37.114444
Longitude: -104.8
Latitude: 37.18632
Longitude: -104.89275
Latitude: 37.19176
Longitude: -104.904
10250 Highway 12
Weston, CO 89109
Latitude: 37.20056
Longitude: -104.91028
Latitude: 37.2004
Longitude: -104.83833
4.1 mi. SEofRBSWOl
4.3 mi. W of
RBDW04, RBDW03
and RBPW02
2.6 mi. SW of
RBDW01
5.7 mi. SE of
RBDW11
1.08 mi. SW of
RBSW02
1.4 mi. WSWof
RBSW02
1.72 mi. WNW of
RBSW02 and
2 mi. ENEof RBSW03
1.75 mi. W of
RBDW11
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Coal mine, listed under RCRA as a CESQG, but no
details were found.
Release of 2,800 Ibs. of HCI on 11/18/1994; spill
cleaned; tank closed 6/6/90. Not a likely source
of contamination due to distance from nearest
sampling locations.
1 closed AST (liquid propane gas); no violations
cited. Not a likely source of contamination due
to distance from nearest sampling locations.
1 closed AST (diesel); no violations cited. Not a
likely source of contamination due to distance
from nearest sampling locations.
Bituminous coal underground mining.
NPDES program.
Minor; General-Permit-covered facility.
Violations listed, no details.
Not a likely source of contamination due to
distance from nearest sampling locations.
Coal exploration; no violations cited.
Coal mines are a potential source of
contamination.
Coal exploration; no violations cited.
Coal mines are a potential source of
contamination.
Coal mining/exploration. Coal mines are a
potential source of contamination.
Coal exploration; no violations cited.
Coal mines are a potential source of
contamination.
21 Federal USGS
Wells
0 Federal FRDS
Public Water
Supply System
153 State Wells
A, B, C
A, B, C
A, B,C
A, B,C
B
B
B, C
B
-------
C-38
Table C-18 Environmental Database Review Summary, Raton Basin Retrospective Case Study, Las Animas County, Colorado
Potential Candidate Cause
Distance from Nearest Yes Groundwater Search
Database Name of Facility Site Location and Address Sample Point /No Details/Justification Wells Area
MINES
MINES
MINES
MINES
MINES
Orphan LUST, UST,
FINDS
Orphan ASBESTOS
Orphan NPDES
Orphan NPDES
Orphan NPDES
Wet Canyon Mine
'93 Exploration
Basin Resources Inc
Golden Eagle
Exploration
Golden Eagle
Exploration '90
Wyoming Fuel Co -
New Elk Mine
Primero School District
Monument Lake WTP
New Elk Mine
Raton Basin Project
Latitude- 37 22999999
Longitude: -104.89
Latitude- 37 172159999
Longitude: -104.9107999
Latitude: 37.15758
Longitude: -104.89225
Latitude: 37.21491
Longitude: -104.92834
Latitude: 37.17168
Longitude: -104.87466
10250 Highway 12
Weston, CO 81091
20200 Highway 12
Weston, CO
State Highway 12
12250 Highway 12
Weston, CO 81091
16920 Highway 12
Weston, CO 81091
2 2 mi NNWof
RBSW02
2 47 mi SWof
RBSW02
2. 87 mi. SSWof
RBSW02
1.53 mi. ESE of
RBPW01
1.82 mi. S of RBSW02
1.6 mi. SWof
RBDW01
4.9 mi. SofRBDW12
Nl
1.9 mi. SEofRBSWOl
4.92 mi. SSE of
RBSW02
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
Surface mining, unknown commodity. Not a
likely source of contamination due to distance
from nearest sampling locations.
Coal exploration; no violations cited.
Coal mines are a potential source of
contamination.
Mine site; coal exploration. Coal mines are a
potential source of contamination.
Coal exploration; no violations cited.
Coal mines are a potential source of
contamination.
Coal exploration; no violations cited.
Coal mines are a potential source of
contamination.
7 USTs listed (2-gasoline, 2-diesel, 1-hazardous
substance, 2-unknown), all permanently closed.
LUST record shows a confirmed release on
6/6/1990; closed. FINDS listing appears to be for
RCRA Conditionally Exempt Small Quantity
Generator.
Primero School District asbestos abatement
removal project. Multiple listings for the school
property. Not a likely source of contamination
due to distance from nearest sampling locations.
Listed in NPDES database, not a likely source of
contamination.
Listed in NPDES database. Potential mining
operations, therefore potential source of
contamination.
Listed in NPDES database. Not a likely source of
contamination due to distance from nearest
sampling locations.
B
B
B
B, C
B
B, C
B, C
B, C
B, C
B, C
-------
C-39
Table C-18 Environmental Database Review Summary, Raton Basin Retrospective Case Study, Las Animas County, Colorado
Potential Candidate Cause
Distance from Nearest Yes Groundwater Search
Database Name of Facility Site Location and Address Sample Point /No Details/Justification Wells Area
CORRACTS, RCRA-
CESQG
MINES
MINES
MINES
MINES
MINES
MINES
Wyoming Fuel Co -
New Elk Mine
New Jersey Zinc
Exploration Co.
Costa Pit
Barron Pit
Allen Mine
Pete Hill Quarry
Toupal Gravel Pit
10250 Highway 12,
Weston, CO 89109
Latitude: 37.199939
Longitude: -104.96472
Latitude: 37.1825400
Longitude: -104.98304
Latitude: 37.1824599
Longitude: -104.98295
Latitude: 37.18247999
Longitude: -104.983009
Latitude: 37.1823899
Longitude: -104.98295
Latitude: 37.171990000
Longitude: -104.9287499
1.1 mi. SW of
RBSW01
0.28 mi. E of
RBDW03
1. 13 mi. W of
RBDW13
1. 13 mi. W of
RBDW13
1. 13 mi. W of
RBDW13
1. 13 mi. W of
RBDW13
1.37 mi. ESE of
RBSW01
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
No
Lists drum storage, acid spill areas, migration of
contaminated ground water.
Appears to have been coal mining operations;
status is terminated. There is no report of post-
mining use. Coal mines are a potential source of
contamination.
This is a surface mine (sand and gravel) whose
status is terminated. It is now listed as
pastureland. Surface stone quarry activities are
not likely sources of contamination.
This is a surface mine (sand and gravel) whose
status is terminated. It is now listed as
pastureland. Surface stone quarry activities are
not likely sources of contamination.
Appears to have been coal mining operations.
Post-mining use is not reported. Coal mines are
a potential source of contamination.
This is a surface mine (sandstone) whose status
is terminated. It is now listed as Wildlife
Habitat. Surface stone quarry activities are not
likely sources of contamination.
This is a surface mine (gravel) whose status is
terminated. It is now listed as Pastureland.
Surface stone quarry activities are not likely
sources of contamination.
18 Federal USGS
Wells
0 Federal FRDS
Public Water
Supply System
119 State Wells
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
-------
C-40
Table C-18 Environmental Database Review Summary, Raton Basin Retrospective Case Study, Las Animas County, Colorado
Database
Name of Facility
Site Location and Address
Distance from Nearest Yes
Sample Point /No
Source: Environmental records search report by Environmental Data Resources, Inc (EDR)
Additional Sources
Colorado Division of Reclamation, Mining and Safety: http://mining.state.co.us/Reports/MiningData/Pages/SearchByMine.aspx
Colorado Storage Tank Information System (COSTIS) Web Site: http://costis.cdle.state.co.us/OIS2000/
Envirofacts: http://www.epa.gov/enviro/
Potential Candidate Cause
Details/Justification
Groundwater Search
Wells Area
Buffer C
EDR Inquiry Number: 3599777.2s
EDR Search Radius: 3 miles
Search Center: Lat. 37.2043000 (37° 12' 15.48") Long. 104.9610000 (104° 57' 39.60"
Notes
Buffer A
EDR Inquiry Number: 3599777.14s
EDR Search Radius: 3 miles
Search Center: Lat. 37.1986000 (37° 11' 54.96") Long. 104.8050000 (104° 48' 18.00")
Buffer B
EDR Inquiry Number: 3599777.8s
EDR Search Radius: 3 miles
Search Center: Lat. 37.1979000 (37° 11' 52.44") Long. 104.8792000 (104° 52' 45.12")
Key:
AFS-Aerometric Information Retrieval System (AIRS) Facility Subsystem
AIRS - Aerometric Information Retrieval System
AST - Above ground Storage Tank
E - East
ERNS - Emergency Response Notification System
FINDS - Facility Index System
FRDS - Federal Reporting Data System
HCI - Hydrochloric acid
LUST - Leaking Underground Storage Tanks
MANIFEST - Hazardous waste manifest information
mi - Mile
MINES -This data set portrays the approximate location of Abandoned Mine Land Problem Areas
N - North
NA-Not Applicable
Nl - No information
NPDES - National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
ORPHAN SITE - a site of potential environmental interest that appear in the records search but due to incomplete location information (i.e., address and coordinates) is unmappable and not included in the records search report provided by EDR
Inc.
RCRA - Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
RMP - Risk Management Plans
S-South
TSCA - Toxic Substances Control Act
USGS - United States Geological Survey
UST - Underground Storage Tank
VCP - voluntary cleanup sites
W - West
-------
C-41
Table C-18 Environmental Database Review Summary, Raton Basin Retrospective Case Study, Las Animas County, Colorado
Database
Name of Facility
Site Location and Address
Distance from Nearest Yes
Sample Point /No
Potential Candidate Cause
Details/Justification
Groundwater Search
Wells Area
Database:
US AIRS: Aerometric Information Retrieval System Facility Subsystem
ASBESTOS: Asbestos Abatement & Demolition Projects
AST: Listing of Colorado Regulated Aboveground Storage Tanks
CO ERNS: Colorado Emergency Response Notification System
CORRACTS: Listing of identified hazardous waste handlers with RCRA corrective action activity.
FINDS: Facility Index System/Facility Registry System
FTTS: FIFRA/TSCA Tracking System - FIFRA (Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, & Rodenticide Act)/TSCA (Toxic Substances Control Act). FTTS tracks administrative cases and pesticide enforcement actions and compliance activities related to FIFRA,
TSCA and EPCRA (Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act).
HIST FTTS: FIFRA/TSCA Tracking System Administrative Case Listing
LUST: Leaking Underground Storage Tank Sites
LUST TRUST: Listings of eligible applicants to Colorado's Petroleum Storage Tank Fund. The Fund provides reimbursement for allowable costs in cleaning up petroleum contamination from under ground and above ground storage tanks.
US MINES: Mines Master Index File. The source of this database is the Dept. of Labor, Mine Safety and Health Administration
NPDES: National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit Listing
RCRA-CESQG: Federal RCRA (Resource Conservation and Recovery Act) Conditionally Exempt Small Quantity Generator List
RCRA-NLR: No Longer Regulated
UST: Listing of Colorado Regulated Underground Storage Tanks
-------
C-42
Table C-19 Notice of Violations, Raton Basin Retrospective Case Study, Las Animas County, Colorado
Number of Number of Date of
API Number Well Name Operator Inspections Violations Violations Violation Details Corrected Comments
05-071-06296
05-071-06876
05-071-06963
05-071-07089
05-071-07134
05-071-07881
05-071-07896
05-071-07472
05-071-07534
05-071-07550
05-071-07704
05-071-08238
05-071-06985
05-071-07653
05-071-07877
05-071-07628
Wharton #33-32
Bonneville #31-6
Monterey #33-6
Monte Carlo #31-7
Bakersfield #11-5
Molson #23-8
Salty #42-6
Pony Express #44-31
Cotter #44-32
Monterey #33-6 TR
Bonneville #31-6 TR
Salty #42-6 TR
Surfers #44-34
Co met #31-3
Graff #31-9V
Scamper #44-3
Pioneer Natural
Resources USA Inc
Pioneer Natural
Resources USA Inc
Pioneer Natural
Resources USA Inc
Pioneer Natural
Resources USA Inc
Pioneer Natural
Resources USA Inc
Pioneer Natural
Resources USA Inc
Pioneer Natural
Resources USA Inc
Pioneer Natural
Resources USA Inc
Pioneer Natural
Resources USA Inc
Pioneer Natural
Resources USA Inc
Pioneer Natural
Resources USA Inc
Pioneer Natural
Resources USA Inc
Pioneer Natural
Resources USA Inc
Pioneer Natural
Resources USA Inc
Pioneer Natural
Resources USA Inc
Pioneer Natural
Resources USA Inc
10
4
7
5
5
NA
0
5
3
3
5
3
4
6
4
4
4
3
1
1
2
0
NA
NA
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
11/19/1995
11/20/1996
4/12/1997
3/30/2004
3/30/2004
7/9/2008
8/21/2008
NA
2/8/2004
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
5/7/2007
NA
NA
NA
Spill/Release: Equipment failure caused a spill of 100 bbls of
water. No ground water affected; unknown if surface waters
affected.
No secondary containment (berms) installed.
Spill/Release: Equipment failure caused a spill of 50 bbls of water.
No ground water affected; unknown if surface waters affected.
Need to put up lease sign.
Need to put up lease sign.
Install sign identifying well. Pit not lined and greater than 2 feet of
freeboard.
Need to put up lease sign.
None
None - Summary of Complaint Records
NA
None
None
None
None
None
None
Maintain at least 2 feet of freeboard.
None
None
None
Closed
Nl
Closed
Nl
Nl
Nl
Nl
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Nl
NA
NA
NA
2/8/2004: Landowner claims water well has been impacted by nearby
gas well. COGCC Resolution: Hydrant in front of house sampled, no
water quality similarities to the nearby gas well.
-------
C-43
Table C-19 Notice of Violations, Raton Basin Retrospective Case Study, Las Animas County, Colorado
Number of Number of Date of
API Number Well Name Operator Inspections Violations Violations Violation Details Corrected Comments
05-071-07633
05-071-07780
05-071-07783
05-071-07826
05-071-07833
05-071-07834
05-071-07837
05-071-07840
05-071-07849
05-071-07909
Celtic #43-3
Shinarump #11-11 TR
Butch #33-10
Madison #14-2
Duke #12-10
Avant#14-3
Gamma #13-3
Schneider #12-3
Futura #32-10
Madison #14-2 KV
Pioneer Natural
Resources USA Inc
Pioneer Natural
Resources USA Inc
Pioneer Natural
Resources USA Inc
Pioneer Natural
Resources USA Inc
Pioneer Natural
Resources USA Inc
Pioneer Natural
Resources USA Inc
Pioneer Natural
Resources USA Inc
Pioneer Natural
Resources USA Inc
Pioneer Natural
Resources USA Inc
Pioneer Natural
Resources USA Inc
3
NA
5
6
4
NA
5
8
NA
8
NA
4
6
NA
3
0
NA
0
1
0
NA
0
1
NA
1
NA
0
0
NA
0
NA
5/1/2003
8/1/2004
8/24/2004
NA
11/29/2011
NA
1/19/2011
NA
11/8/2005
9/1/2005
9/16/2005
4/29/2004
NA
NA
10/28/2010
NA
None
None - Summary of Complaint Records
None
Spill/Release: A pipeline rupture caused a spill of 80 bbls of water.
No ground or surface waters affected.
None
None - Summary of Complaint Records
None
Need to put up lease sign.
None - Summary of Complaint Records
NOAV: The COGCC received a complaint concerning sediment in
Wet Canyon Creek. A field investigation on 9/16/2005 by the
COGCC Environmental Protection specialist observed excessive
erosion and lack of maintenance at the access road for the
Pioneer Gamma 13-3 and Gamma 13-3 TR.
None - Summary of Complaint Records
None
None
None - Summary of Complaint Records
None
NA
NA
NA
Closed
NA
NA
NA
Nl
NA
Yes
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
5/1/2003: Landowner concerned with the noise produced by the four
gas wells on and near their property. Electric lines also visible from well
head. COGCC Resolution: Noise monitoring conducted and noise levels
are in compliance.
8/1/2004: Landowner concerned that operator is improperly using
access roads through their property. Noise is still a concern and
landowner not receiving compensation from operator. Status: In
process.
8/24/2004: Landowner concerned about land erosion as operator has
not restored the site and that wildlife has decreased. Status: In process.
1/19/2011: Landowner requests baseline water sampling due to odor
from well nearby. COGCC Resolution: Sampling conducted, no impacts
from nearby CBM operations, although IDS and manganese above
groundwater standards and elevated nuisance bacteria levels.
9/1/2005: Landowner concerned noise levels are too high. COGCC
Resolution: Noise monitoring conducted and noise levels are in
compliance.
4/29/2004: Landowner concerned noise levels are too high. COGCC
Resolution: Noise monitoring conducted and noise levels are in
compliance.
10/28/2010: Landowner concerned noise levels are too high. COGCC
Resolution: Noise monitoring conducted and noise levels are in
compliance.
-------
C-44
Table C-19 Notice of Violations, Raton Basin Retrospective Case Study, Las Animas County, Colorado
Number of Number of Date of
API Number Well Name Operator Inspections Violations Violations Violation Details Corrected Comments
05-071-07911
05-071-07910
05-071-07926
05-071-07931
05-071-07976
05-071-08037
05-071-08071
05-071-08092
05-071-08123
05-071-08292
05-071-08463
05-071-06155
05-071-07887
05-071-08021
05-071-08020
05-071-08018
05-071-08094
Celtic#43-3 TR
Scamper #44-3 TR
Pegasis#31-4
Futura #32-10 TR
Cave Canyon #23-4
Graff #31-9 R
McLeod #42-9 V
McLeod #42-9 R
Lynn #32-4
Pegasis#31-4TR
Avant#14-3TR
O'Neal #1-14 A
Montoya #12-7V
Montoya #41-13 V
Montoya #14-6 V
Montoya #21-7 V
Montoya #44-12 V
Pioneer Natural
Resources USA Inc
Pioneer Natural
Resources USA Inc
Pioneer Natural
Resources USA Inc
Pioneer Natural
Resources USA Inc
Pioneer Natural
Resources USA Inc
Pioneer Natural
Resources USA Inc
Pioneer Natural
Resources USA Inc
Pioneer Natural
Resources USA Inc
Pioneer Natural
Resources USA Inc
Pioneer Natural
Resources USA Inc
Pioneer Natural
Resources USA Inc
Precisioneering Inc
Pioneer Natural
Resources USA Inc
Pioneer Natural
Resources USA Inc
Pioneer Natural
Resources USA Inc
Pioneer Natural
Resources USA Inc
Pioneer Natural
Resources USA Inc
2
4
3
6
3
3
3
3
6
NA
3
6
6
6
2
5
5
2
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
NA
0
1
2
3
0
2
1
0
2/25/2004
NA
NA
9/15/2004
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
3/10/2008
NA
11/8/2005
9/5/2002
9/5/2002
1/17/2013
2/20/2004
8/25/2006
NA
8/16/2004
3/4/2010
8/31/2005
NA
Need to put up lease sign. General housekeeping needed around
well site.
None
None
Need to put up lease sign.
None
None
None
None
None
None - Summary of Complaint Records
None
Need to put up lease sign.
Need to produce, MIT, or plug well.
NOAV: Not an active producing well. Well incapable of production.
No surface production equipment; MIT performed and passed on
6/10/1997 and 4/30/2003. There is also no well sign.
Large off-site pit appears to have been reclaimed, but Form 27 has
not been submitted as required by rule for pit closure process.
NOAV: Operator failed to cement 5 1/2" casing to surface as
required by drilling permit.
Remediation: Remediation of soils and vegetation. Pit was
reconstructed, source of leak found and corrected.
None
NOAV: Production casing was not cemented to surface as requirec
by drilling permit.
Must produce, plug and abandon, or pass MIT before May 2011.
Equipment not in use needs to be taken off site.
Spill/Release: Failure to shut off a valve, resulting in 8 bbls of
water released. No ground or surface waters affected.
None
Nl
NA
NA
Nl
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Nl
Nl
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
NA
Closed
Nl
Closed
NA
3/10/2008: Landowner observed silty water in Wet Canyon on a day
with little snow melt. Landowner thought silt might be a result of
produced water spill or other activities of operator in area upstream of
their home. COGCC Resolution: No evidence of recent spills of produced
water observed in the area where turbid water was observed in Wet
Canyon. Operator installed additional sediment control BMPs in effort
to prevent any meltwater-caused turbidity just above the confluence of
San Pablo Canyon and Wet Canyon.
NOAV 8/16/2004: Status is listed as closed, unknown if corrective action
was properly completed.
-------
C-45
Table C-19 Notice of Violations, Raton Basin Retrospective Case Study, Las Animas County, Colorado
Number of Number of Date of
API Number Well Name Operator Inspections Violations Violations Violation Details Corrected Comments
05-071-08093
05-071-08091
05-071-08089
05-071-08138
05-071-08137
05-071-08139
05-071-08141
05-071-08142
05-071-08143
05-071-08144
05-071-08171
05-071-08192
05-071-08194
05-071-08239
05-071-08240
J & P #21-13 R
J&P#33-12V
J & P #21-13 V
J & P #24-12 V
J & P #24-12 R
Montoya #41-12 V
Montoya #11-1 V
Montoya #44-1 V
Silva #22-6 V
Montoya #41-1 V
Montoya #22-1 V
Cody #44-11 V
Montoya #24-1 V
Montoya #44-1 R
Montoya #12-7 R
Pioneer Natural
Resources USA Inc
Pioneer Natural
Resources USA Inc
Pioneer Natural
Resources USA Inc
Pioneer Natural
Resources USA Inc
Pioneer Natural
Resources USA Inc
Pioneer Natural
Resources USA Inc
Pioneer Natural
Resources USA Inc
Pioneer Natural
Resources USA Inc
Pioneer Natural
Resources USA Inc
Pioneer Natural
Resources USA Inc
Pioneer Natural
Resources USA Inc
Pioneer Natural
Resources USA Inc
Pioneer Natural
Resources USA Inc
Pioneer Natural
Resources USA Inc
Pioneer Natural
Resources USA Inc
1
3
6
3
1
3
12
NA
5
6
3
9
3
NA
6
5
4
0
1
2
1
0
1
1
NA
0
2
0
2
1
NA
0
0
1
NA
8/27/2004
6/20/2005
3/6/2006
8/31/2004
NA
8/10/2004
3/12/2007
3/7/2007
5/20/2009
5/21/2009
NA
12/17/2009
12/8/2011
NA
3/12/2007
4/5/2007
2/4/2011
11/24/2006
NA
NA
1/17/2013
None
NOAV: Production casing was not cemented to surface as requirec
by drilling permit.
Fence needs to be put in place.
Fence needs to be put in place.
NOAV: Production casing was not cemented to surface as requirec
by drilling permit
None
NOAV: Production casing was not cemented to surface as requirec
by drilling permit.
Need to mitigate noise from well and fix disconnected muffler.
None - Summary of Complaint Records
None
Spill/Release: Equipment failure caused a release of 250 bbls of
water from pit. No ground or surface waters impacted.
Spill/Release: Equipment failure caused a release of 100 bbls of
water. No ground waters impacted. Surface waters were
impacted.
None
Need to mitigate noise from well.
Need to put up noise baffling walls.
Spill/Release: Due to equipment failure, 8 bbls of produced water
was released. No ground or surface waters impacted.
None - Summary of Complaint Records
None
None
Large off-site pit appears to have been reclaimed, but Form 27 has
not been submitted as required by rule for pit closure process.
NA
Yes
Nl
Nl
Yes
NA
Yes
Nl
NA
NA
Closed
Closed
NA
Nl
Nl
Closed
NA
NA
NA
Yes
3/7/2007: Landowner concerned about noise levels, states they exceed
60 dBA at times. COGCC Resolution: Noise monitoring conducted,
operator installed noise baffling walls.
5/20/2009: Landowner concerned about noise levels. COGCC
Resolution: Noise monitoring conducted and noise levels in compliance.
Operator required to fix disconnected muffler hose.
5/21/2009: Landowner concerned about noise levels. COGCC
Resolution: Noise monitoring conducted and noise levels in compliance.
11/24/2006: Landowner concerned about strong odor coming from
reserve pit after drilling operations complete and the potential for
groundwater contamination. COGCC Resolution: Sampled drill cuttings
from pit. Odor appeared to be related to lost circulation material used
that according to MSDS produced a strong odor when material
biodegraded.
-------
C-46
Table C-19 Notice of Violations, Raton Basin Retrospective Case Study, Las Animas County, Colorado
Number of Number of Date of
API Number Well Name Operator Inspections Violations Violations Violation Details Corrected Comments
05-071-08241
05-071-08242
05-071-08261
05-071-08266
05-071-08265
05-071-08270
05-071-08281
05-071-08294
05-071-08371
05-071-08372
05-071-08381
Montoya #41-12 R
Montoya #14-6 R
North Fork Ranch #11-
Furu#6-23
North Fork Ranch #11-
Furu#23-6V
Underworld #31-36
Niagara #23-35
Silva #43-1 V
Silva #43-1 R
Havana #12-25
Pioneer Natural
Resources USA Inc
Pioneer Natural
Resources USA Inc
Pioneer Natural
Resources USA Inc
Pioneer Natural
Resources USA Inc
Pioneer Natural
Resources USA Inc
Pioneer Natural
Resources USA Inc
Pioneer Natural
Resources USA Inc
Pioneer Natural
Resources USA Inc
Pioneer Natural
Resources USA Inc
Pioneer Natural
Resources USA Inc
Pioneer Natural
Resources USA Inc
3
4
1
3
1
2
2
3
NA
3
2
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
NA
0
0
0
4/2/2008
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1/27/2008
3/7/2007
2/20/2007
2/26/2009
NA
NA
NA
Spill from pit is probable. Pit closed and Form 27 was not
submitted. Signs incorrectly identify operator and emergency
response phone number.
None
None
None
None
None
None
NOAV: Exploration and production wastes transported and
dumped in location not permitted to receive such wastes. A pit
permit had been issued for produced water storage and disposal
from the Niagara 23-35. The Niagara was drilled and abandoned,
and the pit was not closed and reclaimed in a timely manner.
Wastes were hauled to and dumped in the lined pit from another
of the operator's wells. Wastes from the Niagara 23-35 pit were
later dumped on the ground and left there while closing the pit.
The spills/releases of exploration waste were not properly
reported by the operator as required. No characterization of the
waste has been provided by the operator, nor has the operator
provided information as to the source of the waste. Information
on source of waste was requested but not provided by operator.
NOAV: BMPs to minimize erosion and off-site sedimentation by
controlling stormwater runoff were not implemented. As a result,
there were significant impacts on soil and waters of the state of
Colorado.
None - Summary of Complaint Records
None
None
None
Nl
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Nl
Yes
NA
NA
NA
NA
Inspection record indicates a NOAV was going to be issued, however, no
NOAV record was found in the COGCC database.
2/20/2007: Landowner concerned with stormwater controls and BMPs;
cement barriers covered with soil pushed over the top, culverts buried,
steep banks in erosional areas, no erosion control, no silt fencing
installed next to waterway. Status: In process.
2/26/2009: Landowner concerned with groundwater quality. COGCC
Resolution: Sampling conducted, water quality good with safety hazard
associated with high concentration of dissolved methane.
-------
C-47
Table C-19 Notice of Violations, Raton Basin Retrospective Case Study, Las Animas County, Colorado
Number of Number of Date of
API Number Well Name Operator Inspections Violations Violations Violation Details Corrected Comments
05-071-08435
05-071-08524
05-071-08536
05-071-08537
05-071-08538
05-071-08545
Montoya #21-7 R
Gamma 13-3 TR
Montoya 21- IV
Montoya 22- 1R
Montoya 44-12R
Pony Express 44-31 TR
Pioneer Natural
Resources USA Inc
Pioneer Natural
Resources USA Inc
Pioneer Natural
Resources USA Inc
Pioneer Natural
Resources USA Inc
Pioneer Natural
Resources USA Inc
Pioneer Natural
Resources USA Inc
7
4
3
4
2
2
2
0
0
0
0
0
4/2/2008
4/2/2008
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
BMPs installed are inadequate to filter sediment as water runs off
well pad. Ensure that transport of sediment off well pad into creek
is stopped.
NOAV: Erosion controls were ineffective or nonexistent at the
lease road crossing over Santistevan Canyon to the well pad. The
pad is contoured to drain runoff to the creek bed. Inadequate
filtering structures were in place to filter sediments running off the
well pad. The operator did not take adequate measures to control
sediment transport, which resulted in active transport of sediment
into the channel of the creek. The sediments transported off the
well pad were actively being transported downstream on the day
of inspection (200129732). The transport of sediment into the
creek and transport downstream resulted in significant adverse
impacts on the environment.
None
None
None
None
None
Yes
Yes
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
-------
C-48
Table C-19 Notice of Violations, Raton Basin Retrospective Case Study, Las Animas County, Colorado
Number of Number of Date of
API Number Well Name Operator Inspections Violations Violations Violation Details Corrected Comments
05-071-08602
05-071-08623
05-071-08642
05-071-08645
05-071-08649
05-071-08673
Flashback 32-27
Joplin 44-5
Alabaster 11-8
Underworld 31-36 TR
Butch 33-10 TR
Talon 34-25
Pioneer Natural
Resources USA Inc
Pioneer Natural
Resources USA Inc
Pioneer Natural
Resources USA Inc
Pioneer Natural
Resources USA Inc
Pioneer Natural
Resources USA Inc
Pioneer Natural
Resources USA Inc
7
NA
4
NA
2
2
4
2
5
NA
0
NA
0
0
1
1
8/21/2006
8/21/2006
7/28/2007
2/28/2008
3/11/2008
2/28/2008
NA
1/2/2008
NA
NA
2/5/2009
10/17/2008
Lack of BMPs to minimize erosion on slope of pad and erosion
along lease road.
NOAV: BMPs to minimize erosion and off-site sedimentation by
controlling stormwater runoff was not implemented. As a result,
there were significant adverse environmental impacts on water
and soil.
NOAV: BMPs to minimize erosion and off-site sedimentation were
not implemented, were not maintained properly, or were
inadequate to control flow of sediments off the access road and
into the stream channel of the Left Hand Fork of Logging Canyon.
Eight individual flow paths of sediment to the Left Hand Fork of
Logging Canyon were observed along 1.1 miles of lease access
road from north of the Keystone access to north of the Flashback
access. The operator did not take adequate precautions to
prevent significant adverse impacts on water, soil, and biological
resources.
NOAV: Failure to implement BMPs to minimize erosion and
control offsite sedimentation. A lack of maintenance of BMP's was
observed along the lease access road between the Niagara access
to north of the Keystone access road. Four individual flow paths of
sediment transport into the stream channel of the Left Hand Fork
of Logging Canyon were observed along approximately 1.5 miles o
road. The operator did not take adequate precautions to prevent
significant adverse impacts to water, soil, and biological resources.
NOAV: Failure to implement and maintain adequate erosion
controls along the lease access road between the Niagara and
Flashback access roads. Overwhelmed and broken BMPs were
observed along more than 1 mile of road. The lack of maintenance
BMPs and the absence of BMPs resulted in two sediment flow
paths leaving the access road and moving into arroyos or stream
beds. The operator did not take adequate precautions to prevent
significant adverse impacts on water, soil, and biological
resources.
None - Summary of Complaint Records
None
None - Summary of Complaint Records
None
None
Well leaking onto well pad. Stuffing box leaking and water
migrating across well pad.
NOAV: Operator did not use adequate precautions to prevent
sediment from entering the bed of an arroyo beside lease road.
No BMPs such as filtering structures were installed to prevent
sediment transport into the arroyo. The lack of erosion controls
along the lease road resulted in significant adverse environmental
impact.
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Nl
Yes
Corresponding NOAV issued with inspection on 8/21/2006.
2/28/2008: Complaint by landowner for noncompliance for stormwater
permit. Lack of erosion controls or mitigation on disturbed soil on the
Left Hand Fork Road of North Fork Ranch. Culvert covered over with
mud and mud flowing down hill from road. Left hand Fork Creek is
below these areas. Status: In process.
1/2/2008: Landowner concerned about quality of water well. COGCC
Resolution: Sampling conducted.
-------
C-49
Table C-19 Notice of Violations, Raton Basin Retrospective Case Study, Las Animas County, Colorado
Number of Number of Date of
API Number Well Name Operator Inspections Violations Violations Violation Details Corrected Comments
05-071-08675
05-071-08707
05-071-08743
05-071-08777
05-071-08834
05-071-08835
05-071-08836
05-071-08837
Horsefeathers 24-34
Wildcard 31-5
Panhead32-8
Crocket 11-4
Kauai 23-36 TR
Kauai 23-36
Jeep Trail 43-36 TR
Molokai 13-36 TR
Pioneer Natural
Resources USA Inc
Pioneer Natural
Resources USA Inc
Pioneer Natural
Resources USA Inc
Pioneer Natural
Resources USA Inc
Pioneer Natural
Resources USA Inc
Pioneer Natural
Resources USA Inc
Pioneer Natural
Resources USA Inc
Pioneer Natural
Resources USA Inc
4
NA
11
NA
1
3
2
2
2
0
0
NA
5
NA
0
2
0
0
0
NA
NA
3/16/2006
9/10/2009
10/13/2009
None
None - Summary of Complaint Records
Operator needs to file Form 15 with water quality data. Also needs
to implement collection of exploration and production wastes
from drip and dispose of in manner consistent with Rule 907.
Operator currently discharging water from drip at base of lease
road and intersection with county road.
No pit permit on record.
10/27/2009 No pit permit on record.
3/14/2006
3/17/2006
6/12/2006
8/12/2008
9/9/2009
NA
2/24/2011
3/23/2011
NA
NA
NA
NA
NOAV: Drill pit built in rocky fill, causing a leak and release of 300
bbls of produced water and drilling fluids. Well site located near a
spring that discharges to a shallow alluvial aquifer. Also located
near creek headwaters, and four shallow water wells are located
within 1 mile downgradient.
Spill/Release : Due to pit leak, 300 bbls of produced water
released. No groundwater affected. Surface waters affected.
None - Summary of Complaint Records
None
No pit permit on record.
Fluid levels in pit should be less than 2 feet of freeboard and
should remain less than 2 feet at all times.
None
None
None
NA
NA
NA
Nl
Nl
Nl
Yes
Closed
NA
NA
Nl
Nl
NA
NA
NA
NA
3/16/2006: Landowner claims that the Horsefeathers 24-34 well is 139
feet from his property line, not the 150 feet required by COGCC.
Operator has positioned a culvert on the pad that the homeowner is
concerned will cause water to flow onto his property during rain events.
Status: In process.
6/12/2006: Landowner request for follow-up water well sampling for
three different landowners. COGCC Resolution: Sampling conducted,
water quality good and sampling result similar to previous sampling
rounds.
8/12/2008: Landowner concerned about water well quality. COGCC
Resolution: COGCC sent most recent sampling results which are
consistent with previous results and have no impacts from nearby CBM
operations.
9/9/2009: Landowner complaint of spill onto property from nearby CEW
operations. COGCC Resolution: Multiple field inspections show no signs
of continued discharge. No impacts to vegetation were seen when
compared to pred rilling aerial photos.
-------
C-50
Table C-19 Notice of Violations, Raton Basin Retrospective Case Study, Las Animas County, Colorado
05-071-08838
Molokai 13-36
Pioneer Natural
Resources USA Inc
Inspections Violations Violations
7 4/30/2008
7/18/2006
7/18/2006
1/13/2009
Violation Details
Need to maintain 2 feet of freeboard. Tear in liner, water level in
pit above tear.
NOAV: Drilling operations for the Molokai 13-36 caused significant Closed
adverse environmental impacts on water resources and created a
potential for harm to public health and safety and welfare.
Impacts include adverse changes in water quality, including an
increase in the concentration of dissolved methane, discoloration
of the well water, and an increase in odor. Water quality
standards established by the Water Quality Control Commission
for waters of the state have been violated. Explosive levels of
methane have been observed in the water well casing, creating a
public health and safety issue.
NOAV: Drilling operations for the Molokai 13-36 caused significant Closed
adverse environmental impacts to water resources and a created
potential for harm to public health, safety, and welfare. Impacts
include adverse changes in water quality, including an increase in
the concentration of dissolved methane, discoloration of the well
water, and water has noticeable odor. Water quality standards
established by the Water Quality Control Commission for waters
of the state have been violated. Explosive levels of methane have
been measured in the water well casing creating a public health
and safety issue.
NOAV: The operator has failed to take adequate precautions to
protect water-bearing formations while developing oil and gas
resources and has failed to prevent significant adverse
environmental impacts on water to the extent necessary to
protect public health, safety, and welfare. The operator has failed
to prevent contamination of fresh water by objectionable water,
oil, or gas. The concentration of methane dissolved in ground
water at a monitoring well installed by the operator as a point of
compliance as a result of problems noted in 2006 has increased by
greater than 7 mg/L since samples were first collected. The
concentration of dissolved methane present in ground water
pumped from the monitoring well has increased such that the
concentration detected in samples collected in 2009 are greater
than the concentration that could result in build up to explosive
levels in an enclosed space. The operator has not reported any
spill/release or incident that could be responsible for these
adverse environmental impacts.
NOAV 7/18/2006: Status is listed as closed, unknown if corrective action
was properly completed.
-------
C-51
Table C-19 Notice of Violations, Raton Basin Retrospective Case Study, Las Animas County, Colorado
Number of Number of Date of
API Number Well Name Operator Inspections Violations Violations Violation Details Corrected Comments
2/25/2009
1/26/2010
8/4/2006
NOAV: The operator has failed to take adequate precautions to
protect water-bearing formations while developing oil and gas
resources and has failed to prevent significant adverse
environmental impacts on water to the extent necessary to
protect public health, safety, and welfare. The operator has failed
to prevent contamination of fresh water by objectionable water,
oil, or gas. The concentration of methane dissolved in ground
water at a domestic well impacted in 2006 has increased by
greater than 5 mg/L since samples were first collected. The
concentration of dissolved methane present in ground water
pumped from the monitoring well has increased such that the
concentration detected in samples collected in 2009 are greater
than the concentration that could result in a build up to explosive
levels in an enclosed space. The operator has not reported any
spill/release or incident that could be responsible for these
adverse environmental impacts.
Spill/Release: Equipment failure caused a spill of 15 bbls of
produced water. No ground or surface waters affected.
Remediation: COGCC required operator to plug and abandon
initial Molokai 13-36 surface casing borehole due to groundwater
being affected. Analytical results determined water wells
exceeded Regulation 41.
Nl
Closed
Closed
-------
C-52
Table C-19 Notice of Violations, Raton Basin Retrospective Case Study, Las Animas County, Colorado
Number of Number of Date of
API Number Well Name Operator Inspections Violations Violations Violation Details Corrected Comments
05-071-08839
05-071-08845
05-071-08846
Hawaii 44-36
Jeep Trail 43-36
Sanchinator 11-36 TR
Pioneer Natural
Resources USA Inc
Pioneer Natural
Resources USA Inc
Pioneer Natural
Resources USA Inc
NA
2
2
4
NA
NA
0
0
1
NA
7/18/2006
7/19/2006
7/20/2006
7/31/2006
8/2/2006
3/23/3009
NA
NA
4/30/2008
4/19/2013
None - Summary of Complaint Records
None
None
No signs identifying operator or emergency contacts at the well
site.
None - Summary of Complaint Records
NA
NA
NA
Nl
NA
7/18/2006: Landowner concerned with excessive noise and
contamination of North Fork Ranch Aquifer from human error and
equipment failure. COGCC Resolution: Provided letter to homeowner
indicating if felt private water well was impacted they would test it and
provided noise abatement rules.
7/18/2006: Landowner does not agree with method that water well
samples are being collected with by the operator. COGCC Resolution:
Letter sent to landowner stating method being used is a standard and
acceptable procedure, but a secondary method will also be used.
7/19/2006: Landowner has concern about water well quality following
loud booms heard the day before. Status: In process.
7/20/2006: Landowner concerned that testing data has not been
released by operator. Status: In process.
7/31/2006: Landowner concerned about various civil rights issues
relating to drilling operations; drill broken in borehole, blowout, no
written notification, violation of ceremonial Native American ground,
and violation of religious constitutional rights. Status: In process.
8/2/2006: Landowner concerned that following a blow out and second
well was permitted even after a citizen request for a cease and desist of
operations. No site inspection and operator records incomplete. No
information on resolution. Additional concern raised through another
complaint record on same day, that the aquifer and well damage was a
violation of SURA, damage to property value, and that methane and
arsenic were present in well. COGCC Resolution: Sent letter to
landowner stating that the issues were addressed through a NOAV or
were out of the jurisdiction of COGCC.
3/23/2009: Landowner concerned about methane levels (5.4 mg/L) in
their domestic well. Concerns about public health and environmental
damage from nearby CBM operations. COGCC Resolution: Sampling
conducted, methane levels have increased to hazardous levels. NOAV
issued to operator.
7/19/2006: Landowner had two recorded complaints that were
concerned with impacts to domestic well from CBM operations. COGCC
Resolution: NOAV issued.
4/19/2013: Landowner has concern about increasing concentration of
tert-butyl alcohol in their domestic well and what the source of the
compound may be with nearby oil and gas activities. Status: In process.
-------
C-53
Table C-19 Notice of Violations, Raton Basin Retrospective Case Study, Las Animas County, Colorado
Number of Number of Date of
API Number Well Name Operator Inspections Violations Violations Violation Details Corrected Comments
05-071-08847
Sanchinator 11-36
Pioneer Natural
Resources USA Inc
6
NA
3
NA
4/30/2008
5/29/2008
6/28/2007
3/4/2009
No signs identifying operator or emergency contacts at the well
site.
NOAV: The operator has failed to take adequate precautions to
protect water-bearing formations while developing oil and gas
resources and has failed to prevent significant adverse
environmental impacts on water to the extent necessary to
protect public health, safety, and welfare. The operator has failed
to prevent contamination of fresh water by objectionable water,
oil, or gas. Benzene was detected above the concentration
established as a groundwater standard by the Water Quality
Control Commission in ground water produced from a monitoring
well installed by the operator as a point of compliance near the
Sanchinator well pad. Benzene was not detected at 10-fold lower
concentrations in several previous samples collected from the
monitoring well. The concentration of dissolved methane present
in ground water pumped from the monitoring well has increased
to above a concentration greater than the concentration that
could result in build up to explosive levels in an enclosed space.
The operator has not reported any spill/release or incident that
could be responsible for these adverse environmental impacts.
Spill/Release: Due to human error, the pit overflowed and 30 bbls
of produced water was released. No ground or surface waters
were affected.
None - Summary of Complaint Records
Nl
Nl
Closed
NA
3/4/2009: Landowners concerned with environmental damage to
groundwater resources due to oil and gas activities. Public health has
been endangered by the impacts to groundwater. COGCC Resolution:
COGCC sent letter stating that impacts to groundwater as a result of
CBM operations were not properly reported and four NOAVs were
issued to the associated operator.
-------
C-54
Table C-19 Notice of Violations, Raton Basin Retrospective Case Study, Las Animas County, Colorado
Number of Number of Date of
API Number Well Name Operator Inspections Violations Violations Violation Details Corrected Comments
05-071-08849
05-071-08850
05-071-08852
05-071-08853
05-071-08870
Grand Valley 22-36 TR
Grand Valley 22-36
Crossword 41-36 TR
Crossword 41-36
North Fork Ranch 14-1
Pioneer Natural
Resources USA Inc
Pioneer Natural
Resources USA Inc
Pioneer Natural
Resources USA Inc
Pioneer Natural
Resources USA Inc
Pioneer Natural
Resources USA Inc
6
6
NA
2
2
4
NA
3
2
NA
0
0
1
NA
4/30/2008
7/16/2008
7/16/2008
4/30/2008
4/29/2008
4/29/2008
NA
NA
3/9/2010
1/10/2010
3/9/2010
3/29/2010
Install proper signs identifying well, operator, and emergency
contacts. The pit for produced water should be lined or the use of
pit stopped.
Install and maintain adequate stormwater controls to minimize
erosion and transport of sediment a way from the lease road right-
of-way. Inadequate stormwater controls at first two culverts to
the east of well pad. No filtering at downhill side of culvert;
sediment being transported downhill from lease road. Part of the
pit for produced water filled (eastern half), instead of being closed
or lined to minimize chances of seepage or spills to the east.
NOAV: BMPs to control erosion and subsequent transport of
sediment off the lease road were not implemented and
maintained properly at two culverts just east of the well pad on
lease road. Sediment had been transported onto forest floor. The
operator did not take adequate precautions to protect
environmental quality.
Properly store chemicals or fuel on site. Repairer replace liner in
pit or close pit. There should be more than 2 feet of freeboard in
pit. Install signs per COGCC rules identifying well, operator, and
emergency contacts.
NOAV: No permanent sign identifying the well was posted at the
well site for more than nine months after well had been
completed. The operator did not take adequate precautions to
prevent significant adverse environmental impacts from chemical
substances by leaving trash, wastes, and chemicals on the pad.
The pit was not operated in manner that would protect the
environment from significant adverse environmental impacts. No
water quality data was submitted within 60 days of first gas sales,
as required in permit for produced water pit. Records indicate first
gas sales in July 2007, and no data has been submitted one year
later.
None - Summary of Complaint Records
None
None
Remove unused equipment from pad. Ensure that adequate
erosion controls are maintained on the downhill side of lease
road. Recent construction disturbed parts of stormwater controls.
Interim reclamation of drilling pit still needed after closure of
drilling pit.
None - Summary of Complaint Records
Nl
Nl
Yes
Nl
Yes
NA
NA
NA
Nl
NA
4/29/2009: Landowner concerned with various chemicals stored around
site and general housekeeping. COGCC Resolution: Field investigation
indicated these items had been addressed. A NOAV was issued for
erosion issues seen during initial investigation.
1/10/2010: Landowner concerned about impacts to their domestic well
from nearby CBM operations. COGCC Resolution: Sampling completed,
no impacts from CBM operations. Sampling results similar to those
from previous sampling rounds.
3/9/2010: Landowner indicated that wastes were being disposed of in
the nearby drilling pit. COGCC Resolution: Letter sent stating field
investigations did not indicate any finding of violation.
3/29/2010: Landowner concerned about noise from nearby well site.
COGCC Resolution: Noise monitoring conducted and noise levels within
compliance.
-------
C-55
Table C-19 Notice of Violations, Raton Basin Retrospective Case Study, Las Animas County, Colorado
Number of Number of Date of
API Number Well Name Operator Inspections Violations Violations Violation Details Corrected Comments
05-071-08871
05-071-08872
05-071-08874
05-071-08875
05-071-08876
05-071-08877
05-071-08882
05-071-08883
05-071-08884
05-071-08913
05-071-08933
North Fork Ranch 14-1
Cody44-llR
Montoya 41-13R
Montoya 24-1R
Montoya 41-1R
Montoya 11-1R
Montoya 42-1V
Montoya 42-1R
Montoya 11-6R
Montoya 11-6V
Divide 14-26
Pioneer Natural
Resources USA Inc
Pioneer Natural
Resources USA Inc
Pioneer Natural
Resources USA Inc
Pioneer Natural
Resources USA Inc
Pioneer Natural
Resources USA Inc
Pioneer Natural
Resources USA Inc
Pioneer Natural
Resources USA Inc
Pioneer Natural
Resources USA Inc
Pioneer Natural
Resources USA Inc
Pioneer Natural
Resources USA Inc
Pioneer Natural
Resources USA Inc
3
NA
2
NA
1
5
2
6
2
2
2
2
0
1
NA
0
NA
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
NA
3/9/2010
12/21/2009
NA
5/10/2011
NA
NA
NA
7/7/2009
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Unlined, fenced pit that is not in use. Remove unused equipment
and inaccurate identification sign.
None - Summary of Complaint Records
None
None - Summary of Complaint Records
None
None
None
Need to produce, plug, and abandon well, or pass mechanical
integrity test. Need to put up lease sign. No production records
found and no mechanical integrity testing records found.
None
None
None
None
NA
Nl
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Nl
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
12/21/2009: Landowner concerned about impacts to groundwater from
possible damage to casing. Status: In process.
5/10/2011: Landowner requests baseline water sampling. COGCC
Resolution: Sampling conducted, water quality good and all parameters
less than groundwater standards.
-------
C-56
Table C-19 Notice of Violations, Raton Basin Retrospective Case Study, Las Animas County, Colorado
Number of Number of Date of
API Number Well Name Operator Inspections Violations Violations Violation Details Corrected Comments
05-071-08938
05-071-08945
05-071-08949
05-071-08956
05-071-08957
05-071-08967
05-071-08968
Keystone 11-35
MacGregor32-25TR
Storm Peak 44-6
J & P 33-12R
Montoya 21-1R
Rullestad 13-12V
Rullestad 13-12R
Pioneer Natural
Resources USA Inc
Pioneer Natural
Resources USA Inc
Pioneer Natural
Resources USA Inc
Pioneer Natural
Resources USA Inc
Pioneer Natural
Resources USA Inc
Pioneer Natural
Resources USA Inc
Pioneer Natural
Resources USA Inc
9
NA
2
3
NA
2
3
3
4
7
NA
0
0
NA
0
0
0
2
1/6/2009
6/4/2010
3/7/2007
12/11/2008
12/30/2008
6/2/2010
9/22/2010
3/2/2009
NA
NA
9/6/2013
NA
NA
NA
10/24/2008
10/27/2008
Install appropriate sign identifying well, operator, and emergency
contacts.
Install appropriate sign on tank at the Keystone well as required
by 210 D.E. Submit Form 27 and associated data, including water
quality data and soils data documenting proper closure of
unpermitted produced water pit.
NOAV: BMPs to minimize erosion and offsite sediment transport
by controlling stormwater runoff were not implemented and
maintained. Significant impacts on soils and waters of the state of
Colorado were made as a result of improper implementation of
BMPs and failure to maintain the BMPs.
NOAV: The operator has failed to take adequate precautions to
protect water-bearing formations while developing oil and gas
resources and has failed to prevent significant adverse
environmental impacts on water to the extent necessary to
protect public health, safety, and welfare. The operator has failed
to prevent contamination of fresh water by objectionable water,
oil, or gas. The concentration of methane dissolved in
groundwaterata monitoring well installed by the operator as a
point of compliance near the Keystone well pad has increased 3
mg/L since samples were first collected. The concentration of
dissolved methane present in groundwater pumped from the
monitoring well has increased to a concentration greater than the
concentration that could result in build up to explosive levels in an
enclosed space. The operator has not reported any spill/release or
incident that could be responsible for these adverse
environmental impacts.
Spill/Release: Due to equipment failure, 35 bbls of produced water
released. No ground or surface waters affected.
Spill/Release: Due to equipment failure, 5 bbls of produced water
released. No ground or surface water affected.
Remediation: Remediation of soils around/within the pit. Sampling
and analysis indicated affected materials.
None - Summary of Complaint Records
None
None
None - Summary of Complaint Records
None
None
None
Spill/Release: Due to equipment failure, 94 bbls of produced water
released. No groundwater impacted. Surface waters impacted.
Spill/Release: Due to equipment failure, 10 bbls of produced water
released. No ground or surface waters impacted.
Nl
Nl
Yes
Nl
Closed
Closed
Closed
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Closed
Closed
3/2/2009: Landowner concerned about impacts to groundwater from
nearby CBM operations. COGCC Resolution: Sampling conducted, no
impacts found.
9/6/2013: Landowner requests baseline water sampling. COGCC
Resolution: Sampling conducted, water quality is consistent with other
shallow water wells in area. No impacts from nearby CBM operations.
-------
C-57
Table C-19 Notice of Violations, Raton Basin Retrospective Case Study, Las Animas County, Colorado
Number of Number of Date of
API Number Well Name Operator Inspections Violations Violations Violation Details Corrected Comments
05-071-08975
05-071-09008
Monte Carlo 31-7 TR
Wood 43-2V
Pioneer Natural
Resources USA Inc
Pioneer Natural
Resources USA Inc
3
8
NA
1
5
NA
7/9/2008
8/19/2008
8/30/2008
9/13/2008
8/19/2008
9/13/2008
6/9/2008
7/1/2008
9/13/2008
2/24/2009
2/26/2009
4/4/2009
Freeboard within pit should be more than 2 feet. Pit liner is torn
and water is at the level of the tear.
Remove unused equipment from site. Pit has less than 2 feet of
freeboard.
Remove unused equipment from site.
Maintain a minimum of 2 feet of freeboard in pit. Remove unused
equipment from site. Install and maintain adequate BMPs to
minimize erosion; lack of inadequate erosion controls along pad
and lease road to the south. Form 19 was not filed for spill.
NOAV: Exploration and production wastes from other facilities
were transported and released at location/facility not authorized
to receive wastes from any source other than the well associated
with the facility.
NOAV: A spill of greater than 20 bbls of produced water occurred
at the Wood 2-43V on the morning of September 13, 2008. The
spill has not been reported verbally within 24 hours of discovery o
by means of a Form 19 within 10 days. Water quality data for the
well has not been reported to the COGCC within 60 days of first
gas sales as required by a condition of approval in the pit permit.
The operator has failed to operate and maintain the pit in a
manner that will protect the waters of the state from serious
adverse environmental impacts. Pumping was started at the well
with no mechanism in place to remove water from the pit as
needed. The operator did not maintain adequate erosion controls
along the lease road to minimize transport of sediment into an
arroyo with subsequent transport of the pollutant down the
arroyo. Two sets of signs identifying the well and its operator and
emergency contacts were present on the site but two different
operators were identified and two sets of emergency contacts.
Trash and unused equipment has not been removed from the well
site in a timely manner.
None - Summary of Complaint Records
Nl
Nl
Nl
Nl
Nl
Nl
NA
6/9/2008: Landowner concerned about impacts to groundwaterfrom
hydraulic fracturing that is planned in a nearby well. COGCC Resolution:
Letter sent summarizing most recent sampling. Water quality has
remained relatively constant over last few years.
7/1/2008: Landowner concerned about impacts to water quality of
domestic well. COGCC Resolution: Sampling conducted, sampling results
sent to landowner.
9/13/2008: Landowner indicates that pit is overflowing and a spill
occurring. COGCC Resolution: Field investigation indicated spill had
occurred and a NOAV was issued.
2/24/2009: Landowner concerned about groundwater. COGCC
Resolution: Letter sent summarizing recent sampling, no impacts from
CBM operations were observed.
2/26/2009: Landowner concerned about groundwater. COGCC
Resolution: Letter sent summarizing recent sampling, all results within
groundwater standards and similar to previous sampling, no impacts
from CBM operations were observed.
4/4/2009: Landowner indicated pit had less than 2 feet of freeboard,
that water had green color, and was not from the correct well. COGCC
Resolution: Sampling conducted on pit water, no further information
available.
-------
C-58
Table C-19 Notice of Violations, Raton Basin Retrospective Case Study, Las Animas County, Colorado
Number of Number of Date of
API Number Well Name Operator Inspections Violations Violations Violation Details Corrected Comments
05-071-09009
Wood 43-2 R
Pioneer Natural
Resources USA Inc
5
NA
4
NA
8/19/2008
8/30/2008
9/13/2008
8/19/2008
2/5/2008
8/19/2008
Reserve pit constructed prior to drilling and pit has been receiving
produced water. Do not utilize excavations for produced water
disposal when no well exists and no pit permit exists to authorize
produced water disposal. Remove incorrect signage.
Remove unused equipment and ensure than any signs on pad
have current emergency contact numbers.
Remove unused equipment and ensure than any signs on pad
have current emergency contact numbers.
NOAV: A release/spill of more than 20 bbls of exploration and
production wastes was dumped into an unlined earthen
excavation on the pad built for the Wood 2-43R (permitted, but
not drilled at the time of the incident). The spill/release was not
verbally reported by the operator within 24 hours of discovery,
nor has it been reported via a Form 19 in more than 2 months
since the incident occurred. The excavation is not an authorized
means of disposal of exploration and production wastes. Release
of exploration and production wastes at unauthorized locations
significantly and adversely impacts environmental quality.
Operator is not taking adequate precautions to prevent
unauthorized discharge or disposal of exploration and production
wastes.
None - Summary of Complaint Records
Nl
Nl
Nl
Nl
NA
2/5/2008: Landowner concerned about groundwater quality from
nearby drilling and hydraulic fracturing. COGCC Resolution: Sampling
conducted, no measurable impacts to groundwater quality.
8/19/2008: Landowner indicated they observed two water trucks
dumping water on the well pad. COGCC Resolution: Letter sent
indicating field investigation, NOAVs issued.
-------
C-59
Table C-19 Notice of Violations, Raton Basin Retrospective Case Study, Las Animas County, Colorado
Number of Number of Date of
API Number Well Name Operator Inspections Violations Violations Violation Details Corrected Comments
05-071-09018
05-071-09019
05-071-09021
05-071-09090
05-071-09091
05-071-09144
05-071-09180
05-071-09181
05-071-09182
05-071-09192
Lobo 13-4
Kennedy 11-34
Kennedy 34-34
Wood 31-2 R
Wood 31-2
Crocket 11-4 TR
Tailgate 14-25
Tailgate 14-25 TR
Magnum 43-26
Homestead 14-5
Pioneer Natural
Resources USA Inc
Pioneer Natural
Resources USA Inc
Pioneer Natural
Resources USA Inc
Pioneer Natural
Resources USA Inc
Pioneer Natural
Resources USA Inc
Pioneer Natural
Resources USA Inc
Pioneer Natural
Resources USA Inc
Pioneer Natural
Resources USA Inc
Pioneer Natural
Resources USA Inc
Pioneer Natural
Resources USA Inc
8
NA
1
1
2
4
2
1
2
1
4
NA
4
NA
0
0
0
1
1
0
1
0
0
NA
1/28/2011
1/27/2011
4/12/2007
1/31/2011
1/31/2011
1/7/2014
NA
NA
NA
1/26/2012
2/24/2011
NA
9/19/2008
NA
NA
7/11/2008
10/23/2009
8/5/2010
Install new liner or make adequate repairs to current liner,
including removing rocks from bed the liner is placed on.
NOAV: A spill of exploration and production wastes from the lined
and permitted produced water pit at the Lobo 13-4 location
occurred on or before January 27, 2011. The spill included water
and other exploration and production wastes. Significant adverse
impacts on ground water near the Lobo 13-4 pit have resulted
from the lack of control of exploration and production wastes at
the well. The operator failed to take adequate precautions to
protect environmental resources and failed to manage exploration
and production wastes in a manner that would protect those
resources in that the pit was not constructed nor was it operated
in a manner that would protect environmental resources.
Spill/Release: Leaking pit liner released 25 bbls of produced water.
No ground or surface waters impacted.
Spill/Release: A torn pit liner allowed the release of 2,100 bbls of
produced water. No ground or surface waters impacted.
None - Summary of Complaint Records
None
None
None
Spill/Release: Due to human error, pressure in a water line caused
it to rupture, and 5 bbls of produced water was released. No
ground or surface waters impacted.
Unlined pit and no permit in the database.
None
Tear in pit liner and pit is constructed in fill. Noise levels high.
None
None
None - Summary of Complaint Records
Nl
Yes
Closed
Closed
NA
NA
NA
NA
Closed
Nl
NA
Nl
NA
NA
NA
1/31/2011: Landowner indicated a spill occurred from the lined pit and
may have come near their domestic well. COGCC Resolution: Most
recent sampling results sent to landowner and a NOAV issued to
operator.
1/7/2014: Landowner concerned about groundwater impacts from
nearby CBM operations. No information available about resolution.
7/11/2008: Landowner concerned about elevated methane levels in
recent sampling results, feels could be the result of nearby CBM
operations. COGCC Resolution: Sampling conducted and determined
that methane is the result of thermogenic origin.
10/23/2009: Landowner requests follow-up of VOC sampling. COGCC
Resolution: Sampling conducted, no impacts from CBM operations.
8/5/2010: Landowner request (per doctor) for chemicals used in
downhole operations. Also concern if water from this well is used in
road spreading for dust control. COGCC Resolution: Provided
landowner with packet of chemical product information and well
records.
-------
C-60
Table C-19 Notice of Violations, Raton Basin Retrospective Case Study, Las Animas County, Colorado
Number of Number of Date of
API Number Well Name Operator Inspections Violations Violations Violation Details Corrected Comments
05-071-09214
05-071-09250
05-071-09260
05-071-09261
05-071-09308
05-071-09373
05-071-09374
Backyard 34-34
Hellzapoppin 24-32
Boof 12-2
Mauer41-3
Flashback Deep 22- 27
Montoya 12-1R
Montoya 12- IV
Pioneer Natural
Resources USA Inc
Pioneer Natural
Resources USA Inc
Pioneer Natural
Resources USA Inc
Pioneer Natural
Resources USA Inc
Pioneer Natural
Resources USA Inc
Pioneer Natural
Resources USA Inc
Pioneer Natural
Resources USA Inc
7
3
1
3
3
0
0
4
1
0
1
0
NA
NA
2/25/2009
4/11/2007
4/12/2007
12/5/2013
3/5/2012
NA
9/18/2008
NA
NA
NA
Need to put up lease sign. No production records.
NOAV: Drilling fluids spilled through pit liner (spill #200109995).
The liquids that were spilled threaten significant adverse impact
on waters and soils. Spill was not reported as having potential
impact on groundwater, even though operator has been sampling
water well down-slope for possible impacts from spill. This spill
from a lined pit during or shortly after drilling shows that proper
practices for installation and care of liners are not used.
Spill/Release: Due to leaking pit liner, 25 bbls of produced water
was released. No ground or surface waters impacted.
Remediation: Produced water was being stored in pit on site, may
have affected soils. Pit has been closed
Pit liner needs to be repaired.
None
Spill/Release: Due to a torn liner, 30 bbls of produced water was
released. No ground or surface waters impacted.
None
NA
NA
Nl
Yes
Closed
Closed
Nl
NA
Closed
NA
NA
NA
-------
C-61
Table C-19 Notice of Violations, Raton Basin Retrospective Case Study, Las Animas County, Colorado
Number of Number of Date of
API Number Well Name Operator Inspections Violations Violations Violation Details Corrected Comments
05-071-09390
05-071-09415
05-071-09416
05-071-09439
05-071-09444
05-071-09445
05-071-09486
Niagara 23-35 R
Saint Anthony 32-11V
Saint Francis 32-HR
Norther 23-6
Zamora 22- 14V
Zamora 43- 14V
Marilyn Deep 24-3
Pioneer Natural
Resources USA Inc
Pioneer Natural
Resources USA Inc
Pioneer Natural
Resources USA Inc
Pioneer Natural
Resources USA Inc
Pioneer Natural
Resources USA Inc
Pioneer Natural
Resources USA Inc
Pioneer Natural
Resources USA Inc
6
NA
0
0
2
0
0
5
3
NA
NA
NA
0
NA
NA
0
1/27/2008
1/14/2009
9/11/2013
2/5/2008
6/4/2008
2/23/2009
7/8/2010
5/10/2011
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NOAV: Exploration and production wastes transported and
dumped in location not permitted to receive such wastes. A
reserve pit had been constructed for use in future drilling
operations or to contain exploration and production wastes from
drilling at the Niagara 23-35R. This well has not been drilled.
Wastes were hauled to and dumped in the unlined reserve pit
from another of the operator's wells. Wastes from the Niagara 23-
35R pit were later dumped on the ground and left there while
closing the pit. The spills/releases of exploration waste were not
properly reported by the operator as required. No
characterization of the waste has been provided by the operator,
nor has the operator provided information as to the source of the
waste. Information on source of waste was requested but not
provided by operator.
NOAV: Operator failed to take adequate precautions to protect
water-bearing formations while developing oil/gas resources and
failed to prevent significant adverse impacts on water to the
extent necessary to protect public health, safety, and welfare.
Operator failed to prevent the contamination of fresh water by
objectionable water, oil, or gas. Benzene was detected above the
established groundwater standards by the Water Quality Control
Commission in groundwater from a monitoring well installed by
operator as a point of compliance near the Niagara well pad.
Benzene was detected at 3-4-fold lower concentrations in
previous samples collected from the well. The concentration of
dissolved methane present in groundwater pumped from the
monitoring well has increased to above the concentration that
could result in buildup to explosive levels in an enclosed space.
Operator has not reported any spill/release/incident that could be
responsible for these adverse environmental impacts. Operator
did not alert the COGCC or nearby potentially impacted well
owners as soon as practicable upon learning of adverse impacts on
groundwater in the area.
Remediation: Produced water was being stored in pit on site, may
have affected soils. Pit has been closed
None - Summary of Complaint Records
NA
NA
None
NA
NA
None
Nl
Nl
Closed
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
2/5/2008, 6/4/2008, 2/23/2009, 7/8/2010, 5/10/2011: Landowner
concerned with impacts to groundwater from nearby CBM operations.
COGCC Resolution: Multiple sampling rounds conducted over numerou:
years. All results within groundwater standards and water quality has
remained constant over sampling rounds.
5/10/2011: Landowner concerned about impacts to groundwater.
COGCC Resolution: Sampling conducted, no impacts from CBM
operations and water quality has remained similar since 2009 sampling.
-------
C-62
Table C-19 Notice of Violations, Raton Basin Retrospective Case Study, Las Animas County, Colorado
Number of Number of Date of
API Number Well Name Operator Inspections Violations Violations Violation Details Corrected Comments
05-071-09497
05-071-09498
05-071-09518
05-071-09527
05-071-09540
05-071-09551
05-071-09552
05-071-09588
05-071-09653
05-071-09658
Mazatlan 23-25TR
Mazatlan 23-25
Hawaii 43-36 H
Reef Deep 41-35
Kennedy 14- 27
Marilyn 23-3
Marilyn 24-3 TR
Hole in the wall 42-5
Hawaii 43-36 H-R
Reef 32-35
Pioneer Natural
Resources USA Inc
Pioneer Natural
Resources USA Inc
Pioneer Natural
Resources USA Inc
Pioneer Natural
Resources USA Inc
Pioneer Natural
Resources USA Inc
Pioneer Natural
Resources USA Inc
Pioneer Natural
Resources USA Inc
Pioneer Natural
Resources USA Inc
Pioneer Natural
Resources USA Inc
Pioneer Natural
Resources USA Inc
2
5
NA
1
4
1
4
4
1
2
0
0
4
NA
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
NA
NA
7/24/2008
9/19/2008
4/24/2008
7/24/2008
7/22/2008
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
12/2/2010
NA
None
Inadequate erosion control practices in place along lease road.
Sediment washing into arroyo. No filtering at downslope end of
culvert, and 2-foot-deep gully has eroded out of road side. Signage
not visible.
Install and maintain adequate erosion controls to minimize
transport of sediment into unnamed tributary of Right Hand Fork
of Dude Canyon. Erosion controls inadequate and not properly
maintained at lease road to south east of well pad. Sediment
entering arroyo from lease road, even after installation of BMPs in
response to previous failure.
NOAV: Well is less than 150 feet from surface property line. No
exception request with surface owner waiver has been filed.
Inadequate erosion controls measures are in place to contain
sediment from reaching an arroyo as the lease road crosses the
arroyo. NOAV #200193025 was issued previously regarding
erosion controls along the lease road to the Mazatlan well pad.
The BMPs utilized by the operator in response to the previous
NOAV are inadequate and are not being maintained properly to
minimize sediment transport into and down the arroyo.
NOAV: Operator did not use adequate precautions to prevent
sediment from entering the bed of an arroyo at lease road
crossing of arroyo. No BMPs such as filtering structures were
installed at the uphill or downhill end of a culvert under the road.
The lack of erosion controls along the lease road resulted in
significant adverse environmental impacts.
None - Summary of Complaint Records
None
None
None
None
None
None
Production reports indicate produced water disposed of in pit, but
no pit present and no permit on record. Signage is inadequate,
both incorrect and not present.
NA
NA
Nl
Nl
Yes
Yes
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Nl
NA
7/22/2008: Landowner indicates that well was drilled without surface
owner notification and that it was incorrectly drilled on the wrong tract
of land. Landowner also concerned that BMPs are not in place to
prevent sediment into the arroyo and that a spring on their property is
now dry possible due to oil and gas activities. COGCC Resolution: Field
investigation indicated well was drilled within 150 feet of the surface
property line, but on the correct tract; NOAV issued. Second NOAV
issued for lack of maintenance and adequate erosion controls. USGS
topographic maps show drainage (spring) as intermittent not perennial,
field investigations confirmed this.
-------
C-63
Table C-19 Notice of Violations, Raton Basin Retrospective Case Study, Las Animas County, Colorado
Number of Number of Date of
API Number Well Name Operator Inspections Violations Violations Violation Details Corrected Comments
05-071-09665
05-071-09671
05-071-09677
05-071-09685
05-071-09708
05-071-09709
05-071-09712
05-071-09713
05-071-09737
05-071-09738
05-071-09752
05-071-09754
05-071-09765
05-071-09770
05-071-09775
05-071-09784
05-071-09793
05-071-09795
Cave Canyon 23-4 Tr
Panther 33-5
Midnight 12-11
Maximus 12-2
Kent 44-25
Rainbow Trout 23-3
Lynn 32-4 Tr
Kent44-25TR
N.F.R.A. 24-35
Scottsdale 34-26
Panther 33-5 TR
Boof 12-2 Tr
Shinarump 11-11 KP H
Parras 21-12 KP HA
Hoist 41-6
Shinarump 11-11 KV
Hellzapoppin 24-32 Tr
Saluki41-8
Pioneer Natural
Resources USA Inc
Pioneer Natural
Resources USA Inc
Pioneer Natural
Resources USA Inc
Pioneer Natural
Resources USA Inc
Pioneer Natural
Resources USA Inc
Pioneer Natural
Resources USA Inc
Pioneer Natural
Resources USA Inc
Pioneer Natural
Resources USA Inc
Pioneer Natural
Resources USA Inc
Pioneer Natural
Resources USA Inc
Pioneer Natural
Resources USA Inc
Pioneer Natural
Resources USA Inc
Pioneer Natural
Resources USA Inc
Pioneer Natural
Resources USA Inc
Pioneer Natural
Resources USA Inc
Pioneer Natural
Resources USA Inc
Pioneer Natural
Resources USA Inc
Pioneer Natural
Resources USA Inc
1
NA
5
0
0
NA
0
1
3
0
0
NA
0
5
1
1
1
1
2
2
1
0
NA
0
NA
NA
NA
NA
0
1
NA
NA
NA
NA
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
NA
11/7/2008
NA
NA
NA
5/6/2009
7/8/2010
NA
NA
10/25/2011
NA
NA
6/7/2011
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
3/5/2012
NA
None
None - Summary of Complaint Records
None
NA
NA
None - Summary of Complaint Records
NA
None
Spill/Release: Failure to close the valve on the produced water
tank resulted in 50 bbls of produced water being released. No
ground or surface waters impacted.
NA
NA
None - Summary of Complaint Records
NA
None
None
None
None
None
None
Liner torn on well side; fluid level is above liner tear. Barbed wire
fence is not intact.
None
NA
Nl
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Closed
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Yes
NA
11/7/2008: One approved well and two permits pending, landowner
request baseline water sampling before drilling begins. COGCC
Resolution: Sampling conducted, TDS exceeds groundwater standard.
5/6/2009: Landowner request for baseline water sampling due to
concern that CBM operations are affecting groundwater in area. COGCC
Resolution: Sampling conducted, results within groundwater standards
and of generally good quality.
7/8/2010: Landowner concerned about groundwater quality due to
CBM operations. COGCC Resolution: Sampling conducted, only
manganese exceed groundwater standards, other results similar to
those found during baseline sampling.
6/7/2011: Landowner requests an onsite inspection. Concern about
minimizing road construction and tree removal, as just received packet
from operator. Landowner has not started surface use agreement
negotiations, but would like on-site request on record in event operator
refiles. Status: In process.
-------
C-64
Table C-19 Notice of Violations, Raton Basin Retrospective Case Study, Las Animas County, Colorado
Number of Number of Date of
API Number Well Name Operator Inspections Violations Violations Violation Details Corrected Comments
05-071-09799
05-071-09803
05-071-09814
05-071-09815
05-071-09817
05-071-09818
05-071-09824
05-071-09825
05-071-09829
05-071-09830
05-071-09842
05-071-09843
05-071-09847
05-071-09855
05-071-09856
05-071-09857
05-071-09860
Alibi 23-2
Alibi 23-2 Tr
Djembe 21-12
Djembe 21-12 TR
Timbale 32-12
Timbale32-12TR
Zathura 41-14
Popeye 32-14
Montoya 33-13 TR
Montoya 33-13
Clave 43-11 TR
Clave 43-11
Talon 34-25 TR
Havana 12-25 TR
Larissa 32-35
Larissa 32-35 TR
Kosar 21-11 TR
Pioneer Natural
Resources USA Inc
Pioneer Natural
Resources USA Inc
Pioneer Natural
Resources USA Inc
Pioneer Natural
Resources USA Inc
Pioneer Natural
Resources USA Inc
Pioneer Natural
Resources USA Inc
Pioneer Natural
Resources USA Inc
Pioneer Natural
Resources USA Inc
Pioneer Natural
Resources USA Inc
Pioneer Natural
Resources USA Inc
Pioneer Natural
Resources USA Inc
Pioneer Natural
Resources USA Inc
Pioneer Natural
Resources USA Inc
Pioneer Natural
Resources USA Inc
Pioneer Natural
Resources USA Inc
Pioneer Natural
Resources USA Inc
Pioneer Natural
Resources USA Inc
4
NA
1
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
1
1
1
1
NA
0
NA
NA
0
0
NA
NA
NA
NA
0
0
NA
NA
0
0
1
1/18/2011
5/24/2010
6/30/2010
7/2/2010
10/28/2010
2/1/2011
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
3/15/2012
No method to identify freeboard. Less than 2 feet of freeboard.
Pit not permitted. Signage labeling incorrect.
None - Summary of Complaint Records
None
NA
NA
None
None
NA
NA
NA
NA
None
None
NA
NA
None
None
Drilling pit has been used for produced water storage and not
permitted. Pit now closed without submission of site investigation
and remediation plan.
Nl
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Yes
5/24/2010: Landowner indicated that there may be issues with the
surface casing cement job and was interested in when completion
documents would be available. COGCC Resolution: Completion
documents were reviewed and operator contacted; determination
made that there did not appear to be a problem.
6/30/2010: Landowner concerned about particulates present in
domestic well water following hydraulic fracturing of nearby well.
COGCC Resolution: Sampling conducted, no apparent impacts.
7/2/2010: Landowner concerned about impacts to groundwater in
domestic well following completion activities at a nearby well. COGCC
Resolution: Sampling conducted, sampling results show no major
changes in composition from 2008 and 2009 sampling events; no
apparent impacts.
10/28/2010: Landowner concern with noise from nearby well. COGCC
Resolution: Noise monitoring conducted and noise levels in compliance.
5/24/2010: Landowner concerned with green coloration of water bailed
as part of rehabilitation process, believes related to nearby hydraulic
fracturing operations. COGCC Resolution: It was determined that data
presented did not show any violations of COGCC rules.
-------
C-65
Table C-19 Notice of Violations, Raton Basin Retrospective Case Study, Las Animas County, Colorado
Number of Number of Date of
API Number Well Name Operator Inspections Violations Violations Violation Details Corrected Comments
05-071-09861
05-071-09881
Kosar 21-11
Redmond 44-33
Pioneer Natural
Resources USA Inc
Pioneer Natural
Resources USA Inc
1
NA
0
1
NA
NA
3/15/2012
10/2/2011
NA
Drilling pit has been used for produced water storage and not
permitted. Pit now closed without submission of site investigation
and remediation plan.
None - Summary of Complaint Records
NA
Yes
NA
NA
10/2/2011: Landowner concerned about increased sediment in
domestic well, stating they increased when operations began at nearby
well. Status: In process.
Source: Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, http://cogcc.state.co.us/cogis/
Key:
API = American Petroleum Institute
bbls = barrels
BMP = Best management practice
CBM = Coal bed methane
COGCC = Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission
dBA = Decibels adjusted
mg/L= milligram per liter
MIT = Mechanical Integrity Testing
MSDS = Material Safety Data Sheet
NA= Not applicable
Nl = No information available
NOAV = Notice of Alleged Violation
SURA = Superior Urban Renewal Authority
TDS = Total dissolved solids
VOC = Volatile organic compound
-------
C-66
Table C-20 Notable Notice of Violations - Identified Potential Candidate Causes and Distances from
Raton Basin Retrospective Case Study. Las Animas County. Colorado
EPA Sampling Point EPA Sampling Point EPA Sampling Point EPA Sampling Point
Distance Distance Distance Distance
Well Latitude Longitude ID (miles) ID (miles) ID (miles) ID (miles)
Montoya #12-7V
Montoya #14-6V
J & P #33-12V
J & P #24-12V
Montoya #41-12V
Gamma #13-3
Montoya #41-12R
Niagara #23-35
Montoya #21 - 7R
Flashback 32 -27
Wildcard 31 -5
Molokail3-36
Sanchinator 11- 36
North Fork Ranch 14 -IV
Keystone 11 - 35
Rullestad 13 - 12R
Wood 43 - 2V
Wood 43 - 2R
Lobo 13 - 4
Backyard 34 - 34
Niagara 23 -35R
Hellzapoppin 24-32TR
Kosar21-ll
Wharton 33-32
Monte Carlo 31-7
Butch 33-10
Montoya 2 1-7V
Silva 22-6V
Cody44-llV
Butch 33-10 TR
Talon 34-25
Grand Valley 22-36 TR
Grand Valley 22-36
MonteCarlo31-7TR
37.1882850
37.1952400
37.1843310
37.1811190
37.1901230
37.1990700
37.1901180
37.2139200
37.1918930
37.2323000
37.2059000
37.2119300
37.2200000
37.1962500
37.2206700
37.1858800
37.1978400
37.1978100
37.1985500
37.2109500
37.2139900
37.2102600
37.1912100
37.211780
37.192230
37.185080
37.191080
37.202500
37.180720
37.185290
37.224510
37.216900
37.216890
37.192470
-104.9350440
-104.9347320
-104.9441800
-104.9484640
-104.9393500
-104.8811240
-104.9396240
-104.9692200
-104.9307470
-104.9826000
-104.7999900
-104.9535900
-104.9551900
-104.9536000
-104.9732300
-104.9546100
-104.9584800
-104.9582700
-104.7893000
-104.8735100
-104.9694400
-104.8044600
-104.9647300
-104.799510
-104.820060
-104.870290
-104.930350
-104.931840
-104.958050
-104.870450
-104.943220
-104.949920
-104.950220
-104.819920
RBSW03
RBSW03
RBSW01
RBSW01
RBSW03
RBSW02
RBSW03
RBDW02
RBSW03
RBMW01
RBDW12
RBMW02
RBMW03
RBSW03
RBPW02
RBDW13
RBDW05
RBDW05
RBDW12
RBSW02
RBDW02
RBDW11
RBDW05
RBDW12
RBDW11
RBSW02
RBSW03
RBSW03
RBDW01
RBSW02
RBPW01
RBMW03
RBMW03
RBDW11
0.8 SE
0.7 E
0.8 NE
0.4 NE
0.6 SE
0.2 NW
0.6 SE
0.3 SW
LOSE
1.2 NW
0.5 NE
0.2 E
0.0
0.4 W
0.0
0.5 NE
0.2 NE
0.2 NE
0.8 E
1.0 NE
0.2 SW
0.8 N
0.4 SW
0.9 NE
.09 SW
LOSE
LOSE
LONE
0.2 NE
LOSE
0.7 NE
0.4 SE
0.3 SE
0.9 SW
RBSW01
RBDW05
RBSW03
RBDW01
RBSW01
RBSW01
RBDW04
RBDW01
RBDW02
RBDW11
RBDW02
RBMW01
RBDW05
RBMW01
RBDW01
RBDW03
RBDW03
RBDW11
RBDW04
RBDW12
RBDW13
RBDW11
RBDW13
RBPW03
RBPW03
RBPW03
RBDW12
1.3 NE
1.5 E
0.8 S
0.5 E
1.2 NE
1.2 NE
0.5 N
1.7 NE
1.5 NW
0.6 NE
0.7 SE
0.5 SE
0.5 E
0.5 W
0.6 NE
0.6 E
0.6 E
1.0 E
0.4 N
0.8 N
0.6 N
LONE
0.3 SE
0.7 NE
0.4 SE
0.3 SE
1.0 SW
RBDW01
RBDW01
RBDW13
RBDW01
RBDW05
RBMW01
RBSW01
RBDW04
RBMW03
RBMW02
RBDW03
RBDW02
RBSW03
RBSW03
RBSW03
RBMW01
RBDW03
RBSW01
RBMW03
RBPW01
RBPW01
1.5NE
0.9 NE
0.8 E
1.3NE
1.3SE
0.6 SW
1.7NE
1.8 NW
0.5 S
0.5 NE
0.9 SE
0.5 NW
0.8 SW
0.6 NW
0.6 NW
0.6 SW
0.7 SE
0.3 NW
0.8 NE
0.4 SE
0.4 SE
RBDW13
RBDW13
RBSW03
RBDW05
RBDW13
RBMW02
RBMW02
RBMW01
RBDW02
RBDW04
RBDW05
RBMW02
RBSW03
1.6 NE
1.0 E
LOSE
1.3 SE
1.4 NE
0.8 W
1.9 NW
0.9 SE
0.7 NE
0.9 N
0.9 SE
0.7 W
1.0 SW
-------
C-67
Table C-20 Notable Notice of Violations - Identified Potential Candidate Causes and Distances from
Raton Basin Retrospective Case Study. Las Animas County. Colorado
Wood 31-2
Latitude
37.204950
Longitude
-104.960670
EPA Sampling Point
Distance
I (miles)
EPA Sampling Point EPA Sampling Point EPA Sampling Point
Distance Distance Distance
) (miles) ID (miles) ID (miles)
RBMW02
0.6 SW
RBDW04
0.6 SE
RBDW02
0.8 SE
Tailgate 14-25 TR
37.224360
-104.953220
RBPW03
0.3 NE
RBPW01
0.3 NE
RBMW03
0.4 NE
Hellzapoppin 24-32
37.210110
-104.804450
RBDW12
0.8 NW
RBDW11
0.8 NE
Mauer41-3
37.205110
-104.868050
RBSW02
0.8 NE
Mazatlan 23-25
37.227070
-104.948880
RBPW03
0.6 NE
RBPW01
0.6 NE
RBMW03
0.6 NE
Lynn 32-4 TR
37.202010
-104.889420
RBSW02
0.6 NW
Kosar 21-11 TR
37.191030
-104.964750
RBDW05
0.4 SW
RBDW03
0.7 SE
Crocket 11-4 TR
37.205050
-104.789430
RBDW12
0.9 NE
Hawaii 43-36 H-R
37.213140
-104.939850
RBPW01
LOSE
RBPW03
LOSE
RBMW03
LOSE
Key:
E = East
EPA= U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
ID = Identification number
N = North
S = South
W = West
-------
C-68
Table C-21 Environmental Database Review Summary, Raton Basin Retrospective Case Study, Huerfano County, Colorado
Distance from Nearest
Database Name of Facility Site Location and Address Sampling Point
MINES
MINES
ORPHAN FINDS, US AIRS
ORPHAN FINDS, US AIRS
ORPHAN FINDS, US AIRS,
AIRS
ORPHAN FINDS, US AIRS
ORPHAN FINDS, US AIRS
ORPHAN FITS, HIST
FITS, FINDS
ORPHAN SWF/LF
ORPHAN SWF/LF
ORPHAN SWF/LF
ORPHAN LUST, LUST
TRUST, UST, AST
ORPHAN LUST
ORPHAN LUST, UST, AST,
AIRS
Sand Arroyo,
WalsenburgSand &
Gravel, Inc.
RBK Pit No. 70, RBK
Construction, Inc.
Huerfano County
Government - Port
EQ
Huerfano County -
Andreatta Pit
Leone Sand and
Gravel - Leone
Huerfano
Huerfano State
Gravel Pit
Eastern Colorado
Aggregates - Pott
CSU Huerfano County
Ext.
La Veta SWDS
Huerfano County
Waste Transfer
Station
City Of Walsenburg,
WalsenburgSWDS
Our Chance Truck
Stop
Front Range
Petroleum
Cliff Brice Stations
(Acorn Food Store
No. 3400)
Latitude: 37.5878
Longitude: -104.88262
Latitude: 37.59102
Longitude: -104.85992
Latitude: 37.62061
Longitude: -104.777391
NWNESEC4T30SR67W
6.1 mi. SE of La Veta, CO
81089
Latitude: 37.470747
Longitude: -104.89406
SEC3132T26SR67W10.0
mi. NW of Walsenburg, CO
81089
WSWSEC36T26SR65W
10.1 mi. NE of Walsenburg,
CO 81089
SWNWSEC4T27SR66W
5.9 mi. N of Walsenburg,
CO 81089
Walsenburg, CO 81089
1 mi. west on County Road
450
La Veta, CO
107 Industrial Blvd.
Walsenburg, CO 81089
1 mi. east off 1-25
Walsenburg, CO 81089
10928 Highway 160 W
La Veta, CO 81055
310 Highway 10
Walsenburg, CO 81089
5519 Highway 12
La Veta, CO 81055
1.5 mi. NNEof RBDW14
1.35 mi. NW of
RBDW07
>5mi. NofRBDW07
>3.5mi. SSWof
RBDW06
12. 3 mi. NofRBDW14
16.8 mi. NE of RBDW07
11 mi. NNEofRBDW07
>5 mi. NE of RBDW07
>7mi. SWofRBMW04
6.1 mi. NE of RBDW07
>5mi. EofRBDW07
12. 5 mi. Wof RBDW14
6.2 mi. NE of RBDW07
>7.5mi. SWof
RBMW04
Potential Candidate Cause
Yes Groundwater
/No Details/Justification Wells
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Active surface mine (sand and gravel); no
violations cited.
Surface stone quarry activities are not likely
sources of contamination.
Terminated surface mine (sand and gravel); no
violations cited. EDR lists the site (pre- and
post-operations) as pastureland.
Surface stone quarry activities are not likely
sources of contamination.
In Air Facility System (AFS) that contains
compliance and permit data for stationary
sources of air pollution regulated by the EPA,
state, and local air pollution agencies.
Surface mine (quarry); no violations cited. Not
a likely source of contamination due to
distance from nearest sampling locations.
Surface mine (quarry); no violations cited.
Surface stone quarry activities are not likely
sources of contamination.
Surface mine (borrow material for
construction quarry).
Surface stone quarry activities are not likely
sources of contamination.
Surface mine (borrow material for
construction quarry).
Surface stone quarry activities are not likely
sources of contamination.
Surface mine (borrow material for
construction quarry).
Surface stone quarry activities are not likely
sources of contamination.
Listed in FTTS and HIST FTTS, which indicates
inspections under FIFRA, TSCA, and/or EPCRA.
Shows investigations for general product and
PCBs; no violations cited. Also listed in NCDB,
which supports implementation of FIFRA and
TSCA.
Not a likely source of contamination due to
distance from nearest sampling locations.
Solid waste facility.
Air Pollutant Inventory. No violations cited.
Not a likely source of contamination due to
distance from nearest sampling locations.
Solid waste facility. No violations cited. Not a
likely source of contamination due to distance
from nearest sampling locations.
Solid waste facility. No violations cited. Not a
likely source of contamination due to distance
from nearest sampling locations.
8 tanks, all closed: 2 USTs (diesel and waste
oil) and 6 ASTs (diesel and gasoline).
1 closed LUST with a confirmed release on
04/09/1997 and closure in 2006.
Not a likely source of contamination due to
distance from nearest sampling locations.
2 USTs, 1 closed LUST- confirmed release in
1998.
Not a likely source of contamination due to
distance from nearest sampling locations.
1 LUST- confirmed release in 2002 and closed
in 2003.
1 diesel AST -closed.
3 open USTs (2 gasoline and 1 diesel).
Permitted Facility & Emissions Listing (benzene
andVOCs).
Not a likely source of contamination due to
distance from nearest sampling locations.
5 Federal USGS
Wells
0 Federal FRDS
Public Water
Supply System
181 State Wells
-------
C-69
Table C-21 Environmental Database Review Summary, Raton Basin Retrospective Case Study, Huerfano County, Colorado
Potential Candidate Cause
Distance from Nearest Yes Groundwater
Database Name of Facility Site Location and Address Sampling Point /No Details/Justification Wells
ORPHAN LUST, LUST
TRUST, UST, AST, AIRS
ORPHAN LUST, LUST
TRUST, UST, AIRS
ORPHAN LAST, AST
ORPHAN UST
ORPHAN UST
ORPHAN UST
ORPHAN AST
ORPHAN AST
ORPHAN RCRANonGen
/NLR, FINDS
ORPHAN RCRA NonGen
/ NLR FINDS
ORPHAN RCRA NonGen
/NLR, FINDS
ORPHAN RCRA NonGen
/NLR
Acorn Food Store
(Rambler 66)
Cliff Brice Station
(Western
Convenience Stores,
Inc.)
Huerfano County
Road and Bridge
Cuchara Resort
Spanish Peaks
Campground
J J Construction &
Enterprise
La Veta Propane
Birco, Inc., Dakota
Campground
Colorado
Department of
Highways- La Veta
Colorado
Department of
Transportation
Colorado - Ute
Electric Assn., Inc.
Spanish Peaks
Regional Health
Center
455 US Highway 85
Walsenburg, CO 81089
416 Highway 85 & 87
Walsenburg, CO 81089
316 S. Locust
La Veta, CO 81055
Box 3, Highway 12
La Veta, CO 81055
19816 Highway 12
La Veta, CO 81055
25462 Highway 160
Walsenburg, CO 81089
16417 Highway 85
La Veta, CO
Dakota Campground
1079 Highway 85 & 87
Walsenburg, CO 81089
420 South Poplar
SH12, MP4.76
La Veta, CO 81055
US Highway 160
MP281.35
La Veta, CO 81055
Latitude: 37.54125
Longitude: -105.06353
14000 RD South 100
Walsenburg, CO 81089
Latitude: 37.724615
Longitude: -104.990983
23500 US Highway 160
Walsenburg, CO 81089
6.1 mi. NEof RBDW07
6.4 mi. NE of RBDW07
>7mi. WSWof
RBMW04
>7mi. SWof RBSW06
18.2 mi. SWof RBDW06
3.2 mi. NEof RBDW07
> 10 mi. W of RBMW05
5.9 mi. NE of RBDW07
7.1 mi. WNWof
RBDW04
>9mi. Wof RBMW05
>5 mi. NE of RBDW07
2.2 mi. NEof RBDW07
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
8 ASTs, all permanently closed; 4 - gasoline, 4 -
diesel.
5 USTs, 4 currently in use; 2 - gasoline, 1 -
diesel, 1 - Ł85. 1 gasoline UST permanently
closed.
3 Confirmed releases; 3/5/1995, 6/5/1996,
and 11/13/09, all closed.
Not a likely source of contamination due to
distance from nearest sampling locations.
2 open USTs (gasoline), 1 closed UST (diesel), 1
closed UST (waste oil), 1 LUST with a
confirmed release on 04/27/2001, which is
currently implementing CAP - Groundwater
impacted above action levels is present off
site.
Permitted Facility & Emissions Listing (benzene
andVOCs).
Not a likely source of contamination due to
distance from nearest sampling locations.
1 active AST (diesel), 2 closed ASTs (diesel and
gasoline), 1 closed LAST with confirmed
release in 2005.
Not a likely source of contamination due to
distance from nearest sampling locations.
Retail gas station.
1 closed UST (diesel); no releases documented.
Not a likely source of contamination due to
distance from nearest sampling locations.
2 closed USTs (gasoline); no releases
documented. Not a likely source of
contamination due to distance from nearest
sampling locations.
2 closed USTs (gasoline); no releases
documented.
Not a likely source of contamination due to
distance from nearest sampling locations.
3 active ASTs (propane); no releases
documented.
Not a likely source of contamination due to
distance from nearest sampling locations.
2 liquid propane gas ASTs, 1 closed AST (2009);
no documented releases.
Not a likely source of contamination due to
distance from nearest sampling locations.
Classified as a non-generator/handler of
hazardous waste; no releases documented.
Not a likely source of contamination due to
distance from nearest sampling locations.
Classified as a non-generator/handler of
hazardous waste, highway and street
construction (except elevated highways).
Conditionally Exempt Small Quantity
Generator (D001 waste).
Not a likely source of contamination due to
distance from nearest sampling locations.
Classified as a non-generator/handler of
hazardous waste (D002); no violations cited.
Not a likely source of contamination due to
distance from nearest sampling locations.
Facility is not located on Indian land.
Air Facility System, Emission Inventory System,
National Emissions Inventory, Resource
Conservation And Recovery Act Information
System.
No violations cited.
Not a likely source of contamination due to
distance from nearest sampling locations.
-------
C-70
Table C-21 Environmental Database Review Summary, Raton Basin Retrospective Case Study, Huerfano County, Colorado
Potential Candidate Cause
Distance from Nearest Yes Groundwater
Database Name of Facility Site Location and Address Sampling Point /No Details/Justification Wells
ORPHAN FINDS
ORPHAN FINDS
ORPHAN FINDS
Huerfano School
District Re 2
Colorado Coal Mining
Co.
Huerfano County -
HribarPit
126 East Garland Street
La Veta, CO 81055
107 Industrial Blvd.
Walsenburg, CO 81089
NE NE SEC 35 T26S R67W
7.9 mi. NW of
Walsenburg, CO 81089
7. 2 mi. SW of RBMW04
6.1 mi. NEof RBDW07
5.5 mi. NNWof
RBDW14
No
No
No
Site in NCDB that supports implementation of
the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and
Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and the Toxic
Substances Control Act (TSCA).
No violations cited. Not a likely source of
contamination due to distance from nearest
sampling locations.
The database indicated that the property was
inspected under AIRS; no violations cited. Not
a likely source of contamination due to
distance from nearest sampling locations.
Construction Sand And Gravel Mining.
Listed in the Emission Inventory System (EIS),
which maintains an inventory of large,
stationary sources and voluntarily reported
smaller sources of air point pollution emitters.
Not a likely source of contamination due to
distance from nearest sampling locations.
Source: Environmental records search report by Environmental Data Resources, Inc. (EDR)
Additional Sources:
Colorado Division of Reclamation, Mining and Safety: http://mining.state.co.us/Reports/MiningData/Pages/SearchByMine.aspx
Colorado Storage Tank Information System (COSTIS) Web Site: http://costis.cdle.state.co.us/OIS2000/
Envirofacts: http://www.epa.gov/enviro/
Notes:
EDR Inquiry Number:: 3601313.2s
EDR Search Radius: 3 miles
Search Center: Lat. 37.5493000, (37° 32' 57.48") Long. 104.8708000 (104° 52' 14.88")
Key:
AST = Above ground storage tank
CAP = Corrective Action Plan
E = East
EPA = Environmental Protection Agency
FRDS = Federal Reporting Data System
mi = Mile
N = North
PCB= Polychlorinated biphenyls
S= South
USGS = United States Geological Survey
UST= Underground storage tank
VOC = organic
W= West
Databases:
AIRS: Permitted Facility and Emissions Listings
AST: Listing of Colorado Regulated Aboveground Storage Tanks
FINDS: Facility Index System/Facility Registry System
FTTS: FIFRA/TSCA Tracking System - FIFRA (Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, & Rodenticide Act)/TSCA (Toxic Substances Control Act). FTTS tracks administrative cases and pesticide enforcement actions and
compliance activities related to FIFRA, TSCA and EPCRA (Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act)
HIST FTTS: FIFRA/TSCA Tracking System Administrative Case Listing
LAST: Leaking Aboveground Storage Tank Sites
LUST: Leaking Underground Storage Tank Sites
LUST TRUST: Listings of eligible applicants to Colorado's Petroleum Storage Tank Fund. The Fund provides reimbursement for allowable costs in cleaning up petroleum contamination from under ground and
above ground storage tanks
MINES: Mines Master Index File. The source of this database is the Dept. of Labor, Mine Safety and Health Administration
NCDB: National Compliance Database
RCRA NonGen / NLR: Federal RCRA (Resource Conservation and Recovery Act) Non-Generator / No Longer Regulated
SWF/LF: Solid Waste Facilities and Landfill Sites.
US AIRS: Aerometric Information Retrieval System Facility Subsystem
UST: Listing of Colorado Regulated Underground Storage Tanks
Waste Codes:
Waste Code D001: Ignitable waste
Waste Code D002: Corrosive hazardous waste
-------
C-71
Table C-22 Notice of Violations, Raton Basin Retrospective Case Study, Huerfano County, Colorado
Number of Number of
LINK Field API Number Well Name Operator Inspections Violations Date of Violation(s) Violation Details Corrected Comment
05506146
05506147
05506148
05506149
05-055-06146
05-055-06147
05-055-06148
05-055-06149
Lively #3-10
Lively #3-12
Lively #10-02
Lively #10-04
Petroglyph Energy, Inc.
Petroglyph Energy, Inc.
Petroglyph Energy, Inc.
Petroglyph Energy, Inc.
16
NA
13
NA
15
NA
16
NA
0
NA
0
NA
1
NA
0
NA
NA
9/18/2007
12/3/2008
2/16/2010
NA
11/7/2012
4/30/2013
6/4/1998
3/2/2009
NA
9/22/2006
10/10/2007
11/10/2007
11/27/2007
3/12/2008
12/2/2008
12/3/2008
12/5/2008
12/18/2008
12/22/2008
8/25/2009
9/7/2010
5/10/2011
9/28/2012
11/7/2012
4/30/2013
None
None - Summary of Complaint Records
None
None - Summary of Complaint Records
Oil spill from machinery on ground. CAR: Fence pits and clean up oil.
None - Summary of Complaint Records
None
None - Summary of Complaint Records
NA
NA
NA
NA
Nl
NA
NA
NA
9/18/2007: Landowner request for baseline water sampling.
Sampling was conducted.
12/3/2008: Continued groundwater issue due to methane in the
Poison Canyon Formation. Sampling conducted, similar analytical
result to baseline sampling, except for decrease in methane which
is most likely due to installation of treatment system.
2/6/2010: Landowner concerned about increased hydrogen sulfide
odor in their domestic well. Sampling conducted, similar analytical
results to previous sampling.
11/7/2012: Landowner concerned about groundwater quality of
domestic well. Samples collected, similar analytical results to
previous sampling.
4/30/13: Landowner concerned about possible changes in
groundwater quality from the remediation and subsequent closure
of the remediation of the Poison Canyon aquifer in the area.
Unknown if complaint has been addressed.
3/2/2009: Landowner concern about changes in groundwater
chemistry in domestic well from the previous sampling round.
Isotope ratio for carbon and hydrogen in dissolved methane from
three recovery wells show variation. Results discussed with
landowner.
9/22/06, 11/27/2007, 12/5/2008, 9/7/2010, 5/10/2011,
9/28/2012, 4/30/13: Landowner concerned about quality of
groundwater. Sampling conducted, results have remained the
same or lower. Also one complaint for noise, but monitoring
indicated it was within compliance. Unknown if complaint on
4/30/2013 has been addressed.
10/10/2007, 3/12/2008, 12/18/2008, 8/25/2009, 11/7/2012,
4/30/13: Landowner concerned about quality of groundwater.
Sampling conducted, results have remained relatively the same
over sampling events. Unknown if complaint on 4/30/2013 has
been addressed.
11/10/2007, 12/22/2008: Landowner has concern about quality of
groundwater. Sampling conducted, results were lower for toluene
and similar to previous for other analytes.
12/2/2008, 9/28/2012: Landowner concerned about quality of
groundwater. Sampling conducted, groundwater quality is
acceptable.
12/3/2008: Landowner concerned about groundwater quality.
House currently in construction, sampling conducted, concern for
methane upon completion of house.
-------
C-72
Table C-22 Notice of Violations, Raton Basin Retrospective Case Study, Huerfano County, Colorado
Number of Number of
LINK Field API Number Well Name Operator Inspections Violations Date of Violation(s) Violation Details Corrected Comment
05506150
05506151
05506153
05506154
05506155
05506158
05506159
05506160
05506161
05506165
05506166
05506173
05505012
05505027
05506004
05506023
05506038
05506060
05506086
05506174
05506176
05-055-06150
05-055-06151
05-055-06153
05-055-06154
05-055-06155
05-055-06158
05-055-06159
05-055-06160
05-055-06161
05-055-06165
05-055-06166
05-055-06173
05-055-05012
05-055-05027
05-055-06004
05-055-06023
05-055-06038
05-055-06060
05-055-06086
05-055-06174
05-055-06176
Lively #10-12
Lively #2-12
Lively #35-07
Lively #35-09
State #36-11
Lively #03-04
Lively #35-11
Lively #03-01
State #36-05
Rohr #09-10
Rohr #04-10
Lively #35-04
Ferdinand BRohr#l
Dick Realty & Inv Co. #1
Goemmer Land Co. #1
Golden Cycle #1
Golden Cycle Land Co. #1
Stan Sea rle#l
Lively #03-03
Lively #04-02
Lively #35-11 B
Petroglyph Energy, Inc.
Petroglyph Energy, Inc.
Petroglyph Energy, Inc.
Petroglyph Energy, Inc.
Petroglyph Energy, Inc.
Petroglyph Energy, Inc.
Petroglyph Energy, Inc.
Petroglyph Energy, Inc.
Petroglyph Energy, Inc.
Petroglyph Energy, Inc.
Petroglyph Energy, Inc.
Petroglyph Energy, Inc.
Pan American Petroleum Corp
Petroglyph Energy, Inc.
Clark*E.B. Sr.
Minerals Management, Inc.
Amoco Production Co.
Alamosa Drilling, Inc.
Petroglyph Energy, Inc.
Petroglyph Energy, Inc.
Petroglyph Energy, Inc.
11
NA
17
16
16
13
NA
12
2
17
NA
13
12
NA
15
NA
1
1
6
1
1
1
1
1
1
11
3
NA
1
1
0
0
NA
0
0
0
NA
0
0
NA
0
NA
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Inspection: 6/12/2000,
1/19/2006
NOAV: 6/12/2000
1/12/2008
NOAV: 5/1/1998
8/25/2011
NA
NA
10/4/2007
9/7/2010
5/10/2011
NA
NA
NA
9/15/2006
9/18/2007
NA
NA
4/30/2013
NA
9/16/2009
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Inspection (6/12/2000):
1. MIT, produce or plug.
2. No hangar for 8 5/8" casing inside 13 3/8" casing.
3. Area to the west of the location unsatisfactorily revegetated.
Inspection (1/19/2006):
1. Need to produce, plug or pass MIT.
NOAV (6/12/2000):
1. Well shut in longer than 30 days without production equipment.
2. Areas not needed for a production site not satisfactorily revegetated.
None - Summary of Complaint Records
Commencement of operations w/heavy equipment preparatory to drilling a well
without securing an approved application for permit to drill (Form 2).
1. Pit fenced with barbed wire.
2. Well is scheduled to be plugged.
3. Vgs/Gmr various risers, 4 deadmen (concrete weights).
None
None
None - Summary of Complaint Records
None
None
None
None - Summary of Complaint Records
None
None
None - Summary of Complaint Records
None
None - Summary of Complaint Records
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
Inspections: Nl
NOAV: Yes
NA
Yes
Nl
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NOAV corrective action: Integrity test witnessed by a
representative of the Colorado Oil & Gas Conservation
Commission; revegetate site and control weeds.
1/12/2008: Landowner concerned about toluene in groundwater.
Sampling conducted, low levels of toluene found.
NOAV corrective action: Submit a written explanation as to why
this location was built without a permit; reclaim and reseed the
site if not already done.
10/4/2007: Landowner requests baseline sampling after well
started to vent methane. Sampling conducted.
9/7/2010 and 5/10/2011: Landowner concerned about
groundwater quality. Sampling conducted, no further impacts
noted and water quality similar to previous sampling round.
9/15/2006: Landowner had a noise complaint. Noise monitoring
conducted, all levels within compliance.
9/18/2007: Landowner requests baseline water sampling.
Sampling conducted.
4/30/2013: Landowner concerned about impacts to groundwater.
Unknown if complaint was addressed.
9/16/2009: Landowner and others who own River Ridge property
are concerned about the groundwater quality. Sampling
conducted, fluoride, total dissolved solids, and pH were above the
groundwater standards. Methane was above a level which could
potentially cause buildup in enclosed spaces. Other analytes were
below the groundwater standards.
-------
C-73
Table C-22 Notice of Violations, Raton Basin Retrospective Case Study, Huerfano County, Colorado
Number of Number of
LINK Field API Number Well Name Operator Inspections Violations Date of Violation(s) Violation Details Corrected Comment
05506179
05506213
05506214
05506215
05506216
05506217
05506218
05506219
05506220
05506221
05506222
05506223
05506261
05506291
05-055-06179
05-055-06213
05-055-06214
05-055-06215
05-055-06216
05-055-06217
05-055-06218
05-055-06219
05-055-06220
05-055-06221
05-055-06222
05-055-06223
05-055-06261
05-055-06291
State #36-02
State #1W
State #2W
State #3W
State #4W
State #5W
State #6W
State #7W
State #8W
State #9W
State #10W
State #11W
State tflOWB
Rohr #04-14
Petroglyph Energy, Inc.
Petroglyph Energy, Inc.
Petroglyph Energy, Inc.
Petroglyph Energy, Inc.
Petroglyph Energy, Inc.
Petroglyph Energy, Inc.
Petroglyph Energy, Inc.
Petroglyph Energy, Inc.
Petroglyph Energy, Inc.
Petroglyph Energy, Inc.
Petroglyph Energy, Inc.
Petroglyph Energy, Inc.
Petroglyph Energy, Inc.
Petroglyph Energy, Inc.
11
NA
2
13
NA
13
14
2
2
11
2
13
2
2
10
11
NA
0
NA
0
0
NA
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
NA
NA
12/5/2006
8/28/2007
8/7/2009
1/28/2010
NA
NA
10/28/2006
9/13/2007
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
8/29/2011
None
None - Summary of Complaint Records
None
None
None - Summary of Complaint Records
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None - Summary of Remediation Records
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
12/5/2006: Landowner concerned about decrease in quantity of
water in well. Sampling conducted and potable water being
delivered.
8/28/2007, 1/28/2010: Landowner requests baseline sampling due
to concern about water quality. Baseline sampling conducted and
sampling in 2010 indicated no impacts.
8/7/2009: Landowner requested baseline sampling, sampling
conducted.
10/28/2006: Landowner concerned with drop in water level of well
and methane gas coming from well. Sampling conducted,
unknown resolution to drop in water level.
9/13/2007: Landowner concerned about possible presence of
methane in water well. Baseline sampling conducted.
8/29/2011: Upon site/facility closure it was determined soils were
impacted near a produced water pit at the well site. Background
concentrations of arsenic exceeded screening criteria. It was not
expected that the produced water stored in the pit communicated
with or affected the groundwater. A remediation plan was put
into place to reduce the levels of arsenic and the well was being
plugged and abandoned.
Source: Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission. Colorado Oil and Gas Information System (COGIS), http://cogcc.state.co.us Accessed February 2014.
Key:
CAR = Corrective Action Request
MIT= Mechanical Integrity Testing
NA = Not applicable
Nl = No information available
NOAV = Notice of Alleged Violation
-------
C-74
Table C-23 Notable Notice of Violations - Identified Potential Candidate Causes and Distances from
Sampling Points
Raton Basin Retrospective Case Study, Huerfano County, Colorado
EPA Sampling Point EPA Sampling Point EPA Sampling Point EPA Sampling Point
Distance Distance Distance Distance
Latitude Longitude
(miles)
(miles)
(miles)
(miles)
RBDW09
RBDW08
RBMW05
RBMW04
-------
Appendix C Background Data, Retrospective Case Study in the Raton Basin, Colorado May 2015
Appendix C Figures
C-75
-------
C-76
-
2012 Crops
Alfalfa
Corn
Dry Beans
Fallow/Idle Cropland
Oats
Other Hay/Non Alfalfa
Perennial Ice/Snow
Spring Wheat
Triticale
Open Water
Developed
Barren
Forest
Shrubland
Grassland Herbaceous
Sorghum Wetlands
Source: Land Use, USDA; Municipalities, ESRI; Sample Locations, EPA ORD
Municipal Boundaries
Search Area
EPA Sampling Locations
Figure C-1 a
2012 Crop Lands
Huerfano County, Colorado
EPA Hydraulic Fracturing Study
-------
C-77
Segundo Valdez
15 20
Z^^H Miles
___^________ __^ ___ ^ __
2012 Crops
•4 Alfalfa
Corn
DblCropWinWht/Corn
Dbl Crop WinWht/Sorghum
Dry Beans
Fallow/Idle Cropland
Oats
Onions
Other Hay/Non Alfalfa
Pasture/Hay
Perennial Ice/Snow
Sorghum
Spring Wheat
Sunflower
Triticale
Winter Wheat
Open Water
Developed
Barren
Forest
Shrubland
Grassland Herbaceous
Wetlands
Municipal Boundaries
• EPA Sampling Locations
Search Areas
Figure C-lb
2012 Crop Lands
Las Animas County, Colorado
EPA Hydraulic Fracturing Study
Source: Land Use, USDA; Municipalities, ESRI; Sample Locations, EPA ORD
-------
C-78
1992-2001
2001-2006
|
7,
*
7,
,*>»'
>
/ <+ *
V
x"
Landuse Change Ł• To Barren •• To Grassland/Shrub
"
To Open Water ( To Forest Atf To Wetlands
To Urban To Agriculture
Source: Landuse, USGS National Land Cover Database (1992,2006): Municipalities, ESRI; Sampling Locations, US EPA ORD
EPA Sampling Locations
Search Area
Municipal Boundaries
Figure C-2a
Land Use Changes
1992-2001 and 2001-2006
Huerfano County, Colorado
EPA Hydraulic Fracturing Study
-------
C-79
1992-2001
^••v.
2001
006
I
-------
C-80
30,000
25,000
20,000
15,000
10,000
5,000
1950
1960
1970
1980
Census Year
1990
2000
2010
Huerfano County • Las Animas County
Figure C3 Population in Huerfano and Las Animas Counties, Colorado, 1950-2010
-------
992
2006
**
C-81
* /'
.* r
r^
«r
k-" *
V
o
HUERFANO COUNTY
Land Use/Land Cover
Perennial Ice/Snow
Open Water
Developed
Barren
Forest
Grassland/Herbaceous
Shrub/Scrub
Agricultural
Wetlands
Search Area
EPA Sampling Locations
0.5 1
I Miles
Source: Landuse, USGS National Land Cover Database (1992,2006); Municipalities, ESRI; Sampling Locations, US EPA ORD
Figure
Land Use/Land Covei
1992 and 200i
Huerfano County, Colored
Search Area
EPA Hydraulic Fracturing Stuch
-------
C-82
992
Pueblo
LAS ANIAAAS COUNTY
Land Use/Land Cover
C3 Perennial Ice/Snow
Open Water
Developed
Barren
Forest
Grassland/Herbaceous
Shrub/Scrub
Agricultural
Wetlands
0.5 1
EPA Sampling Locations
Search Area
Municipal Boundaries
] Miles
Source: Lane/use, USGS National Land Cover Database (1992,2006);
Municipalities, ESRI; Sampling Locations: US EPA ORD
Figure C-5
Land Use/Land Cover
1992 and 2006
Las Animas County, Colorado
Search Area A
EPA Hydraulic Fracturing Study
-------
C-83
Pueblo
LAS ANIAAAS COUNTY
Land Use/Land Cover Forest
., Grassland/Herbaceous^"*
Co Perennial Ice/Snow ^~"
Shrub/Scrub ^g
Open Water ^-r
Agricultural
* Developed ^
M Wetlands
Barren
0 0.5 1
^^^^^ ^^^^^ I Miles
Source: Landuse, USGS National Land Cover Database (1992,2006);
Municipalities, ESRI; Sampling Locations: US EPA ORD
EPA Sampling Location
Search Area
-><=ai.ui . u,
Municipal Boundaries
Figure C-6
Land Use/Land Cover
,««~ i <•» •»«.*•
1992 and 2006
Las Animas County, Colorado
Search Area B
rnA Ui/Hrai ili/- Fra/-ti irinn Qti irl\/
CrfA nyu I O U II «_ r I CH_ L U I 1 1 1 U _HUUy
-------
C-84
Pueblo
LAS ANIAAAS COUNTY
Land Use/Land Cover > Forest • EPA Sampling Locations
Grassland/Herbaceous^^ Search Area
Shrub/Scrub ^ Municipal Boundaries
Agricultural
•4 Wetlands
0 0.5 1 2 3
^•=^"=^^^^^ lMiles Las Animas County, Colorado
Search Area C
Source: Landuse, USGS National Land Cover Database (1992,2006); rnA Ui/Hrai ilir Fra/-ti irinn Qti irl\/
Municipalities, ESRI; Sampling Locations: US EPA ORD CrfA nyu I Cl U11 <_ r I d C L UI IM y _)LUUy
C3 Perennial Ice/Snow
Open Water
Developed
Barren
Figure C-7
Land Use/Land Cover
,««~ i <•» •»«.*•
1992 and 2006
-------
C-85
HUERFANO COUNTY
Trinidad
2012 Crops
Alfalfa
Fallow/Idle Cropland
Oats
Other Hay/Non Alfalfa
Open Water
Developed
Barren
Forest
Shrubland
Grassland Herbaceous
Wetlands
Search Area
EPA Sampling Locations
Figure C-8
2012 Crop Lands
Huerfano County, Colorado
Search Area A
EPA Hydraulic Fracturing Study
Source: Land Use, USDA; Municipalities, ESRI; Sample Locations, EPA ORD
-------
C-86
LAS ANIMAS COUNTY
2012 Crops
Alfalfa
Fallow/Idle Cropland
Other Hay/Non Alfalfa
Open Water
Developed
Forest
Shrubland
Grassland Herbaceous
Wetlands
Search Area
EPA Sampling Locations
Source: Land Use, USDA; Municipalities, ESRI; Sample Locations, EPA ORD
Figure C-9
2012 Crop Lands
Las Animas County, Colorado
Search Area A
EPA Hydraulic Fracturing Study
-------
C-87
LAS ANIMAS COUNTY
2012 Crops
Fallow/Idle Cropland
Open Water
Developed
Forest
Shrubland
Grassland Herbaceous
Wetlands
Search Area
EPA Sampling Location
Source: Land Use, USDA; Municipalities, ESRI; Sample Locations, EPA ORD
Figure C-10
2012 Crop Lands
Las Animas County, Colorado
Search Area B
EPA Hydraulic Fracturing Study
-------
C-88
LAS ANIMAS COUNTY
012 Crops
Alfalfa
Fallow/Idle Cropland
Oats
Other Hay/Non Alfalfa
Sorghum
Open Water
Developed
Forest Q_^ Search Area
Shrubland \__ | Municipal Boundaries
Grassland Herbaceous • EPA Sampling Locations
Wetlands
Source: Land Use, USDA; Municipalities, ESRI; Sample Locations, EPA ORD
Figure C-11
2012 Crop Lands
Las Animas County, Colorado
Search Area C
EPA Hydraulic Fracturing Study
-------
Cc
-c
1992-2001
2001-2006
HUERFANO COUNTY
Trinidad
Landuse Change
To Open Water
To Urban
To Barren
To Forest
To Agriculture
To Grassland/Shrub
To Wetlands
Source: Landuse, USGS National Land Cover Database (1992,2006); Sampling Locations, USEPAORD
Search Area
EPA Sampling Locations
0
0.5
I Miles
Figure C-12
Land Use Changes
1992-2001 and 2001-2006
Huerfano County, Colorado
Search Area A
EPA Hydraulic Fracturing Study
-------
C-90
1992-2001
^001 -2006
.
0.5
1 Miles
Pueblo
LAS ANIAAAS COUNTY
Land Use Change
To Open Water
To Barren
To Forest
To Grassland/Shrub
To Agriculture
To Wetlands
EPA Sampling Locations
• Search Area
Source: Landuse, USGS National Land Cover Database (1992,2006); Sampling Locations, US EPA ORD
Figure C-13
Land Use Changes
1992-2001 and 2001-2006
Las Animas County, Colorado
Search Area A
EPA Hydraulic Fracturing Study
-------
C-91
1992-2001
2001-2006
Miles
Pueblo
LAS ANIAAAS COUNTY
Land Use Change
To Open Water
To Barren
To Forest
To Grassland/Shrub
To Agriculture
To Wetlands
EPA Sampling Location
• Search Area
Source: Landuse, USGS National Land Cover Database (1992,2006); Sampling Locations, US EPA ORD
Figure C-14
Land Use Changes
1992-2001 and 2001-2006
Las Animas County, Colorado
Search Area B
EPA Hydraulic Fracturing Study
-------
C-92
1992-2001
'^
\Vt-st
Miles
Pueblo
LAS ANIAAAS COUNTY
Land Use Change
To Open Water
To Barren
To Forest
To Grassland/Shrub
To Agriculture
To Wetlands
EPA Sampling Locations
• Search Area
Source: Landuse, USGS National Land Cover Database (1992,2006); Sampling Locations, US EPA ORD
Figure C-15
Land Use Changes
1992-2001 and 2001-2006
Las Animas County, Colorado
Search Area C
EPA Hydraulic Fracturing Study
-------
C-93
1-^3
COLORADO
Pueblo
Las Animas
County
RATON BASIN
1.^3—
r> cc *r- A
ABuffer-G A A
.(3-Miles)
w^
* A A
>
•:»
^rE
A A» *^
A ^ * A' . '
^ / ;Buffer-U ^ A ' * */ 4 ABuffer-XA */^
m (*\ _l\/l i TQ^ * A Av I ~'V11 Ic/ A.
• . \ 1^ IVII It/i
M ™ A A, A A
1 A ' A^^^^A A ' .^1^^^
Legend
A Oil & Gas Wells (COGCC)
I Sampling Buffers
Sampling Locations
iMiles
Sources- Imagery: ESRI, Wells and Samples: EPA ORD
Figured 6
Sample Location Map
Las Animas County, Colorado
EPA Hydraulic Fracturing Study
-------
C-94
HUERFANO COUNTY
A
A
Lathrop
State
Park
Oefim
Sand Arroyo
Search Area A
(3-mile radius)
Miles
Legend
tied,
Walsenburg
CBM Wells (COGCC)
o EPA Sampling Locations
Search Area
Sources: Imagery, ESRI; Wells and Samples, EPA ORD, Colorado COGCC
Figure C-17
Sampling Location Map
Huerfano County, Colorado
EPA Hydraulic Fracturing Study
-------
Appendix C Background Data, Retrospective Case Study in the Raton Basin, Colorado May 2015
Attachment 1 EDR Records Search
C-95
-------
C-96
GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED / DATA CURRENCY TRACKING
To maintain currency of the following federal and state databases, EDR contacts the appropriate governmental agency
on a monthly or quarterly basis, as required.
Number of Days to Update: Provides confirmation that EDR is reporting records that have been updated within 90 days
from the date the government agency made the information available to the public.
STANDARD ENVIRONMENTAL RECORDS
Federal NPL site list
NPL: National Priority List
National Priorities List (Superfund). The NPL is a subset of CERCLIS and identifies over 1,200 sites for priority
cleanup under the Superfund Program. NPL sites may encompass relatively large areas. As such, EDR provides polygon
coverage for over 1,000 NPL site boundaries produced by EPA's Environmental Photographic Interpretation Center
(EPIC) and regional EPA offices.
Date of Government Version: 02/01/2013 Source: EPA
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 03/01/2013 Telephone: N/A
Date Made Active in Reports: 03/13/2013 Last EDR Contact: 05/09/2013
Number of Days to Update: 12 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 07/22/2013
Data Release Frequency: Quarterly
NPL Site Boundaries
Sources:
EPA's Environmental Photographic Interpretation Center (EPIC)
Telephone: 202-564-7333
EPA Region 1 EPA Region 6
Telephone 617-918-1143 Telephone: 214-655-6659
EPA Region 3 EPA Region 7
Telephone 215-814-5418 Telephone: 913-551-7247
EPA Region 4 EPA Region 8
Telephone 404-562-8033 Telephone: 303-312-6774
EPA Region 5 EPA Region 9
Telephone 312-886-6686 Telephone: 415-947-4246
EPA Region 10
Telephone 206-553-8665
Proposed NPL: Proposed National Priority List Sites
A site that has been proposed for listing on the National Priorities List through the issuance of a proposed rule
in the Federal Register. EPA then accepts public comments on the site, responds to the comments, and places on
the NPL those sites that continue to meet the requirements for listing.
Date of Government Version: 02/01/2013 Source: EPA
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 03/01/2013 Telephone: N/A
Date Made Active in Reports: 03/13/2013 Last EDR Contact: 05/09/2013
Number of Days to Update: 12 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 07/22/2013
Data Release Frequency: Quarterly
NPL LIENS: Federal Superfund Liens
Federal Superfund Liens. Under the authority granted the USEPA by CERCLA of 1980, the USEPA has the authority
to file liens against real property in order to recover remedial action expenditures or when the property owner
received notification of potential liability. USEPA compiles a listing of filed notices of Superfund Liens.
Date of Government Version: 10/15/1991 Source: EPA
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 02/02/1994 Telephone: 202-564-4267
Date Made Active in Reports: 03/30/1994 Last EDR Contact: 08/15/2011
Number of Days to Update: 56 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 11728/2011
Data Release Frequency: No Update Planned
TC3602489.16S Page GR-1
-------
C-97
GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED / DATA CURRENCY TRACKING
Federal Delisted NPL site list
DELISTED NPL: National Priority List Deletions
The National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP) establishes the criteria that the
EPA uses to delete sites from the NPL. In accordance with 40 CFR 300.425.(e), sites may be deleted from the
NPL where no further response is appropriate.
Date of Government Version: 02/01/2013 Source: EPA
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 03/01/2013 Telephone: N/A
Date Made Active in Reports: 03/13/2013 Last EDR Contact: 05/09/2013
Number of Days to Update: 12 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 07/22/2013
Data Release Frequency: Quarterly
Federal CERCLIS list
CERCLIS: Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Information System
CERCLIS contains data on potentially hazardous waste sites that have been reported to the USEPA by states, municipalities,
private companies and private persons, pursuant to Section 103 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation,
and Liability Act (CERCLA). CERCLIS contains sites which are either proposed to or on the National Priorities
List (NPL) and sites which are in the screening and assessment phase for possible inclusion on the NPL.
Date of Government Version: 02/04/2013 Source: EPA
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 03/01/2013 Telephone: 703-412-9810
Date Made Active in Reports: 03/13/2013 Last EDR Contact: 04/05/2013
Number of Days to Update: 12 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 06/10/2013
Data Release Frequency: Quarterly
FEDERAL FACILITY: Federal Facility Site Information listing
A listing of National Priority List (NPL) and Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) sites found in the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Information System (CERCLIS) Database where EPA Federal Facilities
Restoration and Reuse Office is involved in cleanup activities.
Date of Government Version: 07/31/2012 Source: Environmental Protection Agency
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 10/09/2012 Telephone: 703-603-8704
Date Made Active in Reports: 12/20/2012 Last EDR Contact: 04/10/2013
Number of Days to Update: 72 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 07/22/2013
Data Release Frequency: Varies
Federal CERCLIS NFRAP site List
CERCLIS-NFRAP: CERCLIS No Further Remedial Action Planned
Archived sites are sites that have been removed and archived from the inventory of CERCLIS sites. Archived status
indicates that, to the best of EPA's knowledge, assessment at a site has been completed and that EPA has determined
no further steps will be taken to list this site on the National Priorities List (NPL), unless information indicates
this decision was not appropriate or other considerations require a recommendation for listing at a later time.
This decision does not necessarily mean that there is no hazard associated with a given site; it only means that,
based upon available information, the location is not judged to be a potential NPL site.
Date of Government Version: 02/05/2013 Source: EPA
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 03/01/2013 Telephone: 703-412-9810
Date Made Active in Reports: 03/13/2013 Last EDR Contact: 04/05/2013
Number of Days to Update: 12 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 03/11/2013
Data Release Frequency: Quarterly
Federal RCRA CORRACTS facilities list
CORRACTS: Corrective Action Report
CORRACTS identifies hazardous waste handlers with RCRA corrective action activity.
TC3602489.16S Page GR-2
-------
C-98
GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED / DATA CURRENCY TRACKING
Date of Government Version: 02/12/2013 Source: EPA
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 02/21/2013 Telephone: 800-424-9346
Date Made Active in Reports: 02/27/2013 Last EDR Contact: 05/02/2013
Number of Days to Update: 6 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 07/15/2013
Data Release Frequency: Quarterly
Federal RCRA non-CORRACTS TSD facilities list
RCRA-TSDF: RCRA - Treatment, Storage and Disposal
RCRAInfo is EPA's comprehensive information system, providing access to data supporting the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act (RCRA) of 1976 and the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) of 1984. The database
includes selective information on sites which generate, transport, store, treat and/or dispose of hazardous waste
as defined by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). Transporters are individuals or entities that
move hazardous waste from the generator offsite to a facility that can recycle, treat, store, or dispose of the
waste. TSDFs treat, store, or dispose of the waste.
Date of Government Version: 02/12/2013 Source: Environmental Protection Agency
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 02/15/2013 Telephone: 800-438-2474
Date Made Active in Reports: 02/27/2013 Last EDR Contact: 05/02/2013
Number of Days to Update: 12 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 07/15/2013
Data Release Frequency: Quarterly
Federal RCRA generators list
RCRA-LQG: RCRA - Large Quantity Generators
RCRAInfo is EPA's comprehensive information system, providing access to data supporting the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act (RCRA) of 1976 and the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) of 1984. The database
includes selective information on sites which generate, transport, store, treat and/or dispose of hazardous waste
as defined by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). Large quantity generators (LQGs) generate
over 1,000 kilograms (kg) of hazardous waste, or over 1 kg of acutely hazardous waste per month.
Date of Government Version: 02/12/2013 Source: Environmental Protection Agency
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 02/15/2013 Telephone: 800-438-2474
Date Made Active in Reports: 02/27/2013 Last EDR Contact: 05/02/2013
Number of Days to Update: 12 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 07/15/2013
Data Release Frequency: Quarterly
RCRA-SQG: RCRA - Small Quantity Generators
RCRAInfo is EPA's comprehensive information system, providing access to data supporting the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act (RCRA) of 1976 and the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) of 1984. The database
includes selective information on sites which generate, transport, store, treat and/or dispose of hazardous waste
as defined by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). Small quantity generators (SQGs) generate
between 100 kg and 1,000 kg of hazardous waste per month.
Date of Government Version: 02/12/2013 Source: Environmental Protection Agency
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 02/15/2013 Telephone: 800-438-2474
Date Made Active in Reports: 02/27/2013 Last EDR Contact: 05/02/2013
Number of Days to Update: 12 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 07/15/2013
Data Release Frequency: Quarterly
RCRA-CESQG: RCRA - Conditionally Exempt Small Quantity Generators
RCRAInfo is EPA's comprehensive information system, providing access to data supporting the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act (RCRA) of 1976 and the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) of 1984. The database
includes selective information on sites which generate, transport, store, treat and/or dispose of hazardous waste
as defined by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). Conditionally exempt small quantity generators
(CESQGs) generate less than 100 kg of hazardous waste, or less than 1 kg of acutely hazardous waste per month.
Date of Government Version: 02/12/2013 Source: Environmental Protection Agency
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 02/15/2013 Telephone: 800-438-2474
Date Made Active in Reports: 02/27/2013 Last EDR Contact: 05/02/2013
Number of Days to Update: 12 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 07/15/2013
Data Release Frequency: Varies
TC3602489.16S Page GR-3
-------
C-99
GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED / DATA CURRENCY TRACKING
Federal institutional controls / engineering controls registries
US ENG CONTROLS: Engineering Controls Sites List
A listing of sites with engineering controls in place. Engineering controls include various forms of caps, building
foundations, liners, and treatment methods to create pathway elimination for regulated substances to enter environmental
media or effect human health.
Date of Government Version: 12/19/2012 Source: Environmental Protection Agency
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 12/26/2012 Telephone: 703-603-0695
Date Made Active in Reports: 02/27/2013 Last EDR Contact: 03/11/2013
Number of Days to Update: 63 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 06/24/2013
Data Release Frequency: Varies
US INST CONTROL: Sites with Institutional Controls
A listing of sites with institutional controls in place. Institutional controls include administrative measures,
such as groundwater use restrictions, construction restrictions, property use restrictions, and post remediation
care requirements intended to prevent exposure to contaminants remaining on site. Deed restrictions are generally
required as part of the institutional controls.
Date of Government Version: 12/19/2012 Source: Environmental Protection Agency
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 12/26/2012 Telephone: 703-603-0695
Date Made Active in Reports: 02/27/2013 Last EDR Contact: 03/11/2013
Number of Days to Update: 63 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 06/24/2013
Data Release Frequency: Varies
LUCIS: Land Use Control Information System
LUCIS contains records of land use control information pertaining to the former Navy Base Realignment and Closure
properties.
Date of Government Version: 12/09/2005 Source: Department of the Navy
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 12/11/2006 Telephone: 843-820-7326
Date Made Active in Reports: 01/11/2007 Last EDR Contact: 02/18/2013
Number of Days to Update: 31 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 06/03/2013
Data Release Frequency: Varies
Federal ERNS list
ERNS: Emergency Response Notification System
Emergency Response Notification System. ERNS records and stores information on reported releases of oil and hazardous
substances.
Date of Government Version: 12/31/2012 Source: National Response Center, United States Coast Guard
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 01/17/2013 Telephone: 202-267-2180
Date Made Active in Reports: 02/15/2013 Last EDR Contact: 04/02/2013
Number of Days to Update: 29 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 07/15/2013
Data Release Frequency: Annually
State- and tribal - equivalent NPL
SHWS: Hazardous Sites Cleanup Act Site List
The Hazardous Sites Cleanup Act Site List includes sites listed on PA Priority List, sites delisted from PA Priority
List, Interim Response Completed sites, and Sites Being Studied or Response Being Planned.
Date of Government Version: 01/08/2013 Source: Department Environmental Protection
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 01/24/2013 Telephone: 717-783-7816
Date Made Active in Reports: 02/19/2013 Last EDR Contact: 04/26/2013
Number of Days to Update: 26 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 08/05/2013
Data Release Frequency: Semi-Annually
TC3602489.16S Page GR-4
-------
C-100
GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED / DATA CURRENCY TRACKING
HSCA: HSCA Remedial Sites Listing
A list of remedial sites on the PA Priority List. This is the PA state equivalent of the federal NPL superfund
list.
Date of Government Version: 12/31/2012 Source: Department of Environmental Protection
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 01/25/2013 Telephone: 717-783-7816
Date Made Active in Reports: 02/19/2013 Last EDR Contact: 04/24/2013
Number of Days to Update: 25 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 08/05/2013
Data Release Frequency: Varies
State and tribal landfill and/or solid waste disposal site lists
SWF/LF: Operating Facilities
The listing includes Municipal Waste Landfills, Construction/Demolition Waste Landfills and Waste-to-Energy Facilities.
Date of Government Version: 02/26/2013 Source: Department of Environmental Protection
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 02/28/2013 Telephone: 717-787-7564
Date Made Active in Reports: 04/17/2013 Last EDR Contact: 02/26/2013
Number of Days to Update: 48 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 06/10/2013
Data Release Frequency: Semi-Annually
State and tribal leaking storage tank lists
LUST: Storage Tank Release Sites
Leaking Underground Storage Tank Incident Reports. LUST records contain an inventory of reported leaking underground
storage tank incidents. Not all states maintain these records, and the information stored varies by state.
Date of Government Version: 03/04/2013 Source: Department of Environmental Protection
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 03/20/2013 Telephone: 717-783-7509
Date Made Active in Reports: 04/18/2013 Last EDR Contact: 05/02/2013
Number of Days to Update: 29 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 07/01/2013
Data Release Frequency: Semi-Annually
UNREG LTANKS: Unregulated Tank Cases
Leaking storage tank cases from unregulated storage tanks.
Date of Government Version: 04/12/2002 Source: Department of Environmental Protection
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 08/14/2003 Telephone: 717-783-7509
Date Made Active in Reports: 08/29/2003 Last EDR Contact: 08/14/2003
Number of Days to Update: 15 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: N/A
Data Release Frequency: No Update Planned
LAST: Storage Tank Release Sites
Leaking Aboveground Storage Tank Incident Reports.
Date of Government Version: 03/04/2013 Source: Department of Environmental Protection
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 03/20/2013 Telephone: 717-783-7509
Date Made Active in Reports: 04/18/2013 Last EDR Contact: 05/02/2013
Number of Days to Update: 29 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 07/01/2013
Data Release Frequency: Semi-Annually
INDIAN LUST R8: Leaking Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land
LUSTs on Indian land in Colorado, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah and Wyoming.
Date of Government Version: 08/27/2012 Source: EPA Region 8
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 08/28/2012 Telephone: 303-312-6271
Date Made Active in Reports: 10/16/2012 Last EDR Contact: 04/29/2013
Number of Days to Update: 49 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 08/12/2013
Data Release Frequency: Quarterly
TC3602489.16S Page GR-5
-------
C-101
GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED / DATA CURRENCY TRACKING
INDIAN LUST R10: Leaking Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land
LUSTs on Indian land in Alaska, Idaho, Oregon and Washington.
Date of Government Version: 02/05/2013 Source: EPA Region 10
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 02/06/2013 Telephone: 206-553-2857
Date Made Active in Reports: 04/12/2013 Last EDR Contact: 04/29/2013
Number of Days to Update: 65 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 08/12/2013
Data Release Frequency: Quarterly
INDIAN LUST R1: Leaking Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land
A listing of leaking underground storage tank locations on Indian Land.
Date of Government Version: 09/28/2012 Source: EPA Region 1
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 11/01/2012 Telephone: 617-918-1313
Date Made Active in Reports: 04/12/2013 Last EDR Contact: 05/01/2013
Number of Days to Update: 162 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 08/12/2013
Data Release Frequency: Varies
INDIAN LUST R7: Leaking Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land
LUSTs on Indian land in Iowa, Kansas, and Nebraska
Date of Government Version: 12/31/2012 Source: EPA Region 7
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 02/28/2013 Telephone: 913-551-7003
Date Made Active in Reports: 04/12/2013 Last EDR Contact: 04/29/2013
Number of Days to Update: 43 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 08/12/2013
Data Release Frequency: Varies
INDIAN LUST R6: Leaking Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land
LUSTs on Indian land in New Mexico and Oklahoma.
Date of Government Version: 09/12/2011 Source: EPA Region 6
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 09/13/2011 Telephone: 214-665-6597
Date Made Active in Reports: 11/11/2011 Last EDR Contact: 04/29/2013
Number of Days to Update: 59 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 08/12/2013
Data Release Frequency: Varies
INDIAN LUST R4: Leaking Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land
LUSTs on Indian land in Florida, Mississippi and North Carolina.
Date of Government Version: 02/06/2013 Source: EPA Region 4
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 02/08/2013 Telephone: 404-562-8677
Date Made Active in Reports: 04/12/2013 Last EDR Contact: 04/29/2013
Number of Days to Update: 63 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 08/12/2013
Data Release Frequency: Semi-Annually
INDIAN LUST R9: Leaking Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land
LUSTs on Indian land in Arizona, California, New Mexico and Nevada
Date of Government Version: 03/01/2013 Source: Environmental Protection Agency
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 03/01/2013 Telephone: 415-972-3372
Date Made Active in Reports: 04/12/2013 Last EDR Contact: 04/29/2013
Number of Days to Update: 42 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 08/12/2013
Data Release Frequency: Quarterly
State and tribal registered storage tank lists
UST: Listing of Pennsylvania Regulated Underground Storage Tanks
Registered Underground Storage Tanks. UST's are regulated under Subtitle I of the Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act (RCRA) and must be registered with the state department responsible for administering the UST program. Available
information varies by state program.
TC3602489.16S Page GR-6
-------
C-102
GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED / DATA CURRENCY TRACKING
Date of Government Version: 03/01/2013 Source: Department of Environmental Protection
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 03/21/2013 Telephone: 717-772-5599
Date Made Active in Reports: 04/17/2013 Last EDR Contact: 05/02/2013
Number of Days to Update: 27 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 07/01/2013
Data Release Frequency: Varies
AST: Listing of Pennsylvania Regulated Aboveground Storage Tanks
Registered Aboveground Storage Tanks.
Date of Government Version: 03/01/2013 Source: Department of Environmental Protection
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 03/21/2013 Telephone: 717-772-5599
Date Made Active in Reports: 04/17/2013 Last EDR Contact: 05/02/2013
Number of Days to Update: 27 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 07/01/2013
Data Release Frequency: Varies
INDIAN UST R4: Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land
The Indian Underground Storage Tank (UST) database provides information about underground storage tanks on Indian
land in EPA Region 4 (Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee
and Tribal Nations)
Date of Government Version: 02/06/2013 Source: EPA Region 4
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 02/08/2013 Telephone: 404-562-9424
Date Made Active in Reports: 04/12/2013 Last EDR Contact: 04/29/2013
Number of Days to Update: 63 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 08/12/2013
Data Release Frequency: Semi-Annually
INDIAN UST R7: Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land
The Indian Underground Storage Tank (UST) database provides information about underground storage tanks on Indian
land in EPA Region 7 (Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska, and 9 Tribal Nations).
Date of Government Version: 12/31/2012 Source: EPA Region 7
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 02/28/2013 Telephone: 913-551-7003
Date Made Active in Reports: 04/12/2013 Last EDR Contact: 04/29/2013
Number of Days to Update: 43 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 08/12/2013
Data Release Frequency: Varies
INDIAN UST R5: Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land
The Indian Underground Storage Tank (UST) database provides information about underground storage tanks on Indian
land in EPA Region 5 (Michigan, Minnesota and Wisconsin and Tribal Nations).
Date of Government Version: 08/02/2012 Source: EPA Region 5
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 08/03/2012 Telephone: 312-886-6136
Date Made Active in Reports: 11/05/2012 Last EDR Contact: 04/29/2013
Number of Days to Update: 94 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 08/12/2013
Data Release Frequency: Varies
INDIAN UST R6: Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land
The Indian Underground Storage Tank (UST) database provides information about underground storage tanks on Indian
land in EPA Region 6 (Louisiana, Arkansas, Oklahoma, New Mexico, Texas and 65 Tribes).
Date of Government Version: 05/10/2011 Source: EPA Region 6
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 05/11/2011 Telephone: 214-665-7591
Date Made Active in Reports: 06/14/2011 Last EDR Contact: 04/29/2013
Number of Days to Update: 34 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 08/12/2013
Data Release Frequency: Semi-Annually
INDIAN UST R1: Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land
The Indian Underground Storage Tank (UST) database provides information about underground storage tanks on Indian
land in EPA Region 1 (Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Vermont and ten Tribal
Nations).
TC3602489.16S Page GR-7
-------
C-103
GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED / DATA CURRENCY TRACKING
Date of Government Version: 09/28/2012 Source: EPA, Region 1
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 11/07/2012 Telephone: 617-918-1313
Date Made Active in Reports: 04/12/2013 Last EDR Contact: 04/29/2013
Number of Days to Update: 156 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 08/12/2013
Data Release Frequency: Varies
INDIAN USTR10: Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land
The Indian Underground Storage Tank (UST) database provides information about underground storage tanks on Indian
land in EPA Region 10 (Alaska, Idaho, Oregon, Washington, and Tribal Nations).
Date of Government Version: 02/05/2013 Source: EPA Region 10
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 02/06/2013 Telephone: 206-553-2857
Date Made Active in Reports: 04/12/2013 Last EDR Contact: 04/29/2013
Number of Days to Update: 65 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 08/12/2013
Data Release Frequency: Quarterly
INDIAN UST R9: Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land
The Indian Underground Storage Tank (UST) database provides information about underground storage tanks on Indian
land in EPA Region 9 (Arizona, California, Hawaii, Nevada, the Pacific Islands, and Tribal Nations).
Date of Government Version: 02/21/2013 Source: EPA Region 9
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 02/26/2013 Telephone: 415-972-3368
Date Made Active in Reports: 04/12/2013 Last EDR Contact: 04/29/2013
Number of Days to Update: 45 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 08/12/2013
Data Release Frequency: Quarterly
INDIAN UST R8: Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land
The Indian Underground Storage Tank (UST) database provides information about underground storage tanks on Indian
land in EPA Region 8 (Colorado, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah, Wyoming and 27 Tribal Nations).
Date of Government Version: 08/27/2012 Source: EPA Region 8
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 08/28/2012 Telephone: 303-312-6137
Date Made Active in Reports: 10/16/2012 Last EDR Contact: 04/29/2013
Number of Days to Update: 49 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 08/12/2013
Data Release Frequency: Quarterly
FEMA UST: Underground Storage Tank Listing
A listing of all FEMA owned underground storage tanks.
Date of Government Version: 01/01/2010 Source: FEMA
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 02/16/2010 Telephone: 202-646-5797
Date Made Active in Reports: 04/12/2010 Last EDR Contact: 04/18/2013
Number of Days to Update: 55 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 07/29/2013
Data Release Frequency: Varies
State and tribal institutional control / engineering control registries
ENG CONTROLS: Engineering Controls Site Listing
Under the Land Recycling Act (Act 2) persons who perform a site cleanup using the site-specific standard or
the special industrial area standard may use engineering or institutional controls as part of the response action.
Engineering controls include various forms of caps, building foundations, liners, and treatment methods to create
pathway elimination for regulated substances to enter environmental media or effect human health.
Date of Government Version: 05/15/2008 Source: Department of Environmental Protection
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 05/16/2008 Telephone: 717-783-9470
Date Made Active in Reports: 06/12/2008 Last EDR Contact: 04/24/2013
Number of Days to Update: 27 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 08/05/2013
Data Release Frequency: Varies
TC3602489.16S Page GR-8
-------
C-104
GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED / DATA CURRENCY TRACKING
AUL: Environmental Covenants Listing
A listing of sites with environmental covenants.
Date of Government Version: 01/22/2013 Source: Department of Environmental Protection
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 01/24/2013 Telephone: 717-783-7509
Date Made Active in Reports: 02/19/2013 Last EDR Contact: 04/23/2013
Number of Days to Update: 26 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 08/05/2013
Data Release Frequency: Varies
INST CONTROL: Institutional Controls Site Listing
Under the Land Recycling Act (Act 2) persons who perform a site cleanup using the site-specific standard or
the special industrial area standard may use engineering or institutional controls as part of the response action.
Institutional controls include administrative measures, such as groundwater use restrictions, construction restrictions,
property use restrictions, and post remediation care requirements intended to prevent exposure to contaminants
remaining on site. Deed restrictions are generally required as part of the institutional controls.
Date of Government Version: 05/15/2008 Source: Department of Environmental Protection
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 05/16/2008 Telephone: 717-783-9470
Date Made Active in Reports: 06/12/2008 Last EDR Contact: 04/24/2013
Number of Days to Update: 27 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 08/05/2013
Data Release Frequency: Varies
State and tribal voluntary cleanup sites
INDIAN VCP R7: Voluntary Cleanup Priority Lisitng
A listing of voluntary cleanup priority sites located on Indian Land located in Region 7.
Date of Government Version: 03/20/2008 Source: EPA, Region 7
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 04/22/2008 Telephone: 913-551 -7365
Date Made Active in Reports: 05/19/2008 Last EDR Contact: 04/20/2009
Number of Days to Update: 27 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 07/20/2009
Data Release Frequency: Varies
INDIAN VCP R1: Voluntary Cleanup Priority Listing
A listing of voluntary cleanup priority sites located on Indian Land located in Region 1.
Date of Government Version: 09/28/2012 Source: EPA, Region 1
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 10/02/2012 Telephone: 617-918-1102
Date Made Active in Reports: 10/16/2012 Last EDR Contact: 04/05/2013
Number of Days to Update: 14 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 07/15/2013
Data Release Frequency: Varies
VCP: Voluntary Cleanup Program Sites
The VCP listings included Completed Sites, Sites in Progress and Act 2 Non-Use Aquifer Determinations Sites. Formerly
known as the Act 2, the Land Recycling Program encourages the voluntary cleanup and reuse of contaminated commercial
and industrial sites.
Date of Government Version: 01/15/2013 Source: Department of Environmental Protection
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 01/16/2013 Telephone: 717-783-2388
Date Made Active in Reports: 02/19/2013 Last EDR Contact: 04/17/2013
Number of Days to Update: 34 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 07/29/2013
Data Release Frequency: Semi-Annually
State and tribal Brownfields sites
BROWNFIELDS: Brownfields Sites
Brownfields are generally defined as abandoned or underused industrial or commercial properties where redevelopment
is complicated by actual or perceived environmental contamination. Brownfields vary in size, location, age and
past use. They can range from a small, abandoned corner gas station to a large, multi-acre former manufacturing
plant that has been closed for years.
TC3602489.16S Page GR-9
-------
C-105
GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED / DATA CURRENCY TRACKING
Date of Government Version: 02/19/2013 Source: Department of Environmental Protection
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 02/21/2013 Telephone: 717-783-1566
Date Made Active in Reports: 04/17/2013 Last EDR Contact: 04/24/2013
Number of Days to Update: 55 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 08/05/2013
Data Release Frequency: Varies
ADDITIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL RECORDS
Local Brownfield lists
US BROWNFIELDS: A Listing of Brownfields Sites
Brownfields are real property, the expansion, redevelopment, or reuse of which may be complicated by the presence
or potential presence of a hazardous substance, pollutant, or contaminant. Cleaning up and reinvesting in these
properties takes development pressures off of undeveloped, open land, and both improves and protects the environment.
Assessment, Cleanup and Redevelopment Exchange System (ACRES) stores information reported by EPA Brownfields
grant recipients on brownfields properties assessed or cleaned up with grant funding as well as information on
Targeted Brownfields Assessments performed by EPA Regions. A listing of ACRES Brownfield sites is obtained from
Cleanups in My Community. Cleanups in My Community provides information on Brownfields properties for which information
is reported back to EPA, as well as areas served by Brownfields grant programs.
Date of Government Version: 12/10/2012 Source: Environmental Protection Agency
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 12/11/2012 Telephone: 202-566-2777
Date Made Active in Reports: 12/20/2012 Last EDR Contact: 03/26/2013
Number of Days to Update: 9 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 07/08/2013
Data Release Frequency: Semi-Annually
Local Lists of Landfill / Solid Waste Disposal Sites
ODI: Open Dump Inventory
An open dump is defined as a disposal facility that does not comply with one or more of the Part 257 or Part 258
Subtitle D Criteria.
Date of Government Version: 06/30/1985 Source: Environmental Protection Agency
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 08/09/2004 Telephone: 800-424-9346
Date Made Active in Reports: 09/17/2004 Last EDR Contact: 06/09/2004
Number of Days to Update: 39 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: N/A
Data Release Frequency: No Update Planned
DEBRIS REGION 9: Torres Martinez Reservation Illegal Dump Site Locations
A listing of illegal dump sites location on the Torres Martinez Indian Reservation located in eastern Riverside
County and northern Imperial County, California.
Date of Government Version: 01/12/2009 Source: EPA, Region 9
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 05/07/2009 Telephone: 415-947-4219
Date Made Active in Reports: 09/21/2009 Last EDR Contact: 04/29/2013
Number of Days to Update: 137 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 08/12/2013
Data Release Frequency: No Update Planned
HIST LF INACTIVE: Inactive Facilities List
A listing of inactive non-hazardous facilities (10000 & 300000 series). This listing is no longer updated or
maintained by the Department of Environmental Protection. At the time the listing was available, the DEP?s name
was the Department of Environmental Resources.
Date of Government Version: 12/20/1994 Source: Department of Environmental Protection
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 07/12/2005 Telephone: 717-787-7381
Date Made Active in Reports: 08/11/2005 Last EDR Contact: 06/21/2005
Number of Days to Update: 30 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 12/19/2005
Data Release Frequency: No Update Planned
TC3602489.16S Page GR-10
-------
C-106
GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED / DATA CURRENCY TRACKING
HIST LF INVENTORY: Facility Inventory
A listing of solid waste facilities. This listing is no longer updated or maintained by the Department of Environmental
Protection. At the time the listing was available, the DEP?s name was the Department of Environmental Resources.
Date of Government Version: 06/02/1999 Source: Department of Environmental Protection
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 07/12/2005 Telephone: 717-787-7381
Date Made Active in Reports: 08/11/2005 Last EDR Contact: 09/19/2005
Number of Days to Update: 30 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 12/19/2005
Data Release Frequency: No Update Planned
HIST LF ALI: Abandoned Landfill Inventory
The report provides facility information recorded in the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection ALI
database. Some of this information has been abstracted from old records and may not accurately reflect the current
conditions and status at these facilities
Date of Government Version: 01/04/2005 Source: Department of Environmental Protection
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 01/04/2005 Telephone: 717-787-7564
Date Made Active in Reports: 02/04/2005 Last EDR Contact: 11/26/2012
Number of Days to Update: 31 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 03/11/2013
Data Release Frequency: Varies
INDIAN ODI: Report on the Status of Open Dumps on Indian Lands
Location of open dumps on Indian land.
Date of Government Version: 12/31/1998 Source: Environmental Protection Agency
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 12/03/2007 Telephone: 703-308-8245
Date Made Active in Reports: 01/24/2008 Last EDR Contact: 05/03/2013
Number of Days to Update: 52 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 08/19/2013
Data Release Frequency: Varies
Local Lists of Hazardous waste / Contaminated Sites
US CDL: Clandestine Drug Labs
A listing of clandestine drug lab locations. The U.S. Department of Justice ("the Department") provides this
web site as a public service. It contains addresses of some locations where law enforcement agencies reported
they found chemicals or other items that indicated the presence of either clandestine drug laboratories or dumpsites.
In most cases, the source of the entries is not the Department, and the Department has not verified the entry
and does not guarantee its accuracy. Members of the public must verify the accuracy of all entries by, for example,
contacting local law enforcement and local health departments.
Date of Government Version: 11/14/2012 Source: Drug Enforcement Administration
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 12/11/2012 Telephone: 202-307-1000
Date Made Active in Reports: 02/15/2013 Last EDR Contact: 03/04/2013
Number of Days to Update: 66 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 06/17/2013
Data Release Frequency: Quarterly
US HIST CDL: National Clandestine Laboratory Register
A listing of clandestine drug lab locations. The U.S. Department of Justice ("the Department") provides this
web site as a public service. It contains addresses of some locations where law enforcement agencies reported
they found chemicals or other items that indicated the presence of either clandestine drug laboratories or dumpsites.
In most cases, the source of the entries is not the Department, and the Department has not verified the entry
and does not guarantee its accuracy. Members of the public must verify the accuracy of all entries by, for example,
contacting local law enforcement and local health departments.
Date of Government Version: 09/01/2007 Source: Drug Enforcement Administration
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 11/19/2008 Telephone: 202-307-1000
Date Made Active in Reports: 03/30/2009 Last EDR Contact: 03/23/2009
Number of Days to Update: 131 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 06/22/2009
Data Release Frequency: No Update Planned
Local Lists of Registered Storage Tanks
TC3602489.16s Page GR-11
-------
C-107
GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED / DATA CURRENCY TRACKING
ARCHIVE UST: Archived Underground Storage Tank Sites
The list includes tanks storing highly hazardous substances that were removed from the DEP's Storage Tank Information
database because of the Department's policy on sensitive information. The list also may include tanks that are
removed or permanently closed.
Date of Government Version: 03/01/2013 Source: Department of Environmental Protection
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 03/21/2013 Telephone: 717-772-5599
Date Made Active in Reports: 04/18/2013 Last EDR Contact: 05/02/2013
Number of Days to Update: 28 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 07/01/2013
Data Release Frequency: Varies
ARCHIVE AST: Archived Aboveground Storage Tank Sites
The list includes aboveground tanks with a capacity greater than 21,000 gallons that were removed from the DEP's
Storage Tank Information database because of the Department's policy on sensitive information. The list also may
include tanks that are removed or permanently closed.
Date of Government Version: 03/01/2013 Source: Department of Environmental Protection
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 03/21/2013 Telephone: 717-772-5599
Date Made Active in Reports: 04/18/2013 Last EDR Contact: 05/02/2013
Number of Days to Update: 28 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 07/01/2013
Data Release Frequency: Varies
Local Land Records
LIENS 2: CERCLA Lien Information
A Federal CERCLA ('Superfund') lien can exist by operation of law at any site or property at which EPA has spent
Superfund monies. These monies are spent to investigate and address releases and threatened releases of contamination.
CERCLIS provides information as to the identity of these sites and properties.
Date of Government Version: 02/16/2012 Source: Environmental Protection Agency
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 03/26/2012 Telephone: 202-564-6023
Date Made Active in Reports: 06/14/2012 Last EDR Contact: 04/29/2013
Number of Days to Update: 80 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 08/12/2013
Data Release Frequency: Varies
ACT 2-DEED: Act 2-Deed Acknowledgment Sites
This listing pertains to sites where the Department has approved a cleanup requiring a deed acknowledgment under
Act 2. This list includes sites remediated to a non-residential Statewide health standard (Section 303(g));
all sites demonstrating attainment of a Site-specific standard (Section 304(m)); and sites being remediated
as a special industrial area (Section 305(g)). Persons who remediated a site to a standard that requires a
deed acknowledgment shall comply with the requirements of the Solid Waste Management Act or the Hazardous Sites
Cleanup Act, as referenced in Act 2. These statutes require a property description section in the deed concerning
the hazardous substance disposal on the site. The location of disposed hazardous substances and a description
of the type of hazardous substances disposed on the site shall be included in the deed acknowledgment. A deed
acknowledgment is required at the time of conveyance of the property.
Date of Government Version: 04/23/2010 Source: Department of Environmental Protection
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 04/28/2010 Telephone: 717-783-9470
Date Made Active in Reports: 04/30/2010 Last EDR Contact: 07/22/2011
Number of Days to Update: 2 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 11707/2011
Data Release Frequency: Varies
Records of Emergency Release Reports
HMIRS: Hazardous Materials Information Reporting System
Hazardous Materials Incident Report System. HMIRS contains hazardous material spill incidents reported to DOT.
Date of Government Version: 12/31/2012 Source: U.S. Department of Transportation
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 01/03/2013 Telephone: 202-366-4555
Date Made Active in Reports: 02/27/2013 Last EDR Contact: 04/02/2013
Number of Days to Update: 55 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 07/15/2013
Data Release Frequency: Annually
TC3602489.16S Page GR-12
-------
C-108
GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED / DATA CURRENCY TRACKING
SPILLS: State spills
A listing of hazardous material incidents.
Date of Government Version: 01/16/2013 Source: DEP, Emergency Response
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 01/24/2013 Telephone: 717-787-5715
Date Made Active in Reports: 02/19/2013 Last EDR Contact: 04/29/2013
Number of Days to Update: 26 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 07/29/2013
Data Release Frequency: Varies
Other Ascertainable Records
RCRA NonGen / NLR: RCRA - Non Generators
RCRAInfo is EPA's comprehensive information system, providing access to data supporting the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act (RCRA) of 1976 and the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) of 1984. The database
includes selective information on sites which generate, transport, store, treat and/or dispose of hazardous waste
as defined by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). Non-Generators do not presently generate hazardous
waste.
Date of Government Version: 02/12/2013 Source: Environmental Protection Agency
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 02/15/2013 Telephone: 800-438-2474
Date Made Active in Reports: 02/27/2013 Last EDR Contact: 05/02/2013
Number of Days to Update: 12 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 07/15/2013
Data Release Frequency: Varies
DOT OPS: Incident and Accident Data
Department of Transporation, Office of Pipeline Safety Incident and Accident data.
Date of Government Version: 07/31/2012 Source: Department of Transporation, Office of Pipeline Safety
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 08/07/2012 Telephone: 202-366-4595
Date Made Active in Reports: 09/18/2012 Last EDR Contact: 05/07/2013
Number of Days to Update: 42 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 08/19/2013
Data Release Frequency: Varies
DOD: Department of Defense Sites
This data set consists of federally owned or administered lands, administered by the Department of Defense, that
have any area equal to or greater than 640 acres of the United States, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands.
Date of Government Version: 12/31/2005 Source: USGS
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 11/10/2006 Telephone: 888-275-8747
Date Made Active in Reports: 01/11/2007 Last EDR Contact: 04/19/2013
Number of Days to Update: 62 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 07/29/2013
Data Release Frequency: Semi-Annually
FUDS: Formerly Used Defense Sites
The listing includes locations of Formerly Used Defense Sites properties where the US Army Corps of Engineers
is actively working or will take necessary cleanup actions.
Date of Government Version: 12/31/2011 Source: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 02/26/2013 Telephone: 202-528-4285
Date Made Active in Reports: 03/13/2013 Last EDR Contact: 03/11/2013
Number of Days to Update: 15 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 06/24/2013
Data Release Frequency: Varies
CONSENT: Superfund (CERCLA) Consent Decrees
Major legal settlements that establish responsibility and standards for cleanup at NPL (Superfund) sites. Released
periodically by United States District Courts after settlement by parties to litigation matters.
Date of Government Version: 12/31/2011 Source: Department of Justice, Consent Decree Library
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 01/15/2013 Telephone: Varies
Date Made Active in Reports: 03/13/2013 Last EDR Contact: 04/01/2013
Number of Days to Update: 57 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 07/15/2013
Data Release Frequency: Varies
TC3602489.16S Page GR-13
-------
C-109
GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED / DATA CURRENCY TRACKING
ROD: Records Of Decision
Record of Decision. ROD documents mandate a permanent remedy at an NPL (Superfund) site containing technical
and health information to aid in the cleanup.
Date of Government Version: 12/18/2012 Source: EPA
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 03/13/2013 Telephone: 703-416-0223
Date Made Active in Reports: 04/12/2013 Last EDR Contact: 03/13/2013
Number of Days to Update: 30 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 06/24/2013
Data Release Frequency: Annually
UMTRA: Uranium Mill Tailings Sites
Uranium ore was mined by private companies for federal government use in national defense programs. When the mills
shut down, large piles of the sand-like material (mill tailings) remain after uranium has been extracted from
the ore. Levels of human exposure to radioactive materials from the piles are low; however, in some cases tailings
were used as construction materials before the potential health hazards of the tailings were recognized.
Date of Government Version: 09/14/2010 Source: Department of Energy
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 10/07/2011 Telephone: 505-845-0011
Date Made Active in Reports: 03/01/2012 Last EDR Contact: 02/25/2013
Number of Days to Update: 146 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 06/10/2013
Data Release Frequency: Varies
US MINES: Mines Master Index File
Contains all mine identification numbers issued for mines active or opened since 1971. The data also includes
violation information.
Date of Government Version: 08/18/2011 Source: Department of Labor, Mine Safety and Health Administration
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 09/08/2011 Telephone: 303-231 -5959
Date Made Active in Reports: 09/29/2011 Last EDR Contact: 03/06/2013
Number of Days to Update: 21 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 06/17/2013
Data Release Frequency: Semi-Annually
TRIS: Toxic Chemical Release Inventory System
Toxic Release Inventory System. TRIS identifies facilities which release toxic chemicals to the air, water and
land in reportable quantities under SARA Title III Section 313.
Date of Government Version: 12/31/2009 Source: EPA
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 09/01/2011 Telephone: 202-566-0250
Date Made Active in Reports: 01/10/2012 Last EDR Contact: 02/26/2013
Number of Days to Update: 131 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 06/10/2013
Data Release Frequency: Annually
TSCA: Toxic Substances Control Act
Toxic Substances Control Act. TSCA identifies manufacturers and importers of chemical substances included on the
TSCA Chemical Substance Inventory list. It includes data on the production volume of these substances by plant
site.
Date of Government Version: 12/31/2006 Source: EPA
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 09/29/2010 Telephone: 202-260-5521
Date Made Active in Reports: 12/02/2010 Last EDR Contact: 03/28/2013
Number of Days to Update: 64 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 07/08/2013
Data Release Frequency: Every 4 Years
FTTS: FIFRA/ TSCA Tracking System - FIFRA (Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, & Rodenticide Act)/TSCA (Toxic Substances Control Act)
FTTS tracks administrative cases and pesticide enforcement actions and compliance activities related to FIFRA,
TSCA and EPCRA (Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act). To maintain currency, EDR contacts the
Agency on a quarterly basis.
Date of Government Version: 04/09/2009 Source: EPA/Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 04/16/2009 Telephone: 202-566-1667
Date Made Active in Reports: 05/11/2009 Last EDR Contact: 02/25/2013
Number of Days to Update: 25 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 06/10/2013
Data Release Frequency: Quarterly
TC3602489.16S Page GR-14
-------
C-110
GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED / DATA CURRENCY TRACKING
FTTS INSP: FIFRA/ TSCA Tracking System - FIFRA (Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, & Rodenticide Act)/TSCA (Toxic Substances Control Act)
A listing of FIFRA/TSCA Tracking System (FTTS) inspections and enforcements.
Date of Government Version: 04/09/2009 Source: EPA
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 04/16/2009 Telephone: 202-566-1667
Date Made Active in Reports: 05/11/2009 Last EDR Contact: 02/25/2013
Number of Days to Update: 25 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 06/10/2013
Data Release Frequency: Quarterly
HIST FTTS: FIFRA/TSCA Tracking System Administrative Case Listing
A complete administrative case listing from the FIFRA/TSCA Tracking System (FTTS) for all ten EPA regions. The
information was obtained from the National Compliance Database (NCDB). NCDB supports the implementation of FIFRA
(Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act) and TSCA (Toxic Substances Control Act). Some EPA regions
are now closing out records. Because of that, and the fact that some EPA regions are not providing EPA Headquarters
with updated records, it was decided to create a HIST FTTS database. It included records that may not be included
in the newer FTTS database updates. This database is no longer updated.
Date of Government Version: 10/19/2006 Source: Environmental Protection Agency
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 03/01/2007 Telephone: 202-564-2501
Date Made Active in Reports: 04/10/2007 Last EDR Contact: 12/17/2007
Number of Days to Update: 40 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 03/17/2008
Data Release Frequency: No Update Planned
HIST FTTS INSP: FIFRA/TSCA Tracking System Inspection & Enforcement Case Listing
A complete inspection and enforcement case listing from the FIFRA/TSCA Tracking System (FTTS) for all ten EPA
regions. The information was obtained from the National Compliance Database (NCDB). NCDB supports the implementation
of FIFRA (Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act) and TSCA (Toxic Substances Control Act). Some
EPA regions are now closing out records. Because of that, and the fact that some EPA regions are not providing
EPA Headquarters with updated records, it was decided to create a HIST FTTS database. It included records that
may not be included in the newer FTTS database updates. This database is no longer updated.
Date of Government Version: 10/19/2006 Source: Environmental Protection Agency
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 03/01/2007 Telephone: 202-564-2501
Date Made Active in Reports: 04/10/2007 Last EDR Contact: 12/17/2008
Number of Days to Update: 40 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 03/17/2008
Data Release Frequency: No Update Planned
SSTS: Section 7 Tracking Systems
Section 7 of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act, as amended (92 Stat. 829) requires all
registered pesticide-producing establishments to submit a report to the Environmental Protection Agency by March
1st each year. Each establishment must report the types and amounts of pesticides, active ingredients and devices
being produced, and those having been produced and sold or distributed in the past year.
Date of Government Version: 12/31/2009 Source: EPA
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 12/10/2010 Telephone: 202-564-4203
Date Made Active in Reports: 02/25/2011 Last EDR Contact: 04/29/2013
Number of Days to Update: 77 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 08/12/2013
Data Release Frequency: Annually
ICIS: Integrated Compliance Information System
The Integrated Compliance Information System (ICIS) supports the information needs of the national enforcement
and compliance program as well as the unique needs of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
program.
Date of Government Version: 07/20/2011 Source: Environmental Protection Agency
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 11/10/2011 Telephone: 202-564-5088
Date Made Active in Reports: 01/10/2012 Last EDR Contact: 04/15/2013
Number of Days to Update: 61 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 07/29/2013
Data Release Frequency: Quarterly
TC3602489.16S Page GR-15
-------
C-lll
GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED / DATA CURRENCY TRACKING
PADS: PCB Activity Database System
PCB Activity Database. PADS Identifies generators, transporters, commercial storers and/or brokers and disposers
of PCB's who are required to notify the EPA of such activities.
Date of Government Version: 11/01/2010 Source: EPA
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 11/10/2010 Telephone: 202-566-0500
Date Made Active in Reports: 02/16/2011 Last EDR Contact: 04/19/2013
Number of Days to Update: 98 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 07/29/2013
Data Release Frequency: Annually
MLTS: Material Licensing Tracking System
MLTS is maintained by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and contains a list of approximately 8,100 sites which
possess or use radioactive materials and which are subject to NRC licensing requirements. To maintain currency,
EDR contacts the Agency on a quarterly basis.
Date of Government Version: 06/21/2011 Source: Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 07/15/2011 Telephone: 301-415-7169
Date Made Active in Reports: 09/13/2011 Last EDR Contact: 03/11/2013
Number of Days to Update: 60 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 06/24/2013
Data Release Frequency: Quarterly
RADINFO: Radiation Information Database
The Radiation Information Database (RADINFO) contains information about facilities that are regulated by U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulations for radiation and radioactivity.
Date of Government Version: 01/08/2013 Source: Environmental Protection Agency
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 01/09/2013 Telephone: 202-343-9775
Date Made Active in Reports: 04/12/2013 Last EDR Contact: 04/11/2013
Number of Days to Update: 93 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 07/22/2013
Data Release Frequency: Quarterly
FINDS: Facility Index System/Facility Registry System
Facility Index System. FINDS contains both facility information and 'pointers' to other sources that contain more
detail. EDR includes the following FINDS databases in this report: PCS (Permit Compliance System), AIRS (Aerometric
Information Retrieval System), DOCKET (Enforcement Docket used to manage and track information on civil judicial
enforcement cases for all environmental statutes), FURS (Federal Underground Injection Control), C-DOCKET (Criminal
Docket System used to track criminal enforcement actions for all environmental statutes), FFIS (Federal Facilities
Information System), STATE (State Environmental Laws and Statutes), and PADS (PCB Activity Data System).
Date of Government Version: 10/23/2011 Source: EPA
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 12/13/2011 Telephone: (215) 814-5000
Date Made Active in Reports: 03/01/2012 Last EDR Contact: 03/12/2013
Number of Days to Update: 79 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 06/24/2013
Data Release Frequency: Quarterly
RAATS: RCRA Administrative Action Tracking System
RCRA Administration Action Tracking System. RAATS contains records based on enforcement actions issued under RCRA
pertaining to major violators and includes administrative and civil actions brought by the EPA. For administration
actions after September 30, 1995, data entry in the RAATS database was discontinued. EPA will retain a copy of
the database for historical records. It was necessary to terminate RAATS because a decrease in agency resources
made it impossible to continue to update the information contained in the database.
Date of Government Version: 04/17/1995 Source: EPA
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 07/03/1995 Telephone: 202-564-4104
Date Made Active in Reports: 08/07/1995 Last EDR Contact: 06/02/2008
Number of Days to Update: 35 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 09/01/2008
Data Release Frequency: No Update Planned
RMP: Risk Management Plans
TC3602489.16S Page GR-16
-------
C-112
GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED / DATA CURRENCY TRACKING
When Congress passed the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, it required EPA to publish regulations and guidance
for chemical accident prevention at facilities using extremely hazardous substances. The Risk Management Program
Rule (RMP Rule) was written to implement Section 112(r) of these amendments. The rule, which built upon existing
industry codes and standards, requires companies of all sizes that use certain flammable and toxic substances
to develop a Risk Management Program, which includes a(n): Hazard assessment that details the potential effects
of an accidental release, an accident history of the last five years, and an evaluation of worst-case and alternative
accidental releases; Prevention program that includes safety precautions and maintenance, monitoring, and employee
training measures; and Emergency response program that spells out emergency health care, employee training measures
and procedures for informing the public and response agencies (e.g the fire department) should an accident occur.
Date of Government Version: 05/08/2012
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 05/25/2012
Date Made Active in Reports: 07/10/2012
Number of Days to Update: 46
Source: Environmental Protection Agency
Telephone: 202-564-8600
Last EDR Contact: 04/29/2013
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 08/12/2013
Data Release Frequency: Varies
BRS: Biennial Reporting System
The Biennial Reporting System is a national system administered by the EPA that collects data on the generation
and management of hazardous waste. BRS captures detailed data from two groups: Large Quantity Generators (LOG)
and Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities.
Date of Government Version: 12/31/2011
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 02/26/2013
Date Made Active in Reports: 04/19/2013
Number of Days to Update: 52
Source: EPA/NTIS
Telephone: 800-424-9346
Last EDR Contact: 02/26/2013
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 06/10/2013
Data Release Frequency: Biennially
UIC: Underground Injection Wells
A listing of underground injection well locations.
Date of Government Version: 03/26/2013
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 03/26/2013
Date Made Active in Reports: 04/18/2013
Number of Days to Update: 23
NPDES: NPDES Permit Listing
A listing of facilities with an NPDES permit.
Date of Government Version: 12/26/2012
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 03/13/2013
Date Made Active in Reports: 04/18/2013
Number of Days to Update: 36
PA MANIFEST: Manifest Information
Hazardous waste manifest information.
Date of Government Version: 12/31/2011
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 07/23/2012
Date Made Active in Reports: 09/18/2012
Number of Days to Update: 57
DRYCLEANERS: Drycleaner Facility Locations
A listing of drycleaner facility locations.
Date of Government Version: 03/25/2013
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 03/25/2013
Date Made Active in Reports: 04/18/2013
Number of Days to Update: 24
Source: Department of Environmental Protection
Telephone: 717-783-7209
Last EDR Contact: 03/26/2013
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 07/08/2013
Data Release Frequency: Varies
Source: Department of Environmental Protection
Telephone: 717-787-9642
Last EDR Contact: 03/13/2013
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 06/24/2013
Data Release Frequency: Varies
Source: Department of Environmental Protection
Telephone: 717-783-8990
Last EDR Contact: 04/23/2013
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 08/05/2013
Data Release Frequency: Annually
Source: Department of Environmental Protection
Telephone: 717-787-9702
Last EDR Contact: 03/25/2013
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 07/08/2013
Data Release Frequency: Varies
TC3602489.16S Page GR-17
-------
C-113
GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED / DATA CURRENCY TRACKING
AIRS: Permit and Emissions Inventory Data
Permit and emissions inventory data.
Date of Government Version: 12/31/2011 Source: Department of Environmental Protection
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 01/04/2013 Telephone: 717-787-9702
Date Made Active in Reports: 02/15/2013 Last EDR Contact: 04/01/2013
Number of Days to Update: 42 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 07/15/2013
Data Release Frequency: Annually
INDIAN RESERV: Indian Reservations
This map layer portrays Indian administered lands of the United States that have any area equal to or greater
than 640 acres.
Date of Government Version: 12/31/2005 Source: USGS
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 12/08/2006 Telephone: 202-208-3710
Date Made Active in Reports: 01/11/2007 Last EDR Contact: 04/19/2013
Number of Days to Update: 34 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 07/29/2013
Data Release Frequency: Semi-Annually
SCRD DRYCLEANERS: State Coalition for Remediation of Drycleaners Listing
The State Coalition for Remediation of Drycleaners was established in 1998, with support from the U.S. EPA Office
of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation. It is comprised of representatives of states with established
drycleaner remediation programs. Currently the member states are Alabama, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Kansas,
Minnesota, Missouri, North Carolina, Oregon, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and Wisconsin.
Date of Government Version: 03/07/2011 Source: Environmental Protection Agency
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 03/09/2011 Telephone: 615-532-8599
Date Made Active in Reports: 05/02/2011 Last EDR Contact: 05/06/2013
Number of Days to Update: 54 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 08/05/2013
Data Release Frequency: Varies
PCB TRANSFORMER: PCB Transformer Registration Database
The database of PCB transformer registrations that includes all PCB registration submittals.
Date of Government Version: 02/01/2011 Source: Environmental Protection Agency
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 10/19/2011 Telephone: 202-566-0517
Date Made Active in Reports: 01/10/2012 Last EDR Contact: 05/03/2013
Number of Days to Update: 83 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 08/12/2013
Data Release Frequency: Varies
US FIN ASSUR: Financial Assurance Information
All owners and operators of facilities that treat, store, or dispose of hazardous waste are required to provide
proof that they will have sufficient funds to pay for the clean up, closure, and post-closure care of their facilities.
Date of Government Version: 11/20/2012 Source: Environmental Protection Agency
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 11/30/2012 Telephone: 202-566-1917
Date Made Active in Reports: 02/27/2013 Last EDR Contact: 02/19/2013
Number of Days to Update: 89 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 06/03/2013
Data Release Frequency: Quarterly
EPA WATCH LIST: EPA WATCH LIST
EPA maintains a "Watch List" to facilitate dialogue between EPA, state and local environmental agencies on enforcement
matters relating to facilities with alleged violations identified as either significant or high priority. Being
on the Watch List does not mean that the facility has actually violated the law only that an investigation by
EPA or a state or local environmental agency has led those organizations to allege that an unproven violation
has in fact occurred. Being on the Watch List does not represent a higher level of concern regarding the alleged
violations that were detected, but instead indicates cases requiring additional dialogue between EPA, state and
local agencies - primarily because of the length of time the alleged violation has gone unaddressed or unresolved.
TC3602489.16S Page GR-18
-------
C-114
GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED / DATA CURRENCY TRACKING
Date of Government Version: 07/31/2012 Source: Environmental Protection Agency
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 08/13/2012 Telephone: 617-520-3000
Date Made Active in Reports: 09/18/2012 Last EDR Contact: 02/12/2013
Number of Days to Update: 36 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 05/27/2013
Data Release Frequency: Quarterly
US AIRS MINOR: Air Facility System Data
A listing of minor source facilities.
Date of Government Version: 11/15/2012 Source: EPA
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 11/16/2012 Telephone: 202-564-5962
Date Made Active in Reports: 02/15/2013 Last EDR Contact: 04/01/2013
Number of Days to Update: 91 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 07/15/2013
Data Release Frequency: Annually
US AIRS (AFS): Aerometric Information Retrieval System Facility Subsystem (AFS)
The database is a sub-system of Aerometric Information Retrieval System (AIRS). AFS contains compliance data
on air pollution point sources regulated by the U.S. EPA and/or state and local air regulatory agencies. This
information comes from source reports by various stationary sources of air pollution, such as electric power plants,
steel mills, factories, and universities, and provides information about the air pollutants they produce. Action,
air program, air program pollutant, and general level plant data. It is used to track emissions and compliance
data from industrial plants.
Date of Government Version: 11/15/2012 Source: EPA
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 11/16/2012 Telephone: 202-564-5962
Date Made Active in Reports: 02/15/2013 Last EDR Contact: 04/01/2013
Number of Days to Update: 91 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 07/15/2013
Data Release Frequency: Annually
MINES: Abandoned Mine Land Inventory
This data set portrays the approximate location of Abandoned Mine Land Problem Areas containing public health,
safety, and public welfare problems created by past coal mining.
Date of Government Version: 10/02/2012 Source: PASDA
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 01/30/2013 Telephone: 814-863-0104
Date Made Active in Reports: 02/21/2013 Last EDR Contact: 05/02/2013
Number of Days to Update: 22 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 08/12/2013
Data Release Frequency: Semi-Annually
FEDLAND: Federal and Indian Lands
Federally and Indian administrated lands of the United States. Lands included are administrated by: Army Corps
of Engineers, Bureau of Reclamation, National Wild and Scenic River, National Wildlife Refuge, Public Domain Land,
Wilderness, Wilderness Study Area, Wildlife Management Area, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Bureau of Land Management,
Department of Justice, Forest Service, Fish and Wildlife Service, National Park Service.
Date of Government Version: 12/31/2005 Source: U.S. Geological Survey
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 02/06/2006 Telephone: 888-275-8747
Date Made Active in Reports: 01/11/2007 Last EDR Contact: 04/19/2013
Number of Days to Update: 339 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 07/29/2013
Data Release Frequency: N/A
PRP: Potentially Responsible Parties
A listing of verified Potentially Responsible Parties
Date of Government Version: 12/02/2012 Source: EPA
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 01/03/2013 Telephone: 202-564-6023
Date Made Active in Reports: 03/13/2013 Last EDR Contact: 04/04/2013
Number of Days to Update: 69 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 07/15/2013
Data Release Frequency: Quarterly
TC3602489.16S Page GR-19
-------
C-115
GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED / DATA CURRENCY TRACKING
2020 COR ACTION: 2020 Corrective Action Program List
The EPA has set ambitious goals for the RCRA Corrective Action program by creating the 2020 Corrective Action
Universe. This RCRA cleanup baseline includes facilities expected to need corrective action. The 2020 universe
contains a wide variety of sites. Some properties are heavily contaminated while others were contaminated but
have since been cleaned up. Still others have not been fully investigated yet, and may require little or no remediation.
Inclusion in the 2020 Universe does not necessarily imply failure on the part of a facility to meet its RCRA obligations.
Date of Government Version: 11/11/2011 Source: Environmental Protection Agency
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 05/18/2012 Telephone: 703-308-4044
Date Made Active in Reports: 05/25/2012 Last EDR Contact: 02/15/2013
Number of Days to Update: 7 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 05/27/2013
Data Release Frequency: Varies
LEAD SMELTER 2: Lead Smelter Sites
A list of several hundred sites in the U.S. where secondary lead smelting was done from 1931 and 1964. These sites
may pose a threat to public health through ingestion or inhalation of contaminated soil or dust
Date of Government Version: 04/05/2001 Source: American Journal of Public Health
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 10/27/2010 Telephone: 703-305-6451
Date Made Active in Reports: 12/02/2010 Last EDR Contact: 12/02/2009
Number of Days to Update: 36 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: N/A
Data Release Frequency: No Update Planned
LEAD SMELTER 1: Lead Smelter Sites
A listing of former lead smelter site locations.
Date of Government Version: 01/29/2013 Source: Environmental Protection Agency
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 02/14/2013 Telephone: 703-603-8787
Date Made Active in Reports: 02/27/2013 Last EDR Contact: 04/08/2013
Number of Days to Update: 13 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 07/22/2013
Data Release Frequency: Varies
COAL ASH EPA: Coal Combustion Residues Surface Impoundments List
A listing of coal combustion residues surface impoundments with high hazard potential ratings.
Date of Government Version: 08/17/2010 Source: Environmental Protection Agency
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 01/03/2011 Telephone: N/A
Date Made Active in Reports: 03/21/2011 Last EDR Contact: 03/15/2013
Number of Days to Update: 77 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 06/24/2013
Data Release Frequency: Varies
COAL ASH DOE: Sleam-Electric Plan Operation Data
A listing of power plants that store ash in surface ponds.
Date of Government Version: 12/31/2005 Source: Department of Energy
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 08/07/2009 Telephone: 202-586-8719
Date Made Active in Reports: 10/22/2009 Last EDR Contact: 04/18/2013
Number of Days to Update: 76 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 07/29/2013
Data Release Frequency: Varies
EDR HIGH RISK HISTORICAL RECORDS
EDR Exclusive Records
EDR MGP: EDR Proprietary Manufactured Gas Plants
The EDR Proprietary Manufactured Gas Plant Database includes records of coal gas plants (manufactured gas plants)
compiled by EDR's researchers. Manufactured gas sites were used in the United States from the 1800's to 1950's
to produce a gas that could be distributed and used as fuel. These plants used whale oil, rosin, coal, or a mixture
of coal, oil, and waterthat also produced a significant amount of waste. Many of the byproducts of the gas production,
such as coal tar (oily waste containing volatile and non-volatile chemicals), sludges, oils and other compounds
are potentially hazardous to human health and the environment. The byproduct from this process was frequently
disposed of directly at the plant site and can remain or spread slowly, serving as a continuous source of soil
and groundwater contamination.
TC3602489.16S Page GR-20
-------
C-116
GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED / DATA CURRENCY TRACKING
Date of Government Version: N/A
Date Data Arrived at EDR: N/A
Date Made Active in Reports: N/A
Number of Days to Update: N/A
Source: EDR, Inc.
Telephone: N/A
Last EDR Contact: N/A
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: N/A
Data Release Frequency: No Update Planned
EDR US Hist Auto Stat: EDR Exclusive Historic Gas Stations
EDR has searched selected national collections of business directories and has collected listings of potential
gas station/filling station/service station sites that were available to EDR researchers. EDR's review was limited
to those categories of sources that might, in EDR's opinion, include gas station/filling station/service station
establishments. The categories reviewed included, but were not limited to gas, gas station, gasoline station,
filling station, auto, automobile repair, auto service station, service station, etc. This database falls within
a category of information EDR classifies as "High Risk Historical Records", or HRHR. EDR's HRHR effort presents
unique and sometimes proprietary data about past sites and operations that typically create environmental concerns,
but may not show up in current government records searches.
Date of Government Version: N/A
Date Data Arrived at EDR: N/A
Date Made Active in Reports: N/A
Number of Days to Update: N/A
Source: EDR, Inc.
Telephone: N/A
Last EDR Contact: N/A
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: N/A
Data Release Frequency: Varies
EDR US Hist Cleaners: EDR Exclusive Historic Dry Cleaners
EDR has searched selected national collections of business directories and has collected listings of potential
dry cleaner sites that were available to EDR researchers. EDR's review was limited to those categories of sources
that might, in EDR's opinion, include dry cleaning establishments. The categories reviewed included, but were
not limited to dry cleaners, cleaners, laundry, laundromat, cleaning/laundry, wash & dry etc. This database falls
within a category of information EDR classifies as "High Risk Historical Records", or HRHR. EDR's HRHR effort
presents unique and sometimes proprietary data about past sites and operations that typically create environmental
concerns, but may not show up in current government records searches.
Date of Government Version: N/A
Date Data Arrived at EDR: N/A
Date Made Active in Reports: N/A
Number of Days to Update: N/A
Source: EDR, Inc.
Telephone: N/A
Last EDR Contact: N/A
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: N/A
Data Release Frequency: Varies
EDR US Hist Cleaners: EDR Proprietary Historic Dry Cleaners - Cole
Date of Government Version: N/A Source: N/A
Date Data Arrived at EDR: N/A Telephone: N/A
Date Made Active in Reports: N/A Last EDR Contact: N/A
Number of Days to Update: N/A Next Scheduled EDR Contact: N/A
Data Release Frequency: Varies
EDR US Hist Auto Stat: EDR Proprietary Historic Gas Stations - Cole
Date of Government Version: N/A Source: N/A
Date Data Arrived at EDR: N/A Telephone: N/A
Date Made Active in Reports: N/A Last EDR Contact: N/A
Number of Days to Update: N/A Next Scheduled EDR Contact: N/A
Data Release Frequency: Varies
OTHER DATABASE(S)
Depending on the geographic area covered by this report, the data provided in these specialty databases may or may not be
complete. For example, the existence of wetlands information data in a specific report does not mean that all wetlands in the
area covered by the report are included. Moreover, the absence of any reported wetlands information does not necessarily
mean that wetlands do not exist in the area covered by the report.
TC3602489.16S Page GR-21
-------
C-117
GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED / DATA CURRENCY TRACKING
CT MANIFEST: Hazardous Waste Manifest Data
Facility and manifest data. Manifest is a document that lists and tracks hazardous waste from the generator through
transporters to a tsd facility.
Date of Government Version: 02/18/2013
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 02/18/2013
Date Made Active in Reports: 03/21/2013
Number of Days to Update: 31
NJ MANIFEST: Manifest Information
Hazardous waste manifest information.
Date of Government Version: 12/31/2011
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 07/19/2012
Date Made Active in Reports: 08/28/2012
Number of Days to Update: 40
Source: Department of Energy & Environmental Protection
Telephone: 860-424-3375
Last EDR Contact: 02/18/2013
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 06/03/2013
Data Release Frequency: Annually
Source: Department of Environmental Protection
Telephone: N/A
Last EDR Contact: 04/19/2013
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 07/29/2013
Data Release Frequency: Annually
NY MANIFEST: Facility and Manifest Data
Manifest is a document that lists and tracks hazardous waste from the generator through transporters to a TSD
facility.
Date of Government Version: 02/01/2013
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 02/07/2013
Date Made Active in Reports: 03/15/2013
Number of Days to Update: 36
Rl MANIFEST: Manifest information
Hazardous waste manifest information
Date of Government Version: 12/31/2011
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 06/22/2012
Date Made Active in Reports: 07/31/2012
Number of Days to Update: 39
VT MANIFEST: Hazardous Waste Manifest Data
Hazardous waste manifest information.
Date of Government Version: 02/15/2013
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 02/21/2013
Date Made Active in Reports: 03/15/2013
Number of Days to Update: 22
Wl MANIFEST: Manifest Information
Hazardous waste manifest information.
Date of Government Version: 12/31/2011
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 07/19/2012
Date Made Active in Reports: 09/27/2012
Number of Days to Update: 70
Source: Department of Environmental Conservation
Telephone: 518-402-8651
Last EDR Contact: 05/09/2013
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 08/19/2013
Data Release Frequency: Annually
Source: Department of Environmental Management
Telephone: 401-222-2797
Last EDR Contact: 02/25/2013
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 06/10/2013
Data Release Frequency: Annually
Source: Department of Environmental Conservation
Telephone: 802-241-3443
Last EDR Contact: 01/21/2013
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 05/06/2013
Data Release Frequency: Annually
Source: Department of Natural Resources
Telephone: N/A
Last EDR Contact: 03/18/2013
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 07/01/2013
Data Release Frequency: Annually
Oil/Gas Pipelines: This data was obtained by EDR from the USGS in 1994. It is referred to by USGS as GeoData Digital Line Graphs
from 1:100,000-Scale Maps. It was extracted from the transportation category including some oil, but primarily
gas pipelines.
Electric Power Transmission Line Data
Source: Rextag Strategies Corp.
Telephone: (281) 769-2247
U.S. Electric Transmission and Power Plants Systems Digital GIS Data
TC3602489.16S Page GR-22
-------
C-118
GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED / DATA CURRENCY TRACKING
Sensitive Receptors: There are individuals deemed sensitive receptors due to their fragile immune systems and special sensitivity
to environmental discharges. These sensitive receptors typically include the elderly, the sick, and children. While the location of all
sensitive receptors cannot be determined, EDR indicates those buildings and facilities - schools, daycares, hospitals, medical centers,
and nursing homes - where individuals who are sensitive receptors are likely to be located.
AHA Hospitals:
Source: American Hospital Association, Inc.
Telephone: 312-280-5991
The database includes a listing of hospitals based on the American Hospital Association's annual survey of hospitals.
Medical Centers: Provider of Services Listing
Source: Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
Telephone: 410-786-3000
A listing of hospitals with Medicare provider number, produced by Centers of Medicare & Medicaid Services,
a federal agency within the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
Nursing Homes
Source: National Institutes of Health
Telephone: 301-594-6248
Information on Medicare and Medicaid certified nursing homes in the United States.
Public Schools
Source: National Center for Education Statistics
Telephone: 202-502-7300
The National Center for Education Statistics' primary database on elementary
and secondary public education in the United States. It is a comprehensive, annual, national statistical
database of all public elementary and secondary schools and school districts, which contains data that are
comparable across all states.
Private Schools
Source: National Center for Education Statistics
Telephone: 202-502-7300
The National Center for Education Statistics' primary database on private school locations in the United States.
Daycare Centers: Child Care Facility List
Source: Department of Public Welfare
Telephone: 717-783-3856
Flood Zone Data: This data, available in select counties across the country, was obtained by EDR in 2003 & 2011 from the Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Data depicts 100-year and 500-year flood zones as defined by FEMA.
NWI: National Wetlands Inventory. This data, available in select counties across the country, was obtained by EDR
in 2002 and 2005 from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Scanned Digital USGS 7.5' Topographic Map (DRG)
Source: United States Geologic Survey
A digital raster graphic (DRG) is a scanned image of a U.S. Geological Survey topographic map. The map images
are made by scanning published paper maps on high-resolution scanners. The raster image
is georeferenced and fit to the Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) projection.
STREET AND ADDRESS INFORMATION
© 2010 Tele Atlas North America, Inc. All rights reserved. This material is proprietary and the subject of copyright protection
and other intellectual property rights owned by or licensed to Tele Atlas North America, Inc. The use of this material is subject
to the terms of a license agreement. You will be held liable for any unauthorized copying or disclosure of this material.
TC3602489.16S Page GR-23
-------
vvEPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
PRESORTED STANDARD
POSTAGES FEES PAID
EPA
PERMIT NO. G-35
Office of Research and Development (8101R)
Washington, DC 20460
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use
$300
------- |