Retrospective Case Study in Wise County, Texas, Study of the Potential Impacts of Hydraulic Fracturing on Drinking Water Resources


v>EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
EPA 600/R-14/090 ! May 2015 I www.epa.gov/hfstudy
Retrospective Case Study in
Wise County, Texas
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 Wise County, Texas
May 2015
Retrospective Case Study in Wise County, Texas
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-14/090
iii

-------
Retrospective Case Study in Wise County, Texas
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 Wise County, Texas
May 2015
Table of Contents
Disclaimer	iv
Table of Contents	v
List of Tables	vii
List of Figures	viii
Acronyms and Abbreviations	xiii
Preface	xvi
Authors	xvii
Acknowledgements	xviii
Executive Summary	1
1.	Introduction	5
2.	Purpose and Scope	10
3.	Study Area Background	11
3.1.	Geology	11
3.2.	Hydrogeology	16
3.3.	Oil and Gas Production	16
3.4.	Land Use	18
3.5.	Other Potential Contaminant Sources	20
4.	Study Methods	24
4.1.	Sampling Locations	29
4.2.	Water Collection	33
4.3.	Purging and Sampling at Domestic Wells	33
4.4.	Sampling at Surface Water Locations	35
4.5.	Sampling at Production Wells	36
4.6.	Sample Shipping/Handling	36
4.7.	Water Analysis	36
4.7.1.	Field Parameters	36
4.7.2.	Analytical Methods for Ground Water and Surface Water	37
4.8.	QA/QC	39
4.9.	Data Handling and Analysis	39
5.	Historic Water Quality	42
5.1.	National Water Information Systems (NWIS) Database	42
5.2.	Texas Water Development Board (TXWDB) Database	42
v

-------
Retrospective Case Study in Wise County, Texas
May 2015
5.3.	National Uranium Resource Evaluation (NURE) Database	43
5.4.	Produced Water Database	43
5.5.	Limitations to the Determination of Background Using Historical Data	43
6.	Water Quality Results from This Study	46
6.1.	Surface Water	46
6.2.	Boonesville Bend Conglomerate Sample Collected	46
6.3.	Ground Water	46
6.3.1.	Geochemical Parameters	46
6.3.2.	Major Ions	72
6.3.3.	Trace Elements	76
6.3.4.	Geochemical Relationships	82
6.4.	Other Collected Data Comparisons	105
6.4.1.	Dissolved Gases	105
6.4.2.	Organic Components	Ill
7.	Site-Specific Focus Area - Location B	114
7.1.	Other Approaches to Determining Background	114
7.2.	EPA Guidance on Establishment of Background (Site-Specific Background)	115
7.2.1. Application to Location B	116
7.3.	Site-Specific Background Comparisons	117
7.3.1.	Parameter-to-Parameter Comparisons	117
7.3.2.	Time Trends	117
7.3.3.	Geochemical Relationships	123
7.4.	Distinguishing Potential Sources of Contamination	131
7.5.	Source Identification	132
8.	Summary of Case Study Results	159
References	163
Appendix A QA/QC Summary	A-l
Appendix B Sample Results	B-l
Appendix C Background Data	C-l
Appendix D Supporting Information	D-l
vi

-------
Retrospective Case Study in Wise County, Texas
May 2015
List of Tables
Table 1. Land use in Wise County in 1992 and 2006 20
Table 2. Sampling history, parameters measured and analytical methods used for the Wise
County, Texas, retrospective case study 24
Table 3. Locations of samples taken as part of the Wise County, Texas, retrospective case
study 29
Table 4. Sample types and number of sampling points for each location in the Wise County,
Texas, retrospective case study 30
Table 5. Surface water data summaries and statistics for all study surface water data collected
in Locations A and B 47
Table 6. Boonesville Bend Conglomerate data obtained from the USGS produced water
database (USGS, 2002) compared to study sample from the Boonesville Bend
Conglomerate 50
Table 7. Data summaries and statistics for select components for ground, surface, and
produced water collected during the study countywide. Data for any sampling point
were averaged for all rounds of sampling 51
Table 8. Countywide-scale ground water data summaries and statistics for the historical
databases (NWIS, TXWDB, and NURE) along with all study data collected 55
Table 9. Location A 3-mile-radius-scale data summaries and statistics for the historical
databases (NURE) along with all study data collected in Location A 62
Table 10. Location B 3-mile-radius-scale data summaries and statistics for the historical
databases (NWIS, TXWDB, and NURE) along with all study data collected in Location B 63
Table 11. Location C 3-mile-radius-scale data summaries and statistics for the historical
databases (NWIS, TXWDB, and NURE) along with all study data collected in Location C 69
Table 12. Study data summaries and statistics for ground water 83
Table 13. Alternative approaches to determining background using chloride concentrations as
an example 115
Table 14. Ground water summaries and statistics for Location B using site-specific background
and potentially impacted wells 118
Table 15. Summary of source delineation analysis 156
Table 16. Mixing percentages using conservative elements for the impacted wells WISETXGW01,
WISETXGW05, and WISETXGW08 for the different sources 158
Table 17. Summary of the potential ground water impacts identified during this study 159
vii

-------
Retrospective Case Study in Wise County, Texas
May 2015
List of Figures
Figure 1. Overview of the Wise County Retrospective Case Study Location	8
Figure 2. Detailed view of the Wise County sampling locations	9
Figure 3. A generalized stratigraphy column for the Fort Worth Basin (modified from Bruner
and Smosna, 2011)	12
Figure 4. A generalized geologic cross section of the Bend Arch, Fort Worth Basin and Muenster
Arch (modified from Bruner and Smosna, 2011)	13
Figure 5. Maps of Wise County, Texas showing (A) Surface bedrock geology, (B) Land use and
Land Cover, (C) Oil and Gas Wells, and (D) Barnett Shale Wells	14
Figure 6. Bend Arch-Fort Worth Basin Province boundary is outlined in red; red star indicates
Wise County (after USGS, 2004)	17
Figure 7. Drilling permits for the Barnett Shale from 1993 to August 2013 (TRRC, 2013)	19
Figure 8. Land Use in Wise County, Texas from 1992-2006	21
Figure 9. Aerial view of Location A showing sampling locations for domestic wells and surface
water sampling locations	31
Figure 10. Aerial view of Location B showing sampling locations for domestic wells, production
wells, brine injection wells and surface water sampling locations	32
Figure 11. Aerial view of Location C showing sampling locations for domestic wells. The prefix
WISETX has been omitted for both domestic wells (GW) on this map for clarity	34
Figure 12. Map of the different water types and water type distributions for Wise County based
on historical databases	45
Figure 13. Ground water box and whisker plots comparing historical databases (NWIS, [USGS,
2013a], TXWDB [2013b], and NURE [USGS, 2013b]) with all the study data on a county
wide scale	58
Figure 14. Map of specific conductivity values and distributions for Wise County based on
historical databases	61
Figure 15. Ground water box and whisker plots comparing historical databases (NWIS [USGS,
2013a], TXWDB [2013b], and NURE [USGS, 2013b]) with all the study data at Location
B using a 3-mile radius	66
Figure 16. Map of chloride concentrations and chloride distributions within Wise County based
on historical databases	73
Figure 17. Map of boron concentrations and boron distributions within Wise County based on
historical databases	78
viii

-------
Retrospective Case Study in Wise County, Texas
May 2015
Figure 18. Map of barium concentrations and barium distributions within Wise County based on
historical databases 80
Figure 19. Map of strontium concentrations and strontium distributions within Wise County
based on historical databases 81
Figure 20. Water type percentages for the study data collected in Locations A and C along with
the historical data in the NWIS and TXWDB databases. (A) Location A countywide
scale, (B) Location C countywide scale, and (C) Location C 3-mile radius 92
Figure 21. Piper diagram showing major cation and anion relationships for Location A and a
comparison to the historical data from the NWIS and TXWDB databases 93
Figure 22. Piper diagram showing major cation and anion relationships for Location C and a
comparison to the historical data from the NWIS and TXWDB databases 94
Figure 23. Schoeller diagram showing major cation and anion relationships for Location A and a
comparison to the historical data from the NWIS and TXWDB databases 95
Figure 24. Schoeller diagram showing major cation and anion relationships for Location C and a
comparison to the historical data from the NWIS and TXWDB databases 95
Figure 25. Piper diagram showing major cation and anion relationships for Location C and a
comparison to the historical data from the NWIS and TXWDB databases using a three
mile radius 97
Figure 26. Schoeller diagram showing major cation and anion relationships for Location C and a
comparison to the historical data from the NWIS and TXWDB databases using a 3-mile
radius 98
Figure 27. Brine differentiation plots for study Location A. Brine differentiation plots were used
to screen study data to indicate if the water was potentially impacted by brine 99
Figure 28. Brine differentiation plots for study Location C. Brine differentiation plots were used
to screen study data to indicate if the water was potentially impacted by brine 100
Figure 29. Plots of TDS versus Chloride/Z Anions for (A) Location A and (B) Location C. These
plots were also used to screen study and historical data for potential sources 101
Figure 30. Water type percentages for the study data collected at Location B using (A) a county-
wide scale and (B) using a 3-mile radius. The historical data used were from the NWIS
and TXWDB databases 102
Figure 31. Piper diagram showing major cation and anion relationships for Location B and a
comparison to the historical data from the NWIS and TXWDB databases using a
county wide scale 103

-------
Retrospective Case Study in Wise County, Texas
May 2015
Figure 32. Schoeller diagram showing major cation and anion relationships for Location B and a
comparison to the historical data from the NWIS and TXWDB databases using a
county wide scale 104
Figure 33. Piper diagram showing major cation and anion relationships for Location B and a
comparison to the historical data from the NWIS and TXWDB databases using a 3-mile
radius 106
Figure 34. Schoeller diagram showing major cation and anion relationships for Location B and a
comparison to the historical data from the NWIS and TXWDB databases using a 3-mile
radius 107
Figure 35. Brine differentiation plots for study Location B using historical data from the NWIS
and TXWDB using a countywide scale. Brine differentiation plots were used to screen
study data to indicate if the water was potentially impacted by brine 108
Figure 36. Brine differentiation plots for study Location B using historical data from the NWIS
and TXWDB using a 3-mile radius. Brine differentiation plots were used to screen
study data to indicate if the water was potentially impacted by brine 109
Figure 37. Plots of TDS versus Chloride/Z Anions for Location B using a (A) county wide scale and
using a (B) 3-mile radius. These plots were also used to screen study and historical
data for potential sources 110
Figure 38. Ground water box and whisker plots comparing site-specific background with
potentially impacted wells 120
Figure 39. Time trend plots for Location B. (A) chloride, (B) bromide, (C) calcium, and (D) iodide 124
Figure 40. Piper diagram showing major cation and anion relationships for Location B and a
comparison to site-specific background 127
Figure 41. Schoeller diagram showing major cation and anion relationships for Location B and a
comparison to site-specific background 128
Figure 42. Scatter plots of chloride versus (A) barium, (B) bromide, (C) iodide, and (D) strontium
for study Location B 129
Figure 43. Scatter plots of SpC versus (A) barium, (B) chloride, (C) sulfate, and (D) strontium for
study data in Locations B 130
Figure 44. Schoeller diagram of select trace elements at Location B 131
Figure 45. Location B (A) Brine differentiation plots and (B) TDS versus chloride/^anions plots
indicating the potential brine impacts to WISETXGW01 and WISETXGW08. Brine
differentiation plots and TDS versus chloride/^anions plots were used to screen study
data to indicate if the water was potentially impacted by brine 133
Figure 46. Mixing trends and source fields using chloride versus CI/Br at Location B 135
x

-------
Retrospective Case Study in Wise County, Texas
May 2015
Figure 47. Mixing trends and source fields using chloride versus Cl/I at Location B 136
Figure 48. Mixing trends using potassium versus K/Rb at Location B. This figure suggests that
WISETXGW01, WISETXGW05 and WISETXGW08 were brine impacted 138
Figure 49. Plots showing the stable isotopes of water for Location B 139
Figure 50. Plots of strontium and 87Sr/86Sr isotopic mixing curves. This plot suggests that all three
potentially impacted wells (WISETXGW01, WISETXGW05, and WISETXGW08) could
have been impacted by a brine source similar to water from the Barnett 140
Figure 51. Plots of the temporal variations of 87Sr/86Sr and strontium concentrations. See text for
discussion 141
Figure 52. A cross plot of the conservative elements chloride and bromide in relationship to
potential sources of contamination at Location B. This figure strongly suggests that
WISETXGW01 and WISETXGW08 were impacted by a brine source 144
Figure 53. Plots of the mixing curves for chloride versus calcium using (A) all potential sources
and (B) brine sources with the potentially impacted wells and the site-specific
background wells 145
Figure 54. Plots of the mixing curves for chloride versus bicarbonate using (A) all potential
sources and (B) brine sources with the potentially impacted wells and the site-specific
background wells 146
Figure 55. Plots of the mixing curves for chloride versus potassium using (A) all potential sources
and (B) brine sources with the potentially impacted wells and the site-specific
background wells 147
Figure 56. Plots of the mixing curves for chloride versus magnesium using (A) all potential
sources and (B) brine sources with the potentially impacted wells and the site-specific
background wells 148
Figure 57. Plots of the mixing curves for chloride versus sodium using (A) all potential sources
and (B) brine sources with the potentially impacted wells and the site-specific
background wells 150
Figure 58. Plots of the mixing curves for chloride versus sulfate using (A) all potential sources and
(B) brine sources with the potentially impacted wells and the site-specific background
wells 151
Figure 59. Plots of the mixing curves for bromide versus boron using (A) all potential sources and
(B) brine sources with the potentially impacted wells and the site-specific background
wells 152
xi

-------
Retrospective Case Study in Wise County, Texas
May 2015
Figure 60. Examples of the use of mixing curves to calculate the relative contribution of the
source waters to the wells in Location B using (A) chloride and Barnett Produced
Water, (B) chloride and landfill leachate, (C) bromide and Barnett Produced Water,
and (D) bromide and landfill leachate. What is apparent is that landfill leachate is an
unlikely source of the impacts to WISETXGW01 and WISETXGW08	153
xii

-------
Retrospective Case Study in Wise County, Texas
May 2015
Acronyms and Abbreviations
ADQ
audits of data quality
AN OVA
analysis of variance
bbl
barrels
bcf
billion cubic feet
BTEX
benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylene
CI/Br
chloride to bromide ratio
Cl/I
chloride to iodide ratio
CLP
Contract Laboratory Program
DIC
dissolved inorganic carbon
DO
dissolved oxygen
DOC
dissolved organic carbon
DRO
diesel-range organics
EDD
electronic data deliverable
EPA
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
EDR
Environmental Data Resources, Inc.
ft
feet
ft/mile
feet per mile
ft/yr
feet per year
GC/MS
gas chromatography/mass spectrometry
GMWL
global meteoric water line
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 couple plasma-mass spectrometry
K/Rb
potassium to rubidium ratio
L/min
liters per minute
xiii

-------
Retrospective Case Study in Wise County, Texas
May 2015
MCL
maximum contaminant level
MDL
minimum detection limit
PW
production well
Hg/L
micrograms per liter
HS/cm
microsiemens per centimeter
MCFPD
thousand cubic feet per day
mg/L
milligrams per liter
min
minutes
NaCI
sodium chloride
NaHC03
sodium bicarbonate
NIST
National Institute of Standards and Technology
NRMRL
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
NURE
National Uranium Resource Evaluation
NWIS
National Water Information System
OSWER
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
ORD
Office of Research and Development
PI
Principal Investigator
PW
Produced Water
QA
quality assurance
QAPP
Quality Assurance Project Plan
QC
quality control
QL
quantitation limit
RCRA
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
RSKSOP
Robert S. Kerr Environmental Research Center Standard Operating Procedure
SMCL
secondary maximum contaminant level
SpC
specific conductivity
STORET
STOrage and RETrieval
SVOC
semi-volatile organic compounds
tcf
trillion cubic feet
xiv

-------
Retrospective Case Study in Wise County, Texas
May 2015
TDS
total dissolved solids
TIC
tentatively identified compound
TIMS
thermal imagery mass spectrometry
TPS
total petroleum system
TRRC
Texas Railroad Commission
TSA
Technical System Audit
TXWDB
Texas Water Development Board
USGS
U.S. Geological Survey
VOC
volatile organic compound
xv

-------
Retrospective Case Study in Wise County, Texas
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 Wise County, Texas, 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.
xvi

-------
Retrospective Case Study in Wise County, Texas
May 2015
Authors
Douglas G. Beak, US EPA/ORD/NRMRL
Michael D. Overbay, US EPA/Region 6
Susan C. Mravik, US EPA/ORD/NRMRL
xvii

-------
Retrospective Case Study in Wise County, Texas
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 providing field and sampling support, site
data and/or background information, and site access: Texas Commission on Environmental Quality,
Railroad Commission of Texas, Primexx Energy Partners, Conoco Phillips, John S. Waggoner, Lion Group,
Terracon, and HiTex Drilling. EPA acknowledges EPA student contractor Ashley McElmurry, Student
Services Contractor for the EPA (contract EP-12-C-000025), for field and data support and Ecology and
Environment, Inc. (contract EP-S7-13-07) for providing assistance in the preparation of the report. For
their efforts in providing analytical support, EPA acknowledges the following organizations: Shaw
Environmental (subsequently CB&I) (contract EP-C-08-034) for metals, VOC, dissolved gas, organic acid,
and water isotope analyses; EPA Region 3 for glycol analyses; EPA Region 7 for coordinating the ARDL
analytical contract (EP-R7-1001) for VOCs and metals for the third round of sampling conducted in the
study; EPA Region 8 for SVOC, DRO, and GRO analyses; EPA Office of Research and Development's
general parameters laboratory for DIC, DOC, anion, and nutrient analyses; and USGS (Interagency
Agreement DW-14-95801601) for conducting strontium isotope analysis. 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).
xviii

-------
Retrospective Case Study in Wise County, Texas
May 2015
Executive Summary
In December 2009, Congress urged the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to conduct a study
to better understand the relationship between hydraulic fracturing for oil and gas on 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 potential impacts of hydraulic fracturing on drinking water
resources (US EPA, 2011a, 2011b). Retrospective case studies focused on investigating reported
instances of drinking water contamination in areas where hydraulic fracturing has already occurred.
This report describes the retrospective case study in north central Texas, conducted at three locations in
Wise County where both conventional and unconventional gas production occurred in the past.
Currently unconventional gas production occurs from the Mississippian-aged Barnett Shale. Additional
information on Wise County site selection can be found in Study Plan (US EPA, 2011b).
The Barnett Shale extends throughout the Bend Arch-Fort Worth Basin (formed during the Mississippian
age 320 to 360 million years ago), which extends south from the Muenster Arch, near the Oklahoma
border, to the Llano Uplift in Burnet County and west from the Ouachita Thrust Front, near Dallas, to
Taylor. Gas production from the Barnett Shale depends upon recent advances in horizontal drilling and
hydraulic fracturing technologies to enhance and create fracture porosity, permeability, and gas flow.
Water-quality samples were collected from 16 domestic wells and 4 surface water bodies at three
locations within Wise County (Locations A, B, and C) during five sampling rounds in September 2011,
March 2012, September 2012, December 2012, and May 2013. Additionally, three production wells (gas
wells) were sampled—two that had been completed in the Barnett Shale and one that had been
completed in the overlying Boonesville Bend Conglomerate formation. Domestic wells sampled in Wise
County were screened primarily in the Trinity aquifer with one exception, a well that was screened in an
alluvial deposit.
The geochemistry of water samples was investigated by analyzing major ions, trace metals,
methane/ethane gas concentrations, volatile organic compounds (VOCs), semi-volatile organic
compounds (SVOCs), glycol ethers, diesel and gasoline range organics (DRO and GRO), and selected
stable isotopes (6180H2o, 5 HH20; and 87Sr/86Sr). Major ion data collected from this study were compared
to historical water-quality data retrieved from the literature and national water-quality databases,
including the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) National Water Information System (NWIS), the State of
Texas Water Development Board (TXWDB), and the USGS National Uranium Resource Evaluation (NURE)
databases. These data sources provide water-quality data for samples collected before 1993 (except
NWIS), and therefore, before Barnett Shale gas recovery. The NWIS only contains data for Wise County
from 1994. Statistical comparisons using analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Kruskal-Wallis tests were
made between the data collected from this study and both the historical data on a countywide basis and
on a reduced-area (3-mile radius) basis to specifically focus on historical water samples collected near
the sample locations of this study.
Two primary water types were identified in Wise County (calcium-bicarbonate and sodium-bicarbonate),
although occasionally other water types were identified. These water types were found to divide Wise
County into two distinct regions along a line running from northeast to southwest. North of this line the
water type was primarily calcium bicarbonate and to the south, sodium-bicarbonate. This trend is
consistent with the reported geology of the Trinity aquifer. In the northern portion of the county, the
aquifer comprises two geologic formations, the Paluxy and the Twin Mountains formations, and in the
1

-------
Retrospective Case Study in Wise County, Texas
May 2015
southern portion of the county, it comprises the Paluxy, Glen Rose, and Twin Mountains formations.
There were no apparent patterns associated with the other water types found in the historical
databases, and they appeared to be randomly distributed throughout Wise County. This suggested that
there may be differences in ground water chemistry on a local scale or that wells in these databases may
exhibit impacts from unknown sources. This lack of patterns for the other water type illustrates the
need to also examine changes in water quality on a more local scale (3-mile radius) rather than using
only the countywide scale to compare the historical data with a specific study location.
An examination of chemical parameters that could potentially show impacts of deep formation brine on
drinking water was conducted. Historical data for Location A showed few differences in these
parameters both countywide and within the 3-mile radius. In general, Location C was similar to Location
A. Any differences in these parameters could be explained by local variations in ground water and did
not point to a specific source for Locations A and C. Therefore, there were no observable impacts for
study Locations A and C. Study Location B, however, did show differences in several parameters
(chloride, specific conductivity, calcium, potassium, magnesium, sodium, bromide, iodide, and
strontium), most notably chloride and specific conductivity based, on comparisons with historical data
and time trends. Differences in water quality at Location B were identified at two wells, WISETXGW01
and WISETXGW08, which always exceeded the chloride secondary maximum contaminant level (SMCL)
during the time frame of this study. The exceedances ranged from 2.2x to 7.9x the SMCL for chloride.
These differences also prompted the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality to notify local
homeowners in the vicinity of Location B of the SMCL exceedances (see Appendix D). In addition,
WISETXGW05 showed differences for calcium, magnesium, barium, and strontium using site specific
background data.
Dissolved gases were detected at all study locations (64% of the wells), and most detections were for
methane. The methane concentrations in groundwater ranged from 0.0007 to 0.0242 milligrams/L
(mg/L) with a median concentration of 0.0016 mg/L. These low-level concentrations of methane were
generally too low for isotopic analysis. Published data for the Trinity aquifer for locations outside of the
study areas showed methane concentration that ranged from 0.0144 to 0.0347 mg/L (Zhang et al.,
1998). Therefore, the methane concentrations observed during the study were likely background
methane concentrations that exist in the aquifer.
The 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. When detected,
concentrations of organic compounds did not exceed EPA drinking water standards, and there were no
repeated detections in any sample of organic chemicals known to be associated with hydraulic
fracturing. Low-level detections of VOCs, SVOCs, and DRO compounds (in surface water) were observed
at some locations during some of the sampling rounds. There were no detections of glycol ethers in
ground water or surface water samples, one detection of GRO compounds in a ground water sample,
and an SVOC (bis-(2-ethylmethyl) phthalate) was detected in two wells. DRO was detected only in
surface water and could not be related to a specific source. There were no historical data for DRO or
GRO; and there were no detections of any SVOCs in the historical databases. Several detections of VOCs
(detected in 6% of the samples) could be linked to activities (vehicular traffic and generators) occurring
nearby during the sampling. The detected VOCs were tert-butyl alcohol, methyl tert-butyl ether, ethyl
tert-butyl ether, tert-amyl methyl ether, m+p-xylene, o-xylene, and 1,2,4-trimethylbenzene (in 2% of the
detections) and benzene (in 6% of the detections). Historical water-quality databases did include some
2

-------
Retrospective Case Study in Wise County, Texas
May 2015
information on organic chemicals in ground water, but chemicals potentially associated with hydraulic
fracturing were rarely detected (two detections of benzene).
As noted in the analysis of the historical databases, most of the trace elements (with the exception of
arsenic, iron, and manganese) were not detected or were found in very low concentrations. Arsenic,
iron, and manganese concentrations were similar to what would be expected in the ground water,
based on the historical information used. The secondary MCL exceedances in this study for iron and
manganese are likely due to naturally occurring conditions in the aquifer, which is also supported by the
analysis of the historical data. Arsenic is naturally occurring as well, but did not exceed the maximum
contaminant level (MCL).
Two study wells had elevated concentrations of chloride and SPC, WISETXGW01 and WISETXGW08.
When compared with concentrations found in the historical data, this indicated that an impact may
have occurred and prompted a more detailed site-specific evaluation. There were significant differences
between the site-specific background (wells chosen prior to sampling to serve as background) and the
impacted wells WISETXGW01 and WISETXGW08. There is also evidence that WISETXGW05 was
potentially different from the site-specific background. An effort to screen for and identify potential
sources of contamination was initiated. The identity of the source or sources of contamination was
problematic because of limited site-specific information on the composition of potential source fluids
and by the very limited understanding of the local hydrology at study Location B. However, this analysis
was a useful method for screening potential sources of contamination. Through the use of geochemical
fingerprinting, isotopic analysis, and isotopic fingerprinting, the likely source of the observed impacts to
WISETXGW01 and WISETXGW08 was brine contamination of the Trinity aquifer. Landfill leachate was
not indicated as a potential source for WISETXGW01 and WISETXGW08; and halite/road salt is a very
unlikely source for the observed impacts at study Location B. The source of the brine contamination in
WISETXGW01 and WISETXGW08 is not known; however, there are several potential pathways by which
brine impacts could occur (no implied order of importance): brine migrating from underlying formations
along current and historical well bores; brine migrating from underlying formations along natural
fractures; leaks from the reserve pits and/or impoundments; and brine migrating from a nearby brine
injection well. The data collected as part of this study were not sufficient to distinguish between these
potential pathways, and other data such as local hydrology or ground water chemistry from monitoring
wells does not exist. Because of this, potential pathways and sources of the impacts could not be
determined in this study location. The observed impacts to WISETXGW05 could also be related to
potential brine contamination; WISETXGW05 could have also been contaminated by landfill leachate.
Although, other sources of potential contamination were identified (based on literature) for
WISETXGW05, the source or sources of the observed impacts could not be determined using the data
collected in this study and data from the literature.
Key observations or findings from this study are listed below.
• Comparisons of study data with historical data showed no apparent impacts on groundwater at
two of the three study locations.
• In the third study location, three study wells were identified as impacted. Comparison of study
data with historical data revealed two wells were impacted based on differences in several
parameters, most notably chloride and specific conductivity. There were also differences noted
3

-------
Retrospective Case Study in Wise County, Texas
May 2015
in calcium, potassium, magnesium, sodium, bromide, iodide, and strontium. A more detailed
investigation using site-specific background data indicated that a third well was also impacted.
• VOCs were detected in up to 6% of the study samples at concentrations below EPA drinking
water standards. There were no detections of glycol ethers and no repeated detections in any
sample of organic chemicals known to be associated with hydraulic fracturing. Consequently,
the potential source(s) of the observed organic compounds could not be identified.
• Dissolved methane was detected in 64% of the study wells at concentrations ranging from
0.0007 to 0.0242 mg/L. Methane concentrations observed during the study were consistent
with background methane concentrations in the Trinity aquifer south of Wise County (0.0144 to
0.0347 mg/L).
• Iron and manganese were detected at concentrations above the EPA's secondary maximum
contamination level (SMCL). The iron, manganese, and arsenic levels detected in the study
samples were consistent with naturally occurring sources and the historical ground water data.
• Chloride was detected in two study wells at concentrations that exceeded the chloride SMCL by
a factor of 2.2 to 7.9 times.
• Based on the screening of potential sources of impacts, formation brines were the only source
that was consistent with the observed impacts on two of the study wells. In the third impacted
well, the screening indicated two potential sources exist for the impact observed, brines and
landfill leachate. However, the evaluation of the potential source or sources of the impact was
limited based on a lack of available site-specific data. Site-specific data were available only for
formation brines, while literature data were used for other potential sources of impacts. This
limited the capability of geochemical fingerprinting and determining a definitive source of the
impacts.
4

-------
Retrospective Case Study in Wise County, Texas
May 2015
1. Introduction
Recent advances in drilling technologies (horizontal drilling) and well stimulation (hydraulic fracturing)
have resulted in large-scale development of vast, 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, vast areas with
very little or no previous oil and gas development also are now being developed. As a result, there are
rising concerns over potential impacts on human health and the environment, especially with regard to
potential effects on drinking water sources. Environmental concerns include the potential for
contamination of shallow ground water by stray gases (methane), formation waters (brines), and
fracturing chemicals associated with unconventional gas development.
In December 2009, Congress urged EPA to study the relationship between hydraulic fracturing and
drinking water. The study was to be conducted using a credible approach that relied on the best
available science as well as independent sources of information, and through a transparent, peer-
reviewed process that would ensure the validity and accuracy of the data. EPA also consulted with
other federal agencies and appropriate state and interstate regulatory agencies in carrying 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 waters 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?
5

-------
Retrospective Case Study in Wise County, Texas
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 has 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 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 Study Plan (US
EPA, 2011b). EPA's plan for the retrospective case studies was to make a determination on the presence
and extent of drinking water resource contamination 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 (US
EPA, 2011b). In 2011 EPA also began conducting investigations at the five selected retrospective case
study locations in 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). The Wise County, Texas
retrospective case study examined three distinct locations within Wise County where hydraulic
fracturing has already occurred and is ongoing (Figures 1 and 2). Wise County has historically produced
a considerable amount of oil and gas from many plays, but currently the Barnett Shale is the formation
receiving attention with new exploration. Reported drinking water concerns are clustered in three
distinct locations within Wise County: (1) Location A, approximately 10 miles east of Decatur, (2)
Location B, approximately 4 miles southwest of Decatur, and (3) Location C, approximately 6 miles
northeast of Alvord (Figure 2). Homeowner complaints were centered on the recovery of natural gas
from the Barnett Shale. Through the screening process, EPA determined that these three locations
would be appropriate candidates for the study.
In Location A, homeowner complaints centered primarily on concerns about odors, leaks, and spills. It
was later discovered that a fish kill had occurred in a small lake adjacent to a well pad. Three of the
property owners have had their drinking water privately tested and some of the results may indicate a
problem with their water; however the data quality was unknown. However, these data cannot be
definitively linked to oil and gas production in the area or to other sources of contamination.
In Location B, two homeowner complaints included increased saltiness of drinking water. Other issues
reported by these two homeowners were corroding appliances (e.g. dishwashers, washing machines,
etc.) and water that sometimes had a rotten egg smell. There were no existing water quality data on
any of the wells at this location (US EPA, 2012).
In Location C, homeowner complaints included reported changes in the smell of the drinking water in
their homes and corroding appliances. One homeowner had preexisting data. One set of data had no
OA information so its validity could not be substantiated, while the other data set had validated QA and
did not indicate any problems with water quality. There were no existing water quality data for the
other homeowner well at this location.
6

-------
Retrospective Case Study in Wise County, Texas
May 2015
This report provides the Wise, County case study data and discussion of results. The following sections
of this report present the purpose and scope of this case study; an overview of the case study site
background; study methods; historical water quality data; analysis of the study sample data; analysis
and discussion of site-specific focus areas; and a summary of the case study findings.
7

-------
Retrospective Case Study in Wise County, Texas
May 2015
"|wise County Search Areas
•COli :N
COUNTY
D&c'atur
WISE B
COUNTY
IAROI
OUNT
Dallas
! Fori Worth i
¦ ¦
Wise County Sampling Locations
EPA Hydraulic Fracturing Study
Wise County, Texas
o EPA HF Search Areas
Figure 1. Overview of the Wise County Retrospective Case Study Location.
8

-------
Retrospective Case Study in Wise County, Texas
May 2015
OKLAHOMA
i City •
1 ARKA
NEW
VCjCIcp
TEXAS
Location A
Chihuahua
Decatur
•Monterrey Brownsville
Torreon
Bridgep^t
tBsCKPOsr
UUNI
AIRPORT
Produced Water
Sample Locations
EPA HF Sampling
Locatons
Search Areas
r*1 County Boundaries
WISE COUNTY
on wort
*u««c
AiRPO/1
Decatur
Montague
Location B
Location C
Wise County, Texas
Sampling Location:
EPA Hydraulic Fracturing Stud'
vord
Source: Basemap, ESRI; Sampling Locations, EPA ORD
Figure 2. Detailed view of the Wise County sampling locations.
9

-------
Retrospective Case Study in Wise County, Texas
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 provides the results of the retrospective case study conducted in the north central Texas and
describes general water quality, geochemistry, and isotopic parameters of shallow ground water in Wise
County, Texas. This area has been the focus of natural gas extraction from the Mississippian-age Barnett
Shale. Water quality results were used to evaluate the potential impacts on drinking water resources, if
any, from various land use activities not restricted to shale-gas drilling and production. The evaluation
of potential impacts includes consideration of the chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing, and analyses of
dissolved gases, deep brine geochemistry in relation to shallow ground water geochemistry, historical
ground water quality in Wise County, and time-dependent geochemical trends. Potential causes of
water quality impairment that were evaluated include: industrial/commercial land use; historical land
use (e.g., farming and mining); current drilling processes/practices; historical drilling practices; and
naturally occurring sources of contamination.
This report presents analytical data for water samples from three locations (Locations A, B, and C)
representing domestic wells, production wells, and surface water bodies sampled at least twice during
five rounds spanning 20 months (September 2011, March 2012, September 2012 (limited sampling),
December 2012, and May 2013) in Wise County. The water samples were analyzed for up to 225
constituents, which included organic compounds, nutrients, major anions, major cations, trace
elements, dissolved gases, and selected isotopes. Ground water quality data and summary statistics are
presented for sampled constituents. In addition to chemical data collected specifically for this study, the
report includes analysis of historical data from the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) National Water
Information System (NWIS) database, Texas Water Development Board (TXWDB) database, and USGS
National Uranium Resource Evaluation (NURE) database for Wise County.
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 in 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 in the subsequent steps. 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 includes: a literature review of background geology and hydrology;
choosing sampling locations and the development of a site-specific Quality Assurance Project Plan
(QAPP); sampling and analysis of water wells 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. Further evaluation of any 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.
10

-------
Retrospective Case Study in Wise County, Texas
May 2015
3. Study Area Background
Wise County is located in north-central Texas (Figure 1). The center of the county is located
approximately 60 miles northeast of downtown Dallas and 40 miles south of the Oklahoma border
(England, 2013). According to the 2010 U.S. Census, Wise County has a population of about 60,000.
This mostly rural county covers an area of approximately 922 square miles (England, 2013).
The annual precipitation in Wise County is approximately 29 inches, with May, June, and October
typically being the wettest months (England, 2013). The mean average temperature ranges from 33
degrees Fahrenheit (°F) in January to 95°F in August (England, 2013). The Eastern Grand Prairie and the
Western Cross Timbers regions of Texas divide Wise County from north to south. The average elevation
in Wise County is 800 feet (ft) above sea level, and approximately two-thirds of the county is drained by
the West Fork of theTrinity River (England, 2013). In addition to oil and gas, other natural resources in
Wise County include stone and clay (England, 2013).
In Wise County, gas reserves are being developed in the Barnett Shale, which is an unconventional shale
deposit in the Fort Worth basin adjoining the Bend Arch. Recently, development of the Barnett Shale
has greatly increased.
3.1. Geology
Wise County is located in the Bend Arch-Fort Worth Basin. The stratigraphy (Figure 3) of the Bend Arch-
Fort Worth Basin is characterized by sedimentary strata and includes limestones, sandstones, and
shales. The Barnett shale is of Mississippian age (320 to 360 million years ago) and extends throughout
the Bend Arch-Fort Worth Basin: south from the Muenster Arch, near the Oklahoma border, to the Llano
Uplift in Burnet County, and west from the Ouachita Thrust Front near Dallas, to Taylor County (Figure 4)
(Bruner and Smosna, 2011). In the northeastern portion of the Fort Worth Basin, the Barnett Shale is
divided by the Forestburg Limestone, but this formation tapers out towards the southern edge of Wise
County (Bruner and Smosna, 2011). The Barnett Shale is bounded by the Chappel Limestone below it
and the Marble Falls Limestone above it (Bruner and Smosna, 2011).
Stratigraphic units that supply fresh-to-slightly saline water to wells in the study region range in age
from Paleozoic to recent. The most important water-bearing formations in north-central Texas are of
Cretaceous age (i.e., 66 to 144 million years ago). The Cretaceous-age Trinity Group is the principal
water-bearing group of rocks in the study area. Based on information obtained from site visits, all but
one of the domestic wells included in this case study are screened in the groundwater-bearing
formations of the Trinity Group. According to the Texas Railroad Commission (TRRC), the base of the
Cretaceous formations in Wise County range from 700 to 1,050 ft below ground surface (bgs); the
Barnett Shale, occurring in the Pennsylvanian system, occurs between 7,000 to 8,000 ft bgs (NETL,
2013).
As shown on Figure 5A, Geological Map of Wise County, the Trinity Group crops out through most of the
Wise County study area. The Trinity group dips eastward and southeastward and is underlain and
confined by low-permeability rocks that range in age from Precambrian to Jurassic. Where it does not
outcrop, is confined by the Walnut Formation (Renken, 1998). The aquifer dips to the south and
southeast and exhibits a high degree of vertical anisotropy (Renken, 1998).
11

-------
Retrospective Case Study in Wise County, Texas
May 2015
System
and Series
Stage
Group or Formation
Cretaceous
Lower
Comanchean



Ochoan-Guadalupian

Perrmiar

Leonardian


Wolfcampian
0
^ Cisco Group


Virginian


Missourian
Canyon Group
•
c
<3
"c

C

Desmoinesian
•
^ Strawn Group
0

is

Osagean
0 Chappel Limestone
0 Viola Limestone
Ordovician


Simpson Group
% Ellenburger Group
Cambrian
Upper

Wilberns - Riley - Hickory
Formations
Pre- Cambrian
Granite - Diorite - Metasediments
Lower Marble Falls
Upper Barnett
jForestburg Ls xj
Barnett Indifference
^3^
Lower Barnett
Chappel Ls
Ellenburger
I Oil reservoir ¦£])• Gas r
Source: American Association of Petroleum Geologists
Figure 3. A generalized stratigraphy column for the Fort Worth Basin (modified from Bruner and Smosna, 2011).
12

-------
Retrospective Case Study in Wise County, Texas
May 2015
VYolfcatfP
fceous
EU»nb®'fl#r
Strawn
Facies.
Change
Lower Penn
Forestburg
Lime
WEST
EAST
Throckmorton
Stonewall Haskell
Denton
Cisco
Canyon
x Chappel
Reefs
X X X X X
LlmeX w
Wash &
x ' «-x
X X X X X X X\
x X x x Fo?Wor,h X
Basin
X X X X X X X
Figure 4. A generalized geologic cross section of the Bend Arch, Fort Worth Basin and Muenster Arch (modified from Bruner and Smosna, 2011).
13

-------
Retrospective Case Study in Wise County, Texas
May 2015
LbiriuWiua
Map Panels
A: Geologic Formations
B: Land Use/Land Cover
(2006)
C: Oil and Gas Wells
(TX RRC April 2013)
D: Barnett Shale Wells
4
0 5 10
¦ ¦ ¦ i Miles
Wise County, Texas
EPA Hydraulic Fracturing Study
Bedrock Geology	|p,»	*8'	M
#C Wt	ip-	*4	«i«	®
#4 *«	|p*f	M	tti
$4 ro	x»	*p«	•€ *>
*i<	Hd	\	ftfl	Seorch
ft ft	M Xgl	M	Hn	• EMSwpN loartor*
• Oil and Gas Wells (Surface) (Total - 9,757)
O Search Areas
2006 Land Use Barren	Grass/Herbaceous C 3 Search Areas
0C Open Water Forest	Agricultural # EPA Sampling Locations
m Developed	Shrubland M Wetlands
Barnett Wells By
Completion (Total -
2,983)
1981 - 2005 2009	Search Areas
2006 • 2010
Wise County, Texas Geologic Map
QUARTERNARY
Qal (Alluvium)
Qt (Quarternary and Tertiary deposits, undivided
Qu (Quarternary Deposits, undivided)
CRETACEOUS
Kfd (Fort Worth & Duck Creek Formations)
06 Kki (Kiamichi Formation)
Kgw (Goodland Limestone and Walnut Clay, undivided)
06 Kgl (Edwards Limestone, Comanche Peak Llimestone, Goodland Limestone)
06 Kwa (Walnut Clay)
Kpa (Paluxy Sand)
06 Kgr (Glen Rose Limestone)
Ktm (Twin Mountains Formation)
Ka (Antlers Sand)
PENNSYLVANIAN
IPpm (Palo Pinto and Mineral Wells Formation, undivided)
IPtg (Thrifty and Graham Formation, undivided)
06 IPcc (Colony Creek Shale)
IPr (Ranger Limestone)
IPv (Ventioner Formation)
06 IPcr (Chico Ridge Limestone)
IPjc (Jasper Creek Formation)
IPwp (Willow Point Formation)
OTHER
06 Wa (Water)
Source: Landuse: USGS; Geology. EPA ORD. USGS, Texas Water Development Board; Sampling Locations, EPA ORD; Well Locations: Texas Railroad Commission
Figure 5. Maps of Wise County, Texas showing (A) Surface bedrock geology, (B) Land use and Land Cover, (C) Oil and Gas Wells, and (D) Barnett Shale Wells.
14

-------
Retrospective Case Study in Wise County, Texas
May 2015
The Trinity Group is divided into the following formations (youngest to oldest): Paluxy, Glen Rose,
Antlers, and Twin Mountains. In the southern part of the county, the Trinity Group is composed of the
Paluxy, Glen Rose, and Twin Mountains formations (Nordstrom, 1982; Renken, 1998). In the northern
portion of the county, the Glen Rose formation pinches out and the Paluxy and Twin Mountains
formations coalesce to form one unit, the Antlers formation (Nordstrom, 1982; Renken, 1998).
The Paluxy formation is the upper member of the Trinity Group south of the Glen Rose pinch-out. It
crops out in Hood, Parker, Tarrant, and Wise counties. The dip is easterly at an average rate of 30 feet
per mile (ft/mile) (5.7 meters per kilometer [m/km]) near the outcrop, increasing to 80 ft/mile
(15.2 m/km) near the downdip limit of fresh to slightly saline water. The Paluxy is composed
predominantly of fine- to coarse-grained, friable, homogeneous, white quartz sand interbedded with
sandy, silty, calcareous, or waxy clay and shale. In general, coarse-grained sand is in the lower part of
the formation. The Paluxy grades upward into fine-grained sand with variable amounts of shale and
clay. The sands are usually well-sorted, poorly cemented, and crossbedded. Pyrite and iron nodules are
often associated with the sands and contribute to the high iron concentrations in the groundwater
(Nordstrom, 1982).
The Glen Rose formation consists of hard limestone strata alternating with marl or marly limestone
(Nordstrom, 1982). The Glen Rose formation in Wise County consists of only three or four thin ledges of
limestone interstratified with clays, sandy clays, and sands, and the total thickness is never more than
25 ft, with a reported thickness ranging from 22 to 25 ft (Scott and Armstrong, 1932).
The Antlers formation crops out mainly in Cooke, Montague, and Wise counties. The formation dips to
the southeast at an average rate of 20 ft/mile (3.8 m/km) near its outcrop to 70 ft/mile (13.3 m/km)
near its southeastern limit. The Antlers consists of basal conglomerate and gravel overlain by a fine,
white to gray, poorly consolidated sand in massive crossbedded layers interbedded with layers of red,
purple, or gray clay in discontinuous lenses scattered throughout the formation, with a middle section
containing considerably more clay beds than the upper or lower sections (Nordstrom, 1982). Fine, white
to yellow pack sand with thin beds of multicolored clay resting on a basal layer of gravel characterize a
section on the outcrop (Nordstrom, 1982).
The Twin Mountains formation crops out in the western part of the study region in Hood, Parker, and
Wise counties. The formation overlies Paleozoic rocks throughout the study region and is the lower
member of the Trinity Group; it underlies the Glen Rose formation where the Glen Rose is present. In
Wise, Denton, Cooke, and Grayson counties, where the Glen Rose formation is absent, the Twin
Mountains formation is equivalent to the lower unit of the Antlers formation. The Twin Mountains
consists of a basal conglomerate of chert and quartz, grading upward to coarse- to fine-grained sand
interspersed with varicolored shale. The sand strata are more thickly bedded in the lower part of the
formation than in the upper and middle, and it is in this lower massive sand that the majority of wells
are completed. The upper part of the Twin Mountains formation also contains a considerable
percentage of sand and sandstone strata, but less than the lower part due to the increased interbedding
of shale and clay. Few wells are developed in the upper part of the formation (Nordstrom, 1982).
The topography in the eastern portion of Wise County consists of gently rolling hills (England, 2013).
The soils in the eastern portion of the county typically are sandy loam topsoils with brick clay subsoils. A
combination of flat and undulating topography makes up the central portion of the county (England,
2013). The subsoils in the central part of the county are deep layers of red clay that are overlain by light
15

-------
Retrospective Case Study in Wise County, Texas
May 2015
colored surface soils. The topography of the western section of the county is primarily hilly, with alluvial
loam and sandy topsoils that cover the clay and limestone subsoils or bedrock (England, 2013). A more
detailed description of the geology is given in Appendix D.
3.2. Hydrogeology
Historical water quality data have been reported by Nordstrom (1982), Reutter and Dunn (2000), the
Texas Water Development Board (TXWDB, 2013b), and the USGS (2013a, 2013b). In general, water
quality data from both Nordstorm and Reutter and Dunn are consistent with each other. The historical
data can be used as a reference point for water quality changes that may have taken place since 2000.
The Paluxy formation yields small to moderate amounts of fresh to slightly saline water (Nordstrom,
1982). Water in the outcrop area is under water table conditions, and water levels remain fairly
constant, with only normal seasonal fluctuations. In downdip areas, water is under artesian conditions
and is confined under hydrostatic pressure by overlying formations.
The Glen Rose formation yields small quantities of water to shallow wells in localized areas, and is of
poor quality (Nordstrom, 1982).
The primary source of ground water in the Antlers formation is precipitation on the outcrop; streams on
the outcrop are a source of recharge. Water in the outcrop area is unconfined and therefore under
water table conditions. Downdip from the outcrop, the water is confined under hydrostatic pressure
and is under artesian conditions (Baker et al., 1990).
The Twin Mountains formation, which is the most important source of ground water for a large part of
the northern Texas (Baker et al., 1990), yields moderate to large quantities of fresh to slightly saline
water to municipal and industrial wells. The primary source of recharge to the Twin Mountains
formation is precipitation falling on the outcrop and other minor sources such as surface water seepage
from ponds, lakes, and streams cutting the outcrop. Ground water in this formation usually occurs
under water table conditions in or near the outcrop; downdip of the outcrop, it can be under artesian
conditions (Nordstrom, 1982).
The average rate of movement of ground water in the Antlers, Twin Mountains, and Paluxy formations
of the Trinity Group is about 1 to 2 feet per year (ft/yr) (Nordstrom, 1982), generally in an east-
southeast direction. However, as reported by the TXWDB in 1990, extensive cones of depression have
developed in the piezometric surface of each of the region's principal aquifers, coinciding with areas of
large ground water withdrawals. For example, from 1976 to 1989, water level declines of 25 ft (1.9
ft/yr) were common in the aquifers throughout the TXWBD's northern Texas aquifer study area.
Declines have been especially severe over extensive areas in the Antlers and Twin Mountains aquifers.
Water-level declines in the Paluxy were reported in some locations (Baker et al., 1990). A more detailed
description of the hydrogeology is presented in Appendix D.
3.3. Oil and Gas Production
Since the 1950s, Wise County has been a focus of extensive oil and gas production as a result of being
located in the north-central portion of the Bend Arch-Fort Worth Basin (Figure 6). The comprehensive
National Assessment of Oil and Gas Project completed by the USGS in 1995 (Ball and Perry, 1996)
assessed the potential for undiscovered oil and natural gas resources of the onshore United States. The
16

-------
Retrospective Case Study in Wise County, Texas
May 2015
project identified the Bend Arch-Fort Worth Basin as a major petroleum-producing geological system,
and the basin was officially designated by the USGS as Province 045 and classified as the Barnett-
Paleozoic total petroleum system (TPS). Oil and gas production in the TPS comes from carbonate and
clastic rock reservoirs ranging in age from Ordovician to Permian (Figure 3). The first indications of
hydrocarbons in the province were shows of oil and gas in wells drilled for water during the mid-
nineteenth century. Sporadic exploration for petroleum began at the conclusion of the Civil War, and
the first commercial oii accumulations were found in the early 1900s. The province reached a mature
stage of exploration and development in the 1960s (Ball and Perry, 1996). In 2003, the USGS conducted
a new assessment of the TPS and estimated a mean of 26.7 trillion cubic feet (tcf) of undiscovered
natural gas, a mean of 98.5 million barrels (bbl) of undiscovered oil, and a mean of 1.1 billion bbls of
undiscovered natural gas liquids, with more than 98%, or 26.2 tcf, of the undiscovered natural gas
resource in the Mississippian-age Barnett Shale (USGS, 2004).
lOZWV
IQO^W
J OKLAHOMA
Hardeman
v Basin
Broken Bone
Graben/—
Eastern
Permian
Fort
Worth
Basin
Provinci
Fort Worth r S
v13asin §
Llano
Austin
\ Houston
Figure 6. Bend Arch-Fort Worth Basiri Province boundary is outlined in red; red star indicates Wise County (after
USGS, 2004).
17

-------
Retrospective Case Study in Wise County, Texas
May 2015
According to the USGS, extensive stratigraphic accumulations of natural gas occur in the numerous
lenticular sandstone and conglomerate bodies of Early Pennsylvanian age in Jack, Parker, and Wise
counties, Texas. These sandstone and conglomerate lenses, locally known as "Bend Conglomerates,"
were deposited during the Atoka Stage of the Middle Pennsylvanian period and are characterized by
extreme variability in lateral extent. The Boonsville Bend Conglomerate gas field and the Toto (lower
Bend Conglomerate) gas field cover an area of approximately 450 square miles in Jack, Parker, and Wise
counties. At one point in the 1950s, this gas field was the largest gas-producing area of North Texas.
Reported depths for these Bend Conglomerates range from 5,000 to 7,000 ft bgs.
The East Newark Field (i.e., the Barnett Shale) first became a TRRC-recognized field in early 1981, when
Mitchell Energy Corp. made the first economic completion in the formation with its C.W. Slay No. 1,
located 4 miles east of Newark, Texas. This could not be considered a true "discovery" since the Barnett
Shale was known to exist in the TPS for some time, as many wells had been drilled for years in the area
to the shallower Boonsville Field or deeper to the Viola Limestone intervals, while penetrating the
Barnett Shale. According to TRRC records, as of January 2012, there were 16,530 gas wells in the
Barnett Shale and 2,457 permitted locations.
According to the TRRC, the number of permits issued in the Barnett Shale peaked in 2008, with more
than 4,000 permits being issued (Figure 7). In contrast, in 2012, approximately 1,182 permits were
issued. Similarly, the number of drilling permits issued in Wise County peaked between 2001 to 2002,
with more than 390 permits being issued, while in 2013, fewer than 70 permits were issued by the TRRC.
From January through November 2012, production in the Barnett shale accounted for 31% of Texas gas
well production. As of February 2013, the TRRC reported a total of 4,362 regular gas-producing wells in
Wise County.
In 1919 the TRRC was given authority by the Texas legislature to regulate well plugging and enact
general requirements designed to prevent the loss of oil and gas to other strata. The TRRC continued to
update plugging regulations by issuing specific cementing instructions in 1934 and then requiring the
plugging of fresh water strata in 1957. In 1966, the TRRC promulgated Rule 14, which required setting
cement plugs to protect fresh water sands to protect drinkable quality water from pollution and to
isolate each productive horizon. On February 12, 2012, the TRRC implemented the Hydraulic Fracturing
Disclosure Rule, requiring oil and gas operators to disclose chemical ingredients and water volumes
used in all hydraulic fracturing wells in Texas completed after February 1, 2012. These regulations
require the operator to disclose this information on the well completion report, and complete the
Chemical Disclosure Registry form and upload it to the FracFocus database. In May 2013, the TRRC also
issued new regulations on the construction of oil and gas wells. The rule, known as the "well-integrity
rule," took effect in January 2014 and updates the Commission's requirements for drilling a well,
installing pipe down the well, and cementing the pipe in place.
3.4. Land Use
Much of Wise County has historically been devoted to agriculture (grazing, crop farming, and forestry).
In addition, coal mines operated in the county in the early twentieth century and oil and gas production
have been major industries in the county for many decades (England, 2013). The economy of Wise
County is integrated with that of the nearby Fort Worth-Arlington metropolitan area and many county
residents commute to work in that area. About a quarter of all workers in the county commute to
nearby Tarrant County, in which Fort Worth and Arlington are located (U.S. Census Bureau, 2013).
18

-------
Retrospective Case Study in Wise County, Texas
May 2015
4500
4000-
3500
"O
0
jo 3000
2500 -
2000-
1500-
1000-
500-
Barnett Shale Drilling Permits Issued
(1993- August 2013)
CO

m
CD

00
CD
o
T—
CM
CO
¦sf
ID
CD
h-
00
CD
O
¦*—
CM
CO
cd
cd
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
o
o
O
O
o
O
O
O
O
O
T—
T—

T—
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
o
o
O
O
o
O
O
O
O
O
o
o
O
o
T—
T—
"I—
t—
t—
T—
T—
C\l
CsJ
CN
CM
CM
CM
CM
CM
CM
CM
CM
CM
CM
CM
Year
Figure 7. Drilling permits for the Barnett Shale from 1993 to August 2013 (TRRC, 2013).
Figure 8 shows land use maps created using the National Land Cover Database (NLCD) for Wise County
in 1992 and 2006. Table 1, based on the same source, contains data on land use in the county in 1992
and 2006. NLCD is based upon 30-meter resolution data from the Landsat satellite (USGS, 2012a). The
2006 dataset was the most recent land use information available.
Because of methodological differences, quantitative comparisons of land use are not recommended;
however, qualitative comparisons suggest very little difference in the predominant land use patterns
between 1992 and 2006 (Multi-Resolution Land Characteristics Consortium, 2013). The NLCD data
indicate that in both years grassland/herbaceous and pasture/hay (i.e., land suitable for grazing or
animal forage production) were the largest land use categories in the county, followed by forestland,
and that between them these accounted for the majority of the land use in the county. The data also
indicate that, between 1992 and 2006, land use patterns did not significantly change, although in 2006
there was much more developed land (to some extent, this may have been a function of the input data
and methodology changes noted above). Additional land use analysis, with particular focus in the areas
adjacent to the sampling points of this study, is presented in Appendix C.
19

-------
Retrospective Case Study in Wise County, Texas
May 2015
Table 1. Land use in Wise County in 1992 and 2006.
Land Use
1992
2006
Square
Miles
% of
Total
Square
Miles
% of
Total
Grassland/Herbaceous
329.0
35.8
541.7
58.8
Pasture/Hay
267.5
29.0
94.4
10.2
Deciduous Forest
124.0
13.5
136.0
14.8
Row/Cultivated Crops
68.7
7.5
40.9
4.4
Shrub/Scrub
54.3
5.9
1.0
0.1
Open Water
29.2
3.2
20.3
2.2
Evergreen Forest
18.1
2.0
0.7
0.1
Developed
11.4
1.2
79.1
8.6
Mixed Forest
10.2
1.1
—
—
Quarries/Strip Mines/Gravel Pits
4.8
0.5
—
—
Emergent Herbaceous Wetlands
1.3
0.1
0.4
0.1
Urban/Recreational Grass
1.1
0.1
—
—
Barren
0.6
0.1
6.8
0.7
Total
920.2
100.0
921.3
100.0
Source: USGS, 2012a
3.5. Other Potential Contaminant Sources
A detailed background assessment is needed to evaluate potential source of contamination. A list of
candidate causes, i.e., hypothesized causes of environmental impairment sufficiently credible to be
analyzed (US EPA, 2000a), was developed for three distinct areas of this retrospective case study site
(Locations A, B, and C). Each environmental stressor was evaluated by examining potential causes and
effects. Candidate causes included potential sources that could stress the environment and thus
contribute to 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 there are potential sources of contamination unrelated to drilling and
hydraulic fracturing processes, a background assessment was conducted for each location of interest in
Wise County.
The detailed background assessments reviewed the following databases:
• Environmental Records Search: Environmental record searches were performed by obtaining
environmental record reports from Environmental Data Resources, Inc. (EDR). EDR searches
publicly available databases and also provides data from their own proprietary databases.
20

-------
Retrospective Case Study in Wise County, Texas
May 2015
1992
<*¦-. j ;S l"'-'
*blC~lc
Decatur
Lake Bridgeport^ J Bridgeport
Runaway Bay
-M

Paradise
New Fairview
Pecan Acres
Newark'Pecan'Acres
Springtown
2006
fU'H
I -SJK
mt is*
Lake Bridgeporf
Runaway Bay'
M
Paradise
New Fairview

Springtown
Pecan Acres fi
"fSJSr Peca n 'Acres^
Land Use	Shrubland C ^ Sampling Buffers
Open Water	Grass/Herbaceous ^_j Municipal Boundaries
Developed	Agricultural
Barren	06 Wetlands
Forest
0 25 5
10
I Miles
Land Use Land Cover
1992-2006
Wise County, Texas
EPA Hydraulic Fracturing Study
Source: USGS National Land Cover Database (1992,2006), PASDA, US EPA ORD
Figure 8. Land Use in Wise County, Texas from 1992-2006 (source National Land Cover Database),
21

-------
Retrospective Case Study in Wise County, Texas
May 2015
• Well Inventory: Existing oil and gas wells from the TRRC's oil and gas well database.
• State Record Summary: The TRRC provided up-to-date well records for wells for the study
areas. The TRRC database provides information on inspection and pollution prevention,
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.
Appendix C provides the results of these detailed background assessments for each case study location.
The issues concerning ground water and surface water in Location A (approximately 10 miles east of
Decatur) include complaints about changes in water quality (odor and taste) believed to be associated
with recent gas drilling. Although numerous gas wells have been recently drilled and continue to be
drilled in these areas, no specific gas well was considered a potential candidate cause at the initiation of
the study. Changes in water quality could also be due to historical land use, historical drilling practices,
and/or naturally occurring sources.
The issues concerning ground water and surface water in Location B (approximately 4 miles southwest
of Decatur) include complaints regarding increased saltiness of drinking water. After the area was
evaluated for impact, the potential candidate causes of the increased saltiness of drinking water in
Location B include brine migrating from underlying formations along current and historical well bores
due to well integrity; brine migrating from underlying formations along natural fractures; leaks from the
reserve pits and/or impoundments; and brine migrating from a nearby brine injection well located 0.6
miles northwest of WISETXGW01.
The issues concerning ground water and surface water in Location C (approximately 6 miles northeast of
Alvord) include complaints about changes in the smell of the drinking water believed to be associated
with recent gas drilling. Changes in water quality could also be due to historical land use, historical
drilling practices, and naturally occurring sources.
A report produced by Battelle (2013) addressed other potential sources of contamination that could
impact surface water and ground water on a broad scale (i.e. in Wise and Denton Counties). Battelle
(2013) stated that the most significant causes of impacts on water quality in Wise County were from
agriculture, livestock production, oil and gas activities, construction industries, and historical coal
mining. Over 442,753 acres of Wise County are dedicated to agriculture in the form of livestock
production and cropland. Agricultural impacts from croplands include runoff of pesticides, fertilizers,
metals, total dissolved solids (TDS), and bromide. Impacts from livestock production can include
nutrients, pathogens, and methane. Battelle (2013) also identified mining activities as potential sources
of impacts on water quality. These mining activities included the production of sand and gravel, which
are used in the construction industry in Wise County, as well as coal mining. Water quality impacts
associated with these mining activities include changes in sulfate, turbidity, pH, nitrate, nitrite, and iron
levels. In addition, historical conventional and unconventional oil and gas development has in the past
contributed to declines in water quality in Wise County (Battelle, 2013). Impacts can result from
abandoned wells, pits, and historical discharge to surface waters. For example, Battelle (2013) reported
that 211 documented ground water contamination issues have occurred because of oilfield activities in
Texas. Thirty-five percent of these were the result of waste management and disposal activities; 26.5%
occurred during the production-phase activities; and the remaining impacts were not categorized in the
22

-------
Retrospective Case Study in Wise County, Texas
May 2015
Battelle report. Similarly, another report for the Ground Water Protection Council (GWPC; Kell, 2011),
reported that between 1993 and 2008 there were also 211 incidents of ground water contamination in
Texas related to oil and gas activities. Of the 211 incidents of ground water contamination 35.5 % were
the result of waste management or disposal activities; 27% were legacy incidents from water disposal
pits, and 26.5 % were from storage tank or flow line leaks; and the other 11 % of the reported incidents
were not specified. Battelle (2013) concluded that determining a relationship between hydraulic
fracturing and drinking water impairment is challenging given the lack of adequate data to characterize
background water quality conditions and because of natural variability, land use patterns, and other
factors that affect observed water quality patterns. Although the Battelle report provides context for a
broad assessment of potential contaminant sources in Wise County, it does not provide the necessary
level of detail for each study location as was done in Appendix C.
23

-------
Retrospective Case Study in Wise County, Texas
May 2015
4. Study Methods
This section describes the methods used in this study for the collection of water samples, sample
analysis, quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC), data reduction, and data analysis. The sampling
history, parameters measured, and analytical methods used are summarized in Table 2. A more detailed
description of the sampling methods, analytical methods, and QA/QC QC is presented in the Quality
Assurance Project Plan (QAPP), Hydraulic Fracturing Retrospective Case Study, Wise CoTX, rev. 5 (Beak,
2013), at http://www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/documents/barnett-qapp.pdf.
Table 2. Sampling history, parameters measured and analytical methods used for the Wise County, Texas,
retrospective case study.
Sampling Round
Parameters Measured
Analytical Lab/Analytical Methods
September 2011
Temperature (Temp)
Field/EPA Method 170.1
Specific Conductance (SpC)
Field/EPA Method 120.1
Dissolved Oxygen (DO)
Field/EPA Method 360.1
PH
Field/ EPA Method 150.2
Oxidation-Reduction Potential (ORP)
Field/ No EPA Method
Turbidity (Turb)
Field/USEPA Method 180.1
Alkalinity (Alk)
Field/ USEPA Method 310.1; HACH Method
8203
Dissolved Ferrous Iron (Fe2+)
Field/Standard Method 3500-FeBfor
Wastewater, HACH Method 8146
Dissolved Sulfide
Field/ Standard Method 4500-S2"D for
Wastewater, HACH Method 8131
Dissolved Organic Carbon (DOC)
ORD/NRMRL (Ada)/ EPA Method 9060A
(RSKSOP-330vO)
Dissolved Inorganic Carbon (DIC)
ORD/NRMRL (Ada)/ EPA Method 9060A
(RSKSOP-330vO)
Nutrients (Nitrate + Nitrite, Ammonia)
ORD/NRMRL (Ada)/ EPA Method 353.1 and
350.1 (RSKSOP-214v5)
Anions (Bromide, Chloride, Sulfate,
Fluoride)
ORD/NRMRL (Ada)/ EPA Method 6500
(RSKSOP-276v3) Br in high CI matrix: No EPA
Method (RSKSOP-214v5)
Dissolved Metals
Shaw Environmental/ EPA Methods 200.7
(RSKSOP-213v4)
Total Metals
Shaw Environmental/Analysis- EPA Methods
200.7 (RSKSOP-213v4); and Digestion- EPA
Method 3015A (RSKSOP-179v3)
Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC)
Shaw Environmental/ EPA Method 5021A +
8260C (RSKSOP-299vl)
Low Molecular Weight Acids
Shaw Environmental/ No EPA Method
(RSKSOP-112v6)
Dissolved Gases (Methane, Ethane,
Propane, Butane)
Shaw Environmental/ No EPA Method
(RSKSOP-194v4 &-175v5)
Glycols (2-butoxyethanol, diethylene
glycol, triethylene glycol, tetraethylene
glycol)
EPA Region 3/ No EPA Method (Method in
Development; Schumacher and Zintek, 2014)
24

-------
Retrospective Case Study in Wise County, Texas
May 2015
Table 2. Sampling history, parameters measured and analytical methods used for the Wise County, Texas,
retrospective case study.
Sampling Round
Parameters Measured
Analytical Lab/Analytical Methods

Semi-Volatile Organic Compounds (sVOC)
EPA Region 8/ EPA Method 8270D (ORGM-515
rl.l)
Diesel Range Organic Compounds (DRO)
EPA Region 8/ EPA Method 8015D (ORGM-508
rl.O)
Gasoline Range Organic Compounds
(GRO)
EPA Region 8/ EPA Method 8015D (ORGM-506
rl.O)
March 2012
Temperature (Temp)
Field/ EPA Method 170.1
Specific Conductance (SpC)
Field/ EPA Method 120.1
Dissolved Oxygen (DO)
Field/ EPA Method 360.1
PH
Field/ EPA Method 150.2
Oxidation-Reduction Potential (ORP)
Field/ No EPA Method
Turbidity (Turb)
Field/USEPA Method 180.1
Alkalinity (Alk)
Field/ USEPA Method 310.1; HACH Method
8203
Dissolved Ferrous Iron (Fe )
Field/ Standard Method 3500-FeBfor
Wastewater, HACH Method 8146
Dissolved Sulfide
Field/ Standard Method 4500-S D for
Wastewater, HACH Method 8131
Dissolved Organic Carbon (DOC)
ORD/NRMRL (Ada)/ EPA Method 9060A
(RSKSOP-330v0)
Dissolved Inorganic Carbon (DIC)
ORD/NRMRL (Ada)/ EPA Method 9060A
(RSKSOP-330v0)
Nutrients (Nitrate + Nitrite, Ammonia)
ORD/NRMRL (Ada)/ EPA Method 350.1 and
353.1 (RSKSOP-214v5)
Anions (Bromide, Chloride, Sulfate,
Fluoride)
ORD/NRMRL (Ada)/ EPA Method 6500
(RSKSOP-276v3) Br in high CI matrix: EPA
Method 6500 (RSKSOP-288v3)
Dissolved Metals
CLP/ EPA CLP Inorganic Statement of Work
(SOW) ISM01.3, Exhibit D - Part B
Total Metals
CLP/ EPA CLP Inorganic Statement of Work
(SOW) ISM01.3, Exhibit D - Part B
Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC)
Shaw Environmental/ EPA Method 5021A +
8260C (RSKSOP-299vl)
Low Molecular Weight Acids
Shaw Environmental/ No EPA Method
(RSKSOP-112v6)
Dissolved Gases (Methane, Ethane,
Propane, Butane)
Shaw Environmental/ No EPA Method
(RSKSOP-194v4 &-175v5)
Glycols (2-butoxyethanol, diethylene
glycol, triethylene glycol, tetraethylene
glycol)
EPA Region 3/ No EPA Method (Method in
Development)
Semi-Volatile Organic Compounds (sVOC)
EPA Region 8/ EPA Method 8270D (ORGM-515
rl.l)
Diesel Range Organic Compounds (DRO)
EPA Region 8/ EPA Method 8015D (ORGM-508
rl.O)
25

-------
Retrospective Case Study in Wise County, Texas
May 2015
Table 2. Sampling history, parameters measured and analytical methods used for the Wise County, Texas,
retrospective case study.
Sampling Round
Parameters Measured
Analytical Lab/Analytical Methods

Gasoline Range Organic Compounds
(GRO)
EPA Region 8/ EPA Method 8015D (ORGM-506
rl.O)
Sr/ Sr Isotopes
USGS/ No EPA Method (Thermal ionization
mass spectrometry)
0, H stable isotopes of water
Shaw Environmental: No EPA Method
(RSKSOP-334vO)
September 2012
Temperature (Temp)
Field/EPA Method 170.1
Specific Conductance (SpC)
Field/EPA Method 120.1
Dissolved Oxygen (DO)
Field/EPA Method 360.1
PH
Field/ EPA Method 150.2
Oxidation-Reduction Potential (ORP)
Field/ No EPA Method
Turbidity (Turb)
Field/USEPA Method 180.1
Alkalinity (Alk)
Field/ USEPA Method 310.1; HACH Method
8203
Dissolved Ferrous Iron (Fe2+)
Field/Standard Method 3500-FeBfor
Wastewater, HACH Method 8146
Dissolved Sulfide
Field/Standard Method 4500-S2"Dfor
Wastewater, HACH Method 8131
Dissolved Organic Carbon (DOC)
ORD/NRMRL (Ada)/ EPA Method 9060A
(RSKSOP-330vO)
Dissolved Inorganic Carbon (DIC)
ORD/NRMRL (Ada)/ EPA Method 9060A
(RSKSOP-330vO)
Nutrients (Nitrate + Nitrite, Ammonia)
ORD/NRMRL (Ada)/ EPA Method 350.1 and
353.2 (RSKSOP-214v5)
Iodide
ORD/NRMRL (Ada)/ No EPA Method
RSKSOP-223v2
Anions (Bromide, Chloride, Sulfate,
Fluoride)
ORD/NRMRL (Ada)/ EPA Method 6500
(RSKSOP-276v3) Br in high CI matrix: EPA
Method 6500 (RSKSOP-288v3)
Dissolved Metals
EPA Region 7 RASP Contract Southwest
Research Institute: EPA Methods 200.7 &
6020A
Total Metals
EPA Region 7 RASP Contract Southwest
Research Institute: EPA Methods 200.7 &
6020A
Dissolved Hg (Filtered)
EPA Region 7 RASP Contract Southwest
Research Institute: EPA Method 7470A
Total Hg (Unfiltered)
EPA Region 7 RASP Contract Southwest
Research Institute: EPA Method 7470A
87Sr/86Sr Isotopes
USGS/ No EPA Method (Thermal ionization
mass spectrometry)
0, H stable isotopes of water
Shaw Environmental: No EPA Method
(RSKSOP-334vO)
26

-------
Retrospective Case Study in Wise County, Texas
May 2015
Table 2. Sampling history, parameters measured and analytical methods used for the Wise County, Texas,
retrospective case study.
Sampling Round
Parameters Measured
Analytical Lab/Analytical Methods
December 2012
Temperature (Temp)
Field/ EPA Method 170.1
Specific Conductance (SpC)
Field/ EPA Method 120.1
Dissolved Oxygen (DO)
Field/ EPA Method 360.1
PH
Field/ EPA Method 150.2
Oxidation-Reduction Potential (ORP)
Field/ No EPA Method
Turbidity (Turb)
Field/USEPA Method 180.1
Alkalinity (Alk)
Field/ USEPA Method 310.1; HACH Method
8203
Dissolved Ferrous Iron (Fe )
Field/ Standard Method 3500-FeBfor
Wastewater, HACH Method 8146
Dissolved Sulfide
Field/ Standard Method 4500-S D for
Wastewater, HACH Method 8131
Dissolved Organic Carbon (DOC)
ORD/NRMRL (Ada)/ EPA Method 9060A
(RSKSOP-330v0)
Dissolved Inorganic Carbon (DIC)
ORD/NRMRL (Ada)/ EPA Method 9060A
(RSKSOP-330v0)
Nutrients (Nitrate + Nitrite, Ammonia)
ORD/NRMRL (Ada)/ EPA Method 350.1 and
353.1 (RSKSOP-214v5)
Iodide
ORD/NRMRL (Ada)/ No EPA Method
RSKSOP-223v2
Anions (Bromide, Chloride, Sulfate,
Fluoride)
ORD/NRMRL (Ada)/ EPA Method 6500
(RSKSOP-276v3) Br in high CI matrix: EPA
Method 6500 (RSKSOP-288v3)
Dissolved Metals
EPA Region 7 RASP Contract Southwest
Research Institute: EPA Methods 200.7 &
6020A
Total Metals
EPA Region 7 RASP Contract Southwest
Research Institute: EPA Methods 200.7 &
6020A
Dissolved Hg (Filtered)
EPA Region 7 RASP Contract Southwest
Research Institute: EPA Method 7470A
Total Hg (Unfiltered)
EPA Region 7 RASP Contract Southwest
Research Institute: EPA Method 7470A
Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC)
EPA Region 7 RASP Contract Southwest
Research Institute: EPA Method 8260B
Low Molecular Weight Acids
Shaw Environmental/ No EPA Method
(RSKSOP-112v6)
Dissolved Gases (Methane, Ethane,
Propane, Butane)
Shaw Environmental/ No EPA Method
(RSKSOP-194v4 &-175v5)
Glycols (2-butoxyethanol, diethylene
glycol, triethylene glycol, tetraethylene
glycol)
EPA Region 3/ No EPA Method (Method in
Development)
Semi-Volatile Organic Compounds (sVOC)
EPA Region 8/ EPA Method 8270D (ORGM-515
rl.l)
27

-------
Retrospective Case Study in Wise County, Texas
May 2015
Table 2. Sampling history, parameters measured and analytical methods used for the Wise County, Texas,
retrospective case study.
Sampling Round
Parameters Measured
Analytical Lab/Analytical Methods

Diesel Range Organic Compounds (DRO)
EPA Region 8/ EPA Method 8015D (ORGM-508
rl.O)
Gasoline Range Organic Compounds
(GRO)
EPA Region 8/ EPA Method 8015D (ORGM-506
rl.O)
Sr/ Sr Isotopes
USGS/ No EPA Method (Thermal ionization
mass spectrometry)
0, H stable isotopes of water
Shaw Environmental: No EPA Method
(RSKSOP-334vO)
May 2013
Temperature (Temp)
Field/EPA Method 170.1
Specific Conductance (SpC)
Field/EPA Method 120.1
Dissolved Oxygen (DO)
Field/EPA Method 360.1
PH
Field/ EPA Method 150.2
Oxidation-Reduction Potential (ORP)
Field/ No EPA Method
Turbidity (Turb)
Field/USEPA Method 180.1
Alkalinity (Alk)
Field/ USEPA Method 310.1; HACH Method
8203
Dissolved Ferrous Iron (Fe2+)
Field/Standard Method 3500-FeBfor
Wastewater, HACH Method 8146
Dissolved Sulfide
Field/Standard Method 4500-S2"Dfor
Wastewater, HACH Method 8131
Dissolved Organic Carbon (DOC)
ORD/NRMRL (Ada)/ EPA Method 9060A
(RSKSOP-330vO)
Dissolved Inorganic Carbon (DIC)
ORD/NRMRL (Ada)/ EPA Method 9060A
(RSKSOP-330vO)
Nutrients (Nitrate + Nitrite, Ammonia)
ORD/NRMRL (Ada)/ EPA Method 350.1 and
353.1 (RSKSOP-214v5)
Iodide
ORD/NRMRL (Ada)/ No EPA Method
RSKSOP-223v2
Anions (Bromide, Chloride, Sulfate,
Fluoride)
ORD/NRMRL (Ada)/ EPA Method 6500
(RSKSOP-276v3) Br in high CI matrix: EPA
Method 6500 (RSKSOP-288v3)
Dissolved Metals
EPA Region 7 RASP Contract Southwest
Research Institute: EPA Methods 200.7 &
6020A
Total Metals
EPA Region 7 RASP Contract Southwest
Research Institute: EPA Methods 200.7 &
6020A
Dissolved Hg (Filtered)
EPA Region 7 RASP Contract Southwest
Research Institute: EPA Method 7470A
Total Hg (Unfiltered)
EPA Region 7 RASP Contract Southwest
Research Institute: EPA Method 7470A
87Sr/86Sr Isotopes
USGS/ No EPA Method (Thermal ionization
mass spectrometry)
0, H stable isotopes of water
Shaw Environmental: No EPA Method
(RSKSOP-334vO)
28

-------
Retrospective Case Study in Wise County, Texas
May 2015
4.1. Sampling Locations
Water-quality samples were collected from 16 domestic wells, three production wells (active gas wells),
and four surface water locations in total (Table 3). The samples were collected during five sampling
rounds occurring in September 2011, March 2012, September 2012, December 2012, and May 2013,
with the last three sampling rounds occurring only at Location B. Samples were analyzed for up to 225
constituents, including field parameters, major ions, nutrients, trace metals, volatile organic compounds
(VOCs), semivolatile organic compounds (SVOCs), diesel-range organics (DRO), gasoline-range organics
(GRO), glycol ethers (diethylene, triethylene, and tetraethylene glycol), low-molecular-weight acids
(lactate, formate, acetate, propionate, isobutyrate, and butyrate), dissolved gases (methane, ethane,
propane, and butane), and selected stable isotopes (5180H2o, S2HH2o, and 87Sr/86Sr; see Appendix B).
Table 3. Locations of samples taken as part of the Wise County, Texas, retrospective case study.
Sample ID
Latitude
Longitude
Study Location
Sampling
Rounds
WISETXGW01
33.18620°N
97.62572°W
B
1, 2, 3, 4, 5
WISETXGW02
33.18481°N
97.62632°W
B
1, 2, 4, 5
WISETXGW03
33.18541°N
97.62691°W
B
1, 2,4
WISETXGW04
33.18884°N
97.62665°W
B
1, 2, 4, 5
WISETXGW05
33.19186°N
97.63403°W
B
1,2
WISETXGW06
33.40958°N
97.62195°W
C
1,2
WISETXGW07
33.41591°N
97.61593°W
C
1,2
WISETXGW08
33.18418°N
97.62372°W
B
1, 2, 3, 4, 5
WISETXGW09
33.26966°N
97.40840°W
A
1,2
WISETXGW10
33.26277°N
97.41238°W
A
1,2
WISETXGW11
33.27067°N
97.40943°W
A
1,2
WISETXGW12
33.26712°N
97.41085 °W
A
1
WISETXGW13
33.18448°N
97.62603°W
B
1, 2, 3, 4, 5
WISETXGW14
3 3.18440°N
97.62730°W
B
2, 4,5
WISETXGW15
33.18712°N
97.62430°W
B
2, 4,5
WISETXGW16
33.18157°N
97.61992°W
B
2, 4,5
WISETXSW01
33.26778°N
97.40884°W
A
1,2
WISETXSW02
33.26787°N
97.40890°W
A
1,2
WISETXSW03
33.26748°N
97.40967°W
A
1,2
WISETXSW04
33.18788°N
97.62532°W
B
4,5
WISETXPW01
33.18719°N
97.62577°W
B
3
WISETXPW02
33.17955°N
97.62493°W
B
5
WISETXPW03
3 3.18448°N
97.63172°W
B
5
29

-------
Retrospective Case Study in Wise County, Texas
May 2015
Water was sampled from ground water from domestic wells, produced water from production wells,
and surface water from ponds in this study. A matrix of the sample types and number of sampling
points for each sample type in each of the three locations in this study is shown in Table 4.
Table 4. Sample types and number of sampling points for each location in the
Wise County, Texas, retrospective case study.
Location
Sample Type
Number

Ground Water
4
A
Surface Water
3

Produced Water
0

Ground Water
10
B
Surface Water
1

Produced Water
3

Ground Water
2
C
Surface Water
0

Produced Water
0
At Location A (Figure 9), there were four domestic wells (WISETXGW09, WISETXGW10, WISETXGW11,
and WISETXGW12) in which the homeowners suspected there had been changes in water quality. In
addition, surface water from a small lake was sampled at three locations (WISETXSW01, WISETXSW02,
and WISETXSW03) because of a fish kill that occurred in the lake. At Location A, ground water and
surface water, with the exception of WISETXGW12, were sampled in rounds 1 and 2. WISETXGW12 was
sampled only during the first round of sampling, after which access was denied by the property owner.
At Location B (Figure 10), complaints about water quality changes focused on two wells, WISETXGW01
and WISETXGW08. All other wells at this location were chosen to help ascertain background conditions,
focusing on wells where homeowners did not observe changes in water quality. Background wells at
Location B were established prior to sampling by selecting wells in which the homeowners had not
observed any changes in water quality. Initially, WISTXGW04 was chosen as an upgradient background
well based on the published regional groundwater flow direction (Baker et al., 1990). WISETXGW02 and
WISETXGW03 were also chosen to serve as background wells for this study and are located near one of
the impacted wells. WISETXGW03 was not sampled during the final round of sampling because the
homeowner would not grant access to this well for future samplings.
WISETXGW05 was chosen to serve as a potential background well for the salt water injection well, since
it is also upgradient based on the published regional groundwater direction. WISETXGW05 was only
sampled during the initial two rounds of sampling (September 2011 and March 2012), for the remaining
rounds of sampling access to WISETXGW05 was not granted by the property owners and therefore, not
sampled.
30

-------
Retrospective Case Study in Wise County, Texas
May 2015
SW03
WISE COUNTY
Aerial Closeup of Sampling Locations
Wise County, Texas
Site A
Figure 9. Aerial view of Location A showing sampling locations for domestic wells and surface water sampling
locations. The prefix WISETX has been omitted for both domestic wells (GW) and surface water (SW) on this map
for clarity.
Legend
C Cm« Study Sampling Location*
31

-------
Retrospective Case Study in Wise County, Texas
May 2015
WlSETifcGW04
WISETXGW1
WlgBrXGW03
ISETX<
WUHTXGWl
XPWO
WISETXGWlk'H
WISETXPW02
Aerial Closeup of
Sampling Locations
Wise County, Texas
Location B
EPA Hydraulic Fracturing Study
Barixtt Wdls Sampled
Boone wile 8cnd Conglomerate Well Sam pled
Surface Water
A Brine Injection Wells
• Potential Impacted Weflt
" Site Specific Background Locations
Figure 10. Aerial view of Location B showing sampling locations for domestic wells, production wells, brine
injection wells and surface water sampling locations.
32

-------
Retrospective Case Study in Wise County, Texas
May 2015
After the initial sampling round in September 2011, EPA was granted access to additional domestic wells
that were initially selected to serve as background wells for the study. WISETXGW15 was an additional
upgradient background well. WISETXGW13 and WISETXGW14 were added as background wells
downgradient of WISETXGW01. One of the wells chosen (WISETXGW16) was approximately one-half
mile southeast of the impacted wells and, based on the presumed regional gradient, well outside of the
potentially impacted area, providing confidence in evaluating background concentrations. The
additional background wells were also added to better understand the variations in background
conditions at Location B. An additional sampling for WISETXGW01 and WISETXGW08 occurred in
September 2012 when a special, limited sampling was conducted that coincided with the sampling of a
Barnett Production well, WISETXPW01. Table 3 lists the sampling history for the ground water wells at
this location. Surface water was collected from a pond downhill from the well pad in rounds 4 and 5.
At Location C (Figure 11), homeowner complaints involved two wells, WISETXGW06 and WISETXGW07.
There were no complaints about surface water at this location. WISETXGW06 and WISETXGW07 were
sampled in rounds 1 and 2.
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. See Table A1 (Appendix A) for pre-cleaned bottle types and
number of sample bottles needed for each laboratory analysis.
Both field-filtered and unfiltered samples were collected: unfiltered samples were collected first.
Unfiltered samples that could contain volatile components were collected before samples with less
volatile components. The unfiltered samples were analyzed for the following parameters: dissolved
gases, VOCs, SVOCs, DROs GROs, glycols, low-molecular-weight acids, and total metals. Filtered samples
were collected by placing a 0.45 pim disposable capsule filter at the end of the polyethylene tubing and
passing the water stream through the filter into the sample container. Approximately 100 milliliters
(mL) of ground water was passed through the filter, to waste, before filling sample bottles. Filtered
parameters included dissolved metals, anions, nutrients (ammonia, nitrate + nitrite), dissolved inorganic
carbon (DIC), dissolved organic carbon (DOC), 6180/62H of water, and Sr isotope. Not all parameters
mentioned above were analyzed for each sampling round. Table 2 identifies the types of samples
collected during each sampling round. Sampling methods, sample preservation, and handling are
discussed in detail in the QAPP (Beak, 2013) and are described in Appendix A and Table Al.
4.3. Purging and Sampling at Domestic Wells
Domestic well samples were collected as close to the well head as possible and where possible before
the pressure tank, prior to any water treatment. Methods used were designed to yield samples that
were representative of formation water and to minimize sample contamination using the installed pump
present in the well. A well volume approach, combined with the monitoring of stabilization parameters,
was used for purging domestic wells (Yeskis and Zavala, 2002). Initially the well was allowed to purge at
a flow rate greater than 8 liters per minute (L/min). Depending on the flow rate the initial purge lasted
from 30 to 60 minutes (min).
33

-------
Retrospective Case Study in Wise County, Texas
May 2015
WISE COUNTY
Aerial Closeup of Sampling Locations
Wise County. Texas
Site C
EPA Hydraulic Fracturing Study
Figure 11. Aerial view of Location C showing sampling locations for domestic wells. The prefix WISETX has been
omitted for both domestic wells (GW) on this map for clarity.
Legend
Gnse S-ludf Sampling Locations
34

-------
Retrospective Case Study in Wise County, Texas
May 2015
Once the initial purge was completed, the flow rate was lowered to < 2 L/min (with the exception of two
wells), and one end of a clean piece of polyethylene tubing was connected to the sampling port and the
other end was connected to a flow cell equipped with a YSI 5600 multi-parameter probe. The well was
then allowed to purge at the lower flow rate until geochemical parameters (i.e., specific conductivity
(SpC), pH, dissolved oxygen (DO), and oxidation-reduction potential (ORP)) were stabilized. Once
geochemical parameters were stabilized, the samples were collected. All samples were immediately
preserved upon collection, and the samples were stored on ice prior to leaving the sample location
(Appendix A, Table Al).
Two domestic wells (WISETXGW01 and WISETXGW13) that were no longer in use also were sampled.
Because most of the plumbing to these two wells had been removed and the remaining plumbing could
not be modified, the flow rate could not be adjusted downward. For these two wells, a clean 4-L
graduated cylinder was placed in the water stream and, once filled, the water in the 4-L graduated
cylinder was used to fill the sample containers. These samples were also preserved immediately upon
collection and stored on ice before leaving the site.
Beginning with the September 2012 sampling round, one domestic well (WISETXGW08) was sampled by
lowering a Grundfos Ready Flow 2 pump down the well. This was needed because the pump in the well
had malfunctioned and was removed by the homeowner and not replaced. The Grundfos pump was
lowered approximately 300 ft down the well (where the top of the screen was believed to be) and then
turned on. The flow rate was approximately 1 to 2 L/min. During the September 2012 and the
December 2012 sampling rounds, the well was purged for 60 min and the geochemical parameters were
measured until stabilization occurred. However, upon reviewing the pumped water volume data, it was
determined that a longer purge time was needed. Therefore, during the May 2013 sampling round this
well was purged for 3.5 hours and then was purged until geochemical parameters were stable (one
additional hour). The samples were then collected, preserved, and stored as previously described.
4.4. Sampling at Surface Water Locations
Surface water samples for this case study were collected from Locations A and B. In Location A, the
surface water was collected from a small lake; in Location B, the surface water was collected from a
small pond. In both locations, the surface water bodies were adjacent to and downhill from the well
pad. Gullies at these locations indicated that runoff from the pad flowed into these ponds. In Location
A, because of the size of the lake, three sampling points were needed. Two of the sampling points were
located at a mouth of the gully on the side of the lake that received the runoff from the pad. The third
sampling point was located on the opposite side of the lake and served as a reference point. The pond
at Location B was sampled at only one point. Because of the lack of access to the opposite side of the
pond, a sample could not be obtained. As was the case in Location A, the pond was sampled at the
mouth of a large gully running from the pad to the pond.
The ponds were sampled using a clean piece of polyethylene tubing attached to a pole that was
positioned just above the sediment layer. Sampling was performed in a manner that minimized the
disturbance of the sediment. The other end of the polyethylene tubing was connected to a peristaltic
pump, and the water was purged for a few minutes to avoid collecting any disturbed sediment in the
sample containers. After the purge samples were collected, geochemical parameters were collected by
attaching the YSI probe to a pole and positioning it in the same location where the water sample was
collected. Once probe stabilization occurred, the parameters were recorded in the field notes. All
35

-------
Retrospective Case Study in Wise County, Texas
May 2015
samples were immediately preserved upon collection, and the samples were stored on ice prior to
leaving the sampling location (Appendix A, Table Al).
4.5. Sampling at Production Wells
Production wells were sampled in cooperation with contractors of the TRRC at the gas-liquid separator.
Company representatives or the TRRC contractors operated all equipment around the production wells.
Production wells were sampled by attaching a clean piece of polyethylene tubing to a connection port at
the base of the gas-liquid separator, and the other end of the tube was connected to a polyethylene
carboy. The port on the gas-liquid separator was opened and the sample was allowed to pass into the
carboy. Once filled, the carboy was disconnected from the polyethylene tubing and moved away from
the gas-liquid separator. A new clean piece of polyethylene tubing was placed in the carboy, and the
sample containers were filled using a peristaltic pump (Geotech, Geopump Series II). Additionally, a sub-
sample was collected for measurement of the geochemical parameters (temperature, pH, ORP, SpC, and
DO) and turbidity, alkalinity, ferrous iron, and dissolved sulfide. Once field parameter measurements
stabilized, the geochemical parameters were recorded in the field note book. The samples were
immediately preserved, and all samples were stored on ice prior to leaving the sampling location.
4.6. Sample Shipping/Handling
At the conclusion of each day, samples were organized by analytical parameter, placed together in
sealed Ziploc plastic bags, and transferred to coolers filled with ice. Glass bottles were packed with
bubble wrap to prevent breakage. A temperature blank and chain-of-custody form were placed in each
cooler. Coolers were sealed and affixed with a custody seal and sent to the appropriate lab, via express
delivery, within 24 hours of collection.
4.7. Water Analysis
4.7.1. Field Parameters
Temperature (EPA Method 170.1), SpC (EPA Method 120.1), pH (EPA Method 150.2), ORP, and DO (EPA
Method 360.1) were continuously monitored and logged during well purging using an YSI 556 multi-
parameter probe. YSI electrodes were calibrated every morning prior to use. Performance checks were
conducted after in initial calibration, at mid-day, and at the end of each day. National Institute of
Standards and Technology (NIST)-traceable 1413 microsiemens per centimeter (nS/cm) SpC standard
was used for calibration. NIST-traceable buffer solutions (4.00, 7.00, and 10.01) were used for pH
calibration. An ORP standard (Zobell Solution) was used for calibration of the ORP sensor. Electrode
performance was checked using the YSI 5580 Confidence Solution. Dissolved oxygen sensors were
calibrated with air. Prior to deployment to the field, all calibration and performance standards were
checked to ensure that they had not expired nor would they expire during the sampling round.
Duplicate field measurements are not applicable to measurements performed in flow-through cell
(RSKSOP-211v3).
Once stabilization of the geochemical parameters occurred, a 1 L sub-sample was collected for field
determinations of alkalinity, turbidity, ferrous iron, and dissolved sulfide. Alkalinity measurements were
determined by titrating ground water with 1.6N sulfuric acid (H2S04) 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
36

-------
Retrospective Case Study in Wise County, Texas
May 2015
the 1,10-phenanthroline colorimetric method (HACH DR/890 colorimeter, Standard Method 3500-FeB
for Wastewater). Dissolved sulfide measurements were collected using the methylene blue colorimetric
method (HASH DR/890 spectrophotometer, Standard Method 4500-S2~D for Wastewater).
Hach spectrophotometers (ferrous iron and sulfide) and turbidimeters (turbidity) were inspected before
going into the field, and their function was verified using performance calibration check solutions. The
ferrous iron accuracy was checked by making duplicate measurements of a 1 mg Fe/L standard solution
(HACH Iron Standard solution, using Ferrover pillows); the results were between 0.90 -1.10 mg Fe/L.
For sulfide, accuracy and precision were checked using a standard solution of sodium sulfide prepared in
the laboratory that had been titrated with sodium thiosulfate to determine its concentration. Accuracy
should be within ± 10% of the expected concentration, and the coefficient of variation should be <20%.
Turbidity was checked against turbidity standards supplied by Hach (StablCaf Calibration Set for the
HACH 2011Q), which consist of four standards: 20 nephelometric turbidity unit [NTU], 100 NTU, 800
NTU and with a 10 NTU performance check standard. Titrators used for alkalinity measurements were
checked using a 250 mg/L standard made from sodium bicarbonate (NaHC03 blanks made with
deionized water) and performance calibration check solutions (where applicable).
4.7.2. Analytical Methods for Ground Water and Surface Water
Water samples were collected and analyzed using the methods identified in Table Al, Appendix A. The
samples were collected and delivered to seven laboratories for analysis: EPA ORD/NRMRL/GWERD, Ada,
Oklahoma; Shaw Environmental (later known as CB & I), Ada, Oklahoma; EPA Region 8, Golden,
Colorado; EPA Region 3, Fort Meade, Maryland; USGS, Denver, Colorado; Southwest Research Institute
(SwRI), San Antonio, Texas; and a Contract Laboratory Program laboratory (A4 Scientific, Inc.,
Woodlands, Texas). The laboratories that performed the analyses, in each sampling round, are
summarized in Appendix A, Table Al.
Anions, nutrients, DIC, and DOC were analyzed in- house (GWERD General Parameters Laboratory, Ada,
Oklahoma). Quantitative analyses of the major anions bromide, chloride, fluoride, and sulfate were
determined by capillary electrophoresis (EPA Method 6500, RSKSOP-276v4) using a Waters Quanta 4000
capillary Ion analyzer for all sampling rounds. Bromide samples containing high chloride were also
analyzed using capillary electrophoresis using a method to provide better resolution of the bromide in a
high chloride matrix (EPA Method 6500, RSKSOP-288v3) for rounds 2, 3, 4, and 5 or, alternatively, using
flow injection analysis (Lachat QuickChem 8000 Series flow injection analyzer, RSKSOP-214v5) for rounds
1 and 3. The alternative bromide analysis was conducted when the bromide was not completely
resolved from chloride using EPA Method 6500, RSKSOP-276v4. Nutrients (nitrate + nitrite, and
ammonia) were measured by flow injection analysis (EPA Method 350.1 and 353.1, RSKSOP-214v5) for
all sampling rounds. Iodide measurements were performed using flow injection analysis (RSKSOP-
223v2) only for sampling rounds 3, 4, and 5. The carbon concentration of DIC and DOC in aqueous
samples was determined via combustion and infrared detection (EPA Method 9060A, RSKSOP-330vO) on
a Shimadzu TOC-VCPH analyzer for all sampling rounds.
Dissolved gases (methane, ethane, propane, and butane), low-molecular-weight acids (lactate, formate,
acetate, propionate, isobutyrate, and butyrate), and the stable isotopes of water (62H, 6lsO) were
analyzed by Shaw Environmental/CB&I (Ada, Oklahoma). Dissolved gases were measured using gas
chromatography (Agilent Micro 3000 gas chromatograph, RSKSOP-194v4 & -175v5) for sampling rounds
1, 2, and 4. The concentrations of low-molecular-weight acids were determined using high performance
37

-------
Retrospective Case Study in Wise County, Texas
May 2015
liquid chromatography (HPLC) (Dionex ICS-3000, RSKSOP-112v6) for sampling rounds 1, 2, and 4.
Hydrogen (6D) and oxygen (6lsO) isotope ratios for aqueous samples collected were determined by
cavity ring-down spectrometry (Picarro L2120i CRDS, RSKSOP-334vO) for all sampling rounds except
sampling round 1.
The analyses of DROs, GROs, and SVOCs in water samples were completed by EPA Region 8 laboratory
(Golden, Colorado) for samples collected during sampling rounds 1, 2, and 4. DROs and GROs 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 (GC/MS), (EPA Method 8270D; HP 6890 GC and HP 5975 MS).
VOCs were measured by Shaw Environmental (Ada, Oklahoma) for samples collected during sampling
rounds 1 and 2. The samples were analyzed using automated headspace GC/MS (EPA Methods 5021A &
8260C; Agilent 6890/5973 Quadrupole GC/MS). VOC samples were analyzed by Southwest Research
Institute (SwRI, San Antonio, Texas) by purge-and-trap GC/MS (EPA Method 8260 B; Agilent 6890N
GC/MS) following sampling rounds 4 and 5.
Both dissolved (filtered) and total (unfiltered) metal samples were analyzed by Shaw Environmental for
round 1 metal samples. For all dissolved and total metals, analysis was performed using inductively
coupled plasma-optical emission spectroscopy (ICP-OES): EPA Methods 200.7 (RSKSOP-213v4; Optima
3300 DV ICP-OES). Unfiltered samples were prepared prior to analysis by microwave digestion (EPA
Method 3015A). Total and dissolved metals were analyzed through EPA's contract laboratory program
(CLP) following round 2. The samples were prepared and analyzed following CLP methodology for ICP-
OES and ICP-MS (CLP Inorganic Statement of Work (SOW) ISM01.3, Exhibit D - Part B). Total and
dissolved metal analyses for samples collected during sampling rounds 3, 4, and 5 were conducted by
Southwest Research Institute (San Antonio, Texas), in accordance with EPA Methods 6020A (ICP-MS)
and 200.7 (ICP-OES). Filtered samples were digested prior to analysis (EPA Method 200.7). Mercury
concentrations were determined by cold-vapor atomic absorption (EPA Method 7470A; PerkinElmer
FIMS400A).
Glycols (2-butoxyethanol, di-, tri-, and tetraethylene glycol) were measured by EPA Region 3 Laboratory
for samples collected during sampling rounds 1, 2, and 4. Samples were analyzed using high
performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) coupled with positive electrospray ionization (ESI+) tandem
mass spectrometry (MS/MS; Waters HPLC/MS/MS with a Waters Atlantis dC18 3nm, 2.1 x 150 mm
column). Over the course of this case study, the glycol method was in development. A verification
study of the method used for glycol analysis was completed using volunteer federal, state, municipal,
and commercial analytical laboratories. The study indicated that the HPLC/MS/MS method was robust,
provided good accuracy and precision, and exhibited no matrix effects for the several water types that
were tested (Schumacher and Zintek, 2014).
Strontium isotopes (87Sr/86Sr), and rubidium (Rb) and strontium (Sr) concentrations were measured by
the USGS (Denver, Colorado; no EPA method) for samples collected during sampling rounds 2 through 5
using methods described in Peterman et al. (2012). High-precision (2o = +0.00002) strontium isotope
ratio results were obtained using thermal ionization mass spectrometry (TIMS); Finnigan MAT 262 and
Thermo Elemental Triton).
38

-------
Retrospective Case Study in Wise County, Texas
May 2015
Detection and reporting limits for all analytes, per sample type, are provided in Tables B1 - B7 in
Appendix B.
4.8.	QA/QC
Detailed information concerning QA/QC is presented in Appendix A of this report. QC samples included
blanks, field duplicates, matrix spikes, and matrix spike duplicates. All of these QC sample types were
collected, preserved, and analyzed using methods identical to those used for the water samples
collected in the field (Table 2). Sample preservation and holding time criteria are listed in Table A1 in
Appendix A. Field QC samples for ground water and surface water sampling, which included several
types of blanks and duplicate samples, are summarized in Table A2 in Appendix A. These included
several types of blanks and duplicate samples. Adequate sample volumes were collected to allow for
laboratory matrix spike samples to be prepared, where applicable. Data were checked using computer
program AqQA for the quality of solute concentrations. First, the SpC values measured in the field were
compared with a calculated value that is based on anion- and cation-specific resistivity constants and
the measured concentrations of anions and cations in specific ground water samples. This agreement
between the measured and calculated values should be within 15%. The second method was to
calculate the charge balance for each solution. This was done by summing and comparing the net
positive and negative charge from the measured concentrations of anions and cations. The agreement
should be within 10%. Poor agreement would suggest that some major solute(s) were not accounted
for in the analytical measurements or could otherwise point to an analytical error. Per the QAPP,
discrepancies in this manner were either flagged or the identities of other sample components and/or
reason(s) for poor agreement were investigated. A more detailed description of the QA/QC procedures
and implementation is presented in the QAPP (Beak, 2013).
Appendix A describes general QA and the results of QC sample analyses, including discussion of chain of
custody, holding times, blank results, field duplicate results, laboratory QA/QC results, data usability,
QAPP additions and deviations, field QA/QC, application of data qualifiers, tentatively identified
compounds (TICs), audits of data quality (ADQ), the field technical system audit (TSA), and laboratory
TSAs. All reported data met project requirements unless otherwise indicated by application of data
qualifiers. In rare cases, data were rejected as unusable and not reported.
4.9.	Data Handling and Analysis
For each sampling location from this study, geochemical parameters and the water quality data for
major ions and other selected inorganic ions collected over the multiple sampling rounds were
averaged. This approach ensures that more frequently sampled locations are given equivalent weight in
the data analysis (Battelle, 2013); however, a shortcoming of this method is that potential temporal
variability in concentration data at a single location is not captured. Intra-site variability of the data
collected in this study was examined by evaluating time-dependent concentration trends at specific
locations. Summary statistics were calculated for selected parameters after averaging across sampling
rounds for each location (e.g., mean, median, standard deviation, minimum and maximum values).
Parameters with non-detect values were set at half the method detection limit; summary statistics
determined for parameters that showed mixed results, both greater than the quantitation limit (>QL)
and less than the quantitation limit (
-------
Retrospective Case Study in Wise County, Texas
May 2015
Concentration data for organic compounds were not averaged across the multiple sampling rounds,
because relatively few detections above the QL were found and because detections were generally not
consistent through time at specific sampling locations. Stable isotope and strontium isotope data, used
to identify fluid sources and biogeochemical processes, were not averaged so that the full range of data
variability could be evaluated. Furthermore, historical sources of isotope data for the study were not
available, so that weighting was not a significant data analysis issue.
Historical ground water data for Wise County were collected from the NWIS (USGS, 2013a), the TXWDB
(2013a), and the NURE (USGS, 2013b) databases. Secondary data from these sources were considered
based upon various evaluation criteria, such as: (1) did the organization that collected the data have a
quality system in place; (2) were the secondary data collected under an approved Quality Assurance
Project Plan or other similar planning document; (3) were the analytical methods used comparable to
those used for the primary data; (4) did the analytical laboratories have demonstrated competency
(such as through accreditation) for the analysis they performed; (5) were the data accuracy and
precision control limits similar to the primary data; (6) are the secondary data source MDLs and QLs
comparable to those associated with the primary data or at least adequate to allow for comparisons;
and (7) were sampling methods comparable to those used for the primary water quality data collected
for this study. In general, the necessary accompanying metadata are unavailable for the secondary
water quality data sources to fully assess these evaluation criteria; thus, the secondary data are used
with the understanding that they are of an indeterminable quality relative to the requirements specified
for this study (see QAPP; Beak, 2013).
The software package AqQA (version 1.1.1) 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 A26). Major-ion charge balance was calculated by comparing
the summed milliequivalents of major cations (calcium, magnesium, sodium, and potassium) with major
anions (chloride, sulfate, and bicarbonate) in filtered samples using the eqn. 1.
Charge Balance (%) = £catio"s~£a"io"s) x 100o/o	(1)
(Z cations+X anions)	1 '
Where Charge Balance is the cation/anion balance, ^cations is the sum of the major cations (calcium,
magnesium, sodium, and potassium) and ^anions is the sum of the major anions (bicarbonate, sulfate,
and chloride). The calculated charge balance error over the five sampling rounds ranged between 0.1
and 8.7% for surface and ground water; 88% of the surface and ground water samples collected for this
study had a charge balance error less than 5% (see Appendix A).
Once the databases were sorted and filtered, the data from each database were compared to identify
duplicate samples between databases. This comparison was based on the metadata provided in each
database. Based on the metadata provided in each database, sampling locations within databases were
duplicated.
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 or 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 rounds
were averaged and summary statistics were determined. Charge balance criteria were not used to
40
-------
Retrospective Case Study in Wise County, Texas
May 2015
screen data for use in summary statistic calculations and for plotting box and whisker diagrams.
Summary statistics for historical data were determined on a countywide basis for comparison with the
data collected in this study and also on a reduced-area basis (3-mile radius) in order to more directly
evaluate data from samples collected in nearby locations. Various issues relating to data quality and
applicability of historical data have been previously discussed (Battelle, 2013; US EPA, 2012; Beak, 2013),
such as comparability of analytical methods, comparability of analytes, unknown sample collection
methods, and unavailable laboratory QC data and data quality-related qualifiers. While recognizing
these limitations, historical data are used as the best points of reference available to compare with the
water quality data collected in this study.
Statistical evaluations were carried out using the ProUCL (US EPA, 2010b) and Statistica (version 12)
software packages. Hypothesis testing for the water quality data was performed using parametric
(ANOVA) and nonparametric (Kruskal-Wallis) methods. An assumption underlying parametric statistical
procedures is that datasets are normally distributed or can be transformed to a normally distributed
form; data transformations in some cases included logarithmic functions. 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 for this study or in the historical water quality
data. Post-hoc tests were performed to determine significant differences among water quality datasets
for particular analytes, including the Scheffe and Kruskal-Wallis multiple comparison tests. 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, which encompassed 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 were not incorporated (e.g., Bonferroni or Sidak correction factors), and
the traditional significance threshold of 0.05 was applied for these data comparisons.
41
-------
Retrospective Case Study in Wise County, Texas
May 2015
5. Historic Water Quality
5.1.	National Water Information Systems (NWIS) Database
The NWIS is a large, publically available database of water quality data for the United States (USGS,
2011, 2012b). Both surface water and ground water data are available from the NWIS database.
Data for surface water and ground water were downloaded for Wise County, Texas (USGS, 2013a).
Because of the proximity of Locations A and C to the Wise County border, additional data were
downloaded for Denton and Montague Counties. The downloaded data included the water quality data
as well as all the metadata (e.g., longitude, latitude, QA/QC, and the aquifer/formation the water was
obtained from, etc.). The data from Denton and Montague Counties were then mapped and only wells
or surface water locations within a 3-mile radius of Locations A and C were retained.
Initially, the data were sorted based on whether the water was surface water or ground water. The
ground water data were then sorted according to the source aquifer (Antlers, Paluxy, Glenn Rose, Twin
Mountains, or combination of these that make up the Trinity aquifer), because the study wells (with the
exception of one domestic well in Location A) were all within the Trinity aquifer. Data for other aquifers
or formations not part of the Trinity aquifer or alluvial aquifers were eliminated from consideration.
Surface water did not need any additional sorting.
Calculations of charge balances revealed that the charge balances ranged from 0.2 to 99.9%. There
were 27 total data points but only 11 data points were useable. Of the other 16 data points, 14 did not
have any data for most of the major anions and cations and only limited data for other parameters. The
other two data points had a charge balance greater than 15% (26.3% and 72.7%).
The data points also were plotted on a map to see if other samples should be filtered out because of
proximity to urban locations or industrial complexes. No additional filtering was needed.
No data points were within a 3-mile radius of Location A in the NWIS database. For Locations B and C,
only one data point was within the 3-mile radius of these locations.
5.2.	Texas Water Development Board (TXWDB) Database
The TXWDB maintains a publically available database of water quality data for the state of Texas. The
purpose of the TXWDB ground water quality sampling program is to monitor changes in ground water
quality over time and to establish the naturally occurring baseline ground water (TXWDB, 2013a).
The data from the TXWDB were downloaded (TXWDB, 2013b) and processed in the same way as the
NWIS data, with the exception that this database did not contain any surface water data and, therefore,
did not require sorting based on this criterion. A total of 191 data points in this database and charge
balances ranged from 0.1 to 61.8%. Of the total of 191 data points, eight data points were excluded
because of poor charge balance, and an additional 17 data points were filtered out because they were
adjacent to industrial complexes (within 0.5 mile radius) or were located within urban areas (inside city
boundaries based on aerial photography) that could potentially bias the background data.
No data points in the TXWDB database were within 3 miles of Location A, seven sampling points were
within 3 miles of Location B, and two data points were within 3 miles of Location C.
42
-------
Retrospective Case Study in Wise County, Texas
May 2015
5.3.	National Uranium Resource Evaluation (NURE) Database
The NURE program's primary goal is to identify uranium resources in the United States (USGS, 2012b;
2013b). This database is accessible to the public through the USGS. Unlike the NWIS and TXWDB
databases, this database is not intended to provide water quality data and, as such, only data for
selected ground water quality parameters are available for Wise County. Using the NURE database can
be problematic because, most of the samples do not contain all the major anions and cations, and
anion-cation balances cannot be made. Additionally, the aquifer codes used in the NURE database are
not standardized (USGS, 2013b), but are based on local code definitions. No aquifer codes were found
during the study; therefore, the aquifer or formation the water was obtained from is unknown.
However, even with these limitations, the data have some usefulness with respect to understanding
background conditions for trace elements. The NURE data were downloaded from the USGS (2012b)
website.
Seventy-nine data points in the NURE database were used in this study. Three sampling points were
within 3 miles of Location A, and two sampling points were within 3 miles of both Location B and
Location C.
5.4.	Produced Water Database
The National Produced Waters Database is a large, publically available database that contains
concentrations for major anions and cations, pH, and total dissolved solids (TDS) for produced water in
the United States (USGS, 2002). The produced water database is maintained by the USGS. The USGS
compiled the data in the database from the original Department of Energy Fossil Energy Research
Center and removed redundancies, verified consistency of the data, and added metadata (USGS, 2002).
The database, in addition to the parameters reported, also reports the charge balances for all individual
samples contained in the database. The metadata also allows the user to sort the data based on the
formation or formations it was produced from. This was important since data that indicated it was
potentially produced from multiple formations was not included in the data analysis.
5.5.	Limitations to the Determination of Background Using Historical Data
The use of historical data to determine background water quality has several limitations (Battelle, 2013;
Reiman et al., 2008; Matschullat et al., 2000). As was discussed earlier, Battelle (2013) highlighted the
QA issues and sample collection methods in regards to the use of secondary data. Battelle (2013) also
discussed the intended purpose of the database being considered. For example, EPA STORET database
was excluded because it likely contains samples that were used for regulatory purposes and thus may
not be a good candidate for representing background data since the purpose of those samples is
regulatory in nature and likely to represent impaired waters. Likewise, the NURE database's intended
purpose was to identify potential uranium resources, not water quality. It is unknown how or if the
NWIS and TXWDB databases screen sampling locations for potential contamination. Therefore, it is
possible that these databases also contain data that are not background. Other potential limitations are
the databases may not have the appropriate spatial distribution of sampling points or temporal
sampling needed; lack of trace organic compounds included in the database; and lack of geochemical or
isotopic indicators (Bowen et al., 2015). Bowen et al. (2015) also indicated that many of the watersheds
where current hydrocarbon exploration is occurring had severely degraded water prior to 1972 and,
43
-------
Retrospective Case Study in Wise County, Texas
May 2015
since 1972, have experienced improvements in water quality. This causes the comparisons to historical
data more difficult and not straightforward.
Another limitation is that, in Wise County, the Trinity aquifer characteristics change from roughly
northeast to southwest. In the northern portion of Wise County, the aquifer comprises two formations
that are collectively termed the Antlers formation, and in the southern portion of the county the aquifer
comprises three formations. This change is evident, as can be seen on a map showing the historical
water types in Wise County (Figure 12). This figure suggests that the comparisons of water quality data
using a countywide scale may not be appropriate.
A conservative approach for comparing the data collected during this study was used initially as a
screening method for determining whether there were potential impacts on water quality. As
previously described, the process will use limited filtering of the historical data, and all the historical
data will be compared with the study data. If suspected contamination has occurred, it is discussed
further in the site-specific focus area section of this report.
44
-------
Retrospective Case Study in Wise County, Texas
May 2015
Location C
Location C
Location A
Bridgeport
Location B
6
ID Miles
Water Type
Wise County, Texas
EPA Hydraulic Fracturing Study
Source: &# semap, ESRl; Sftmpang Results and Locatxwy, EPA ORD
Figure 12. Map of the different water types and water type distributions for Wise County based on historical databases. (Data Sources: NWIS
(USGS, 2013a) and TXWDB (2013b)).
EPA HF
B Sampling Locations
Water Type
Ca-CI
4 Ca-HC03
*	Ca-S04
*	Mg-HC03
» Na-CI
« Na-HC03
*	Na-S04
C 3 Search Areas
WISE COUNTY
45
-------
Retrospective Case Study in Wise County, Texas
May 2015
6. Water Quality Results from This Study
The following sections describe results and interpretations of the water-quality testing conducted for
this case study. The indicators of water quality (e.g., geochemical parameters, major anions, major
cations) and indicators of naturally occurring sources (e.g., trace elements, and isotopes) were selected,
because they can be related to anthropogenic sources of contamination such as agriculture, industrial
activities, and, potentially, hydraulic fracturing. The parameters discussed include major cation, major
anions, TDS, SpC, boron, barium, bromide, iodide and strontium; geochemical parameters,
nutrients/DOC/other anions, trace elements, dissolved gases, organic parameters, and isotopes.
Analytical data obtained during the five sampling rounds are provided in tabular form in Appendix B.
6.1.	Surface Water
Surface water collected as part of this study was obtained from ponds in Locations A and B for which the
only sources of recharge were precipitation and runoff. The only historical surface water that was
found, a large stream-fed reservoir, was identified in the NWIS database. Using water quality from this
reservoir as a comparison to the water quality in the ponds is not appropriate; therefore, no historical
comparisons were made with the study surface water data collected. A summary of the surface water
parameters is presented in Table 5, and all surface water data collected are presented in Appendix B.
The pond sampled at Location A was the location of a reported fish kill, which occurred in March of
2010. The data that were collected from this pond as part of the study did not indicate a cause that
could be linked to the fish kill reported. However, the first study sampling did not occur until September
of 2011 (approximately 1.5 years after the incident). Because of this time gap between the fish kill and
the study sampling, there may be no detectable residual signature of the cause of the fish kill in the
water column.
6.2.	Boonesville Bend Conglomerate Sample Collected
A sample was collected from the Boonesville Bend Conglomerate production well as part of this study
was dramatically different for most parameters than what has been reported previously for water from
this formation (Table 6). The USGS (2002) has published data for major anions and cations, as well as pH
and TDS in its database. The only parameters that were similar to the previously published data were
pH and bicarbonate (Table 6). The measured SpC versus calculated SpC were well outside the
acceptable range based QA requirements (Beak, 2013). Therefore, the sample collected as part of this
study was unusable and was not used for data analysis in this report. Instead, where appropriate, data
from the USGS produced water database were used.
6.3.	Ground Water
6.3.1. Geochemical Parameters
The pH of ground water samples collected for this study ranged from 6.85 to 9.04, with a median pH of
8.20, which indicates the water is circumneutral to basic (Table 7). The pH data collected as part of this
study are discussed below with respect to historical data for the Trinity aquifer.
46
-------
Retrospective Case Study in Wise County, Texas
May 2015
Table 5. Surface water data summaries and statistics for all study surface water data collected in Locations A and B.
Data Source
Parameter
Dissolved/
Total
Units
Mean
Median
Standard
Deviation
Min
Max
Locations
N
Z1
Brine Components
NWIS
SpC

US/cm
443
346
205
305
678
3
3

Location A
SpC

US/cm
244
244
3
242
248
3
3
0
Location B
SpC

US/cm
333
333
—
333
333
1
1
0
NWIS
Bicarbonate
Dissolved
mg/L
166
138
65
119
240
3
3

Location A
Bicarbonate
Dissolved
mg/L
100
101
2
97
102
3
3
0
Location B
Bicarbonate
Dissolved
mg/L
104
104
—
104
104
1
1
0
NWIS
Chloride
Dissolved
mg/L
40
29
24
24
68
3
3

Location A
Chloride
Dissolved
mg/L
9.15
9.17
0.07
9.08
9.22
3
3
0
Location B
Chloride
Dissolved
mg/L
9.00
9.00
—
9.00
9.00
1
1
0
NWIS
Sulfate
Dissolved
mg/L
31
17
24
17
59
3
3

Location A
Sulfate
Dissolved
mg/L
12.9
12.9
0.2
12.7
13.1
3
3
0
Location B
Sulfate
Dissolved
mg/L
5.4
5.4
—
5.4
5.4
1
1
0
NWIS
Calcium
Dissolved
mg/L
48
40
18
35
68
3
3

Location A
Calcium
Dissolved
mg/L
34.9
34.9
0.1
34.8
35.1
3
3
0
Location B
Calcium
Dissolved
mg/L
44.5
44.5
—
44.5
44.5
1
1
0
NWIS
Potassium
Dissolved
mg/L
5.4
5.1
0.5
5.1
6.0
3
3

Location A
Potassium
Dissolved
mg/L
5.74
5.75
0.05
5.69
5.78
3
3
0
Location B
Potassium
Dissolved
mg/L
21.3
21.3
—
21.3
21.3
1
1
0
NWIS
Magnesium
Dissolved
mg/L
10.3
6.5
7.2
5.9
18.6
3
3

Location A
Magnesium
Dissolved
mg/L
3.30
3.30
0.02
3.29
3.33
3
3
0
Location B
Magnesium
Dissolved
mg/L
5.00
5.00
—
5.00
5.00
1
1
0
47
-------
Retrospective Case Study in Wise County, Texas
May 2015
Table 5. Surface water data summaries and statistics for all study surface water data collected in Locations A and B.
Data Source
Parameter
Dissolved/
Total
Units
Mean
Median
Standard
Deviation
Min
Max
Locations
N
Z1
NWIS
Sodium
Dissolved
mg/L
28
19
16
18
46
3
3

Location A
Sodium
Dissolved
mg/L
8.68
8.71
0.05
8.63
8.72
3
3
0
Location B
Sodium
Dissolved
mg/L
4.20
4.20
—
4.20
4.20
1
1
0
Geochemical Parameters
NWIS
DO

mg/L
6.5
6.5
—
5.0
8.0
3
2

Location A
DO

mg/L
9.17
9.93
1.49
7.46
10.1
3
3
0
Location B
DO

mg/L
5.35
5.35
—
5.35
5.35
1
1
0
NWIS
PH


7.6
7.7
0.2
7.4
7.7
3
3

Location A
PH


8.56
8.58
0.09
8.46
8.64
3
3
0
Location B
PH


7.66
7.66
—
7.66
7.66
1
1
0
NWIS
Alkalinity

mg CaC03/L
139
139
—
73
205
3
2

Location A
Alkalinity

mg CaC03/L
89
89
2
88
31
3
3
0
Location B
Alkalinity

mg CaC03/L
141
141
—
141
141
1
1
0
Nutrients/DOC/Other Anions
NWIS
DOC

mg/L
7.1
7.1
—
6.6
7.5
3
2

Location A
DOC

mg/L
6.63
6.62
0.05
6.59
6.59
3
3
0
Location B
DOC

mg/L
20.1
20.1
—
20.1
20.1
1
1
0
NWIS
Fluoride
Dissolved
mg/L
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.3
3
3

Location A
Fluoride
Dissolved
mg/L
0.12
0.12
0.01
0.11
0.13
3
3
0
Location B
Fluoride
Dissolved
mg/L
0.11
0.11
—
0.11
0.11
1
1
0
48
-------
Retrospective Case Study in Wise County, Texas
May 2015
Table 5. Surface water data summaries and statistics for all study surface water data collected in Locations A and B.
Data Source
Parameter
Dissolved/
Total
Units
Mean
Median
Standard
Deviation
Min
Max
Locations
N
Z1
Trace Elements
NWIS
Iron
Dissolved
Hg/L
96
96
—
32
160
3
2

Location B
Iron
Dissolved
Hg/L
1509
1509
—
1509
1509
1
1
0
NWIS
Manganese
Dissolved
M-g/L
121
121
—
8
233
3
2

Location A
Manganese
Dissolved
M-g/L
6
7
1
6
7
3
3
0
Location B
Manganese
Dissolved
M-g/L
330
330
—
330
330
1
1
0
Percentage of left censored data.
49
-------
Retrospective Case Study in Wise County, Texas
May 2015
Table 6. Boonesville Bend Conglomerate data obtained from the USGS produced water database (USGS, 2002) compared to study sample from
the Boonesville Bend Conglomerate.
Source
Parameter
Units
Mean
Median
Standard
Deviation
Min
Max
Count
N
Z1
Study
Bicarbonate
mg/L
84
84
—
84
84
1
1
0
USGS
Bicarbonate
mg/L
118
86
102
9
427
17
17
0
Study
Calcium
mg/L
1.70
1.70
—
1.70
1.70
1
1
0
USGS
Calcium
mg/L
10252
9207
6066
2605
18958
17
17
0
Study
Chloride
mg/L
3.14
3.14
—
3.14
3.14
1
1
0
USGS
Chloride
mg/L
84899
91765
41514
25230
148862
17
17
0
Study
Magnesium
mg/L
0.12
0.12
—
0.12
0.12
1
1
0
USGS
Magnesium
mg/L
1982
1429
1684
300
7084
17
17
0
Study
PH

5.90
5.90
—
5.90
5.90
1
1
0
USGS
PH

6.1
5.96
0.5
5.1
7.1
17
17
0
Study
Potassium
mg/L
—
—
—
—
—
1
0
0
USGS
Potassium
mg/L
843
843
222
686
1000
17
2
88
Study
Sodium
mg/L
1.15
1.15
—
1.15
1.15
1
1
0
USGS
Sodium
mg/L
40114
45103
19733
11157
74285
17
16
6
Study
Sulfate
mg/L
0.18
0.18
—
0.18
0.18
1
1
0
USGS
Sulfate
mg/L
294
228
391
8
1319
17
16
6
Study
TDS
mg/L
187
187
—
187
187
1
1
0
USGS
TDS
mg/L
137646
149480
66709
41707
242027
17
17
0
2
Percentage of left censored data.
50
-------
Retrospective Case Study in Wise County, Texas
May 2015
Table 7. Data summaries and statistics for select components for ground, surface, and produced water collected during the study countywide. Data for any
sampling point were averaged for all rounds of sampling.
Sample Type
Parameter
Dissolved/
Total
Units
Mean
Median
Standard
Deviation
Min
Max
Locations
N
Z1
Barnett Produced Water
Boron
Dissolved
Hg/L
26450
26450
—
25800
27100
2
2
0
Ground Water
Boron
Dissolved
Hg/L
179
175
Ill
64
481
16
16
7
Surface Water
Boron
Dissolved
Hg/L
32
35
6
24
35
4
4
80
Barnett Produced Water
Barium
Dissolved
M-g/L
10405
10405
—
8510
12300
2
2
0
Ground Water
Barium
Dissolved
M-g/L
45
23
38
13
138
16
16
17
Surface Water
Barium
Dissolved
M-g/L
131
45
177
39
397
4
4
0
Barnett Produced Water
Bromide
Dissolved
mg/L
903
903
—
903
903
2
1
0
Ground Water
Bromide
Dissolved
mg/L
0.94
0.18
2.14
0.03
7.57
16
16
43
Surface Water
Bromide
Dissolved
mg/L
—
—
—
—
—
4
0
100
Barnett Produced Water
Calcium
Dissolved
mg/L
18700
18700
—
16200
21200
2
2
0
Ground Water
Calcium
Dissolved
mg/L
31.2
9.51
40.8
1.13
144
16
16
0
Surface Water
Calcium
Dissolved
mg/L
37.3
35.0
4.80
34.8
44.5
4
4
0
Barnett Produced Water
Chloride
Dissolved
mg/L
126750
126750
—
110100
143400
2
2
0
Ground Water
Chloride
Dissolved
mg/L
189
42.6
420
4.59
1434
16
16
0
Surface Water
Chloride
Dissolved
mg/L
9.12
9.12
0.09
9.02
9.22
4
4
0
Barnett Produced Water
DIC
Dissolved
mg/L
30.2
30.2
—
27.2
33.1
2
2
0
Ground Water
DIC
Dissolved
mg/L
66.5
63.2
14.9
38.7
108.0
16
16
0
Surface Water
DIC
Dissolved
mg/L
23.8
20.5
7.13
19.7
34.5
4
4
0
Barnett Produced Water
Bicarbonate
Dissolved
mg/L
31
31
—
14
48
2
2
0
Ground Water
Bicarbonate
Dissolved
mg/L
314
312
51
189
427
16
16
0
Surface Water
Bicarbonate
Dissolved
mg/L
101
102
3
97
104
4
4
0
51
-------
Retrospective Case Study in Wise County, Texas
May 2015
Table 7. Data summaries and statistics for select components for ground, surface, and produced water collected during the study countywide. Data for any
sampling point were averaged for all rounds of sampling.
Sample Type
Parameter
Dissolved/
Total
Units
Mean
Median
Standard
Deviation
Min
Max
Locations
N
Z1
Barnett Produced Water
Iodide
Dissolved
M-g/L
91900
91900
—
57800
126000
2
2
0
Ground Water
Iodide
Dissolved
Hg/L
59.6
19.8
87.3
16.4
269
9
9
0
Surface Water
Iodide
Dissolved
M-g/L
26.7
26.7
—
26.7
26.7
1
1
0
Barnett Produced Water
Potassium
Dissolved
mg/L
1354
1354
—
928
1780
2
2
0
Ground Water
Potassium
Dissolved
mg/L
2.19
1.79
1.49
0.50
6.63
16
16
0
Surface Water
Potassium
Dissolved
mg/L
9.62
5.77
7.76
5.69
21.3
4
4
0
Barnett Produced Water
Magnesium
Dissolved
mg/L
2135
2135
—
1860
2410
2
2
0
Ground Water
Magnesium
Dissolved
mg/L
13.2
4.06
18.1
0.41
62.7
16
16
0
Surface Water
Magnesium
Dissolved
mg/L
3.73
3.31
0.85
3.29
5.00
4
4
0
Barnett Produced Water
Sodium
Dissolved
mg/L
78250
78250
—
60100
96400
2
2
0
Ground Water
Sodium
Dissolved
mg/L
224
161
251
25.8
889
16
16
0
Surface Water
Sodium
Dissolved
mg/L
7.57
8.67
2.23
4.22
8.72
4
4
0
Barnett Produced Water
Sulfate
Dissolved
mg/L
322
322
—
285
358
2
2
0
Ground Water
Sulfate
Dissolved
mg/L
75.1
65.4
57.1
24.5
219
16
16
0
Surface Water
Sulfate
Dissolved
mg/L
11.0
12.8
3.72
5.44
13.1
4
4
0
Barnett Produced Water
SpC
Dissolved
US/cm
233050
233050
—
184200
281900
2
2
0
Ground Water
SpC
Dissolved
US/cm
1278
781
1349
555
5077
16
16
0
Surface Water
SpC
Dissolved
US/cm
266
246
44
242
333
4
4
0
Barnett Produced Water
Strontium
Dissolved
M-g/L
668000
668000
—
584000
752000
2
2
0
Ground Water
Strontium
Dissolved
M-g/L
2026
605
2728
51
9454
16
16
0
Surface Water
Strontium
Dissolved
M-g/L
336
374
78
219
377
4
4
0
52
-------
Retrospective Case Study in Wise County, Texas
May 2015
Table 7. Data summaries and statistics for select components for ground, surface, and produced water collected during the study countywide. Data for any
sampling point were averaged for all rounds of sampling.
Sample Type
Parameter
Dissolved/
Total
Units
Mean
Median
Standard
Deviation
Min
Max
Locations
N
Z1
Barnett Produced Water
TDS
Dissolved
mg/L
131015
131015
—
119730
142300
2
2
0
Ground Water
TDS
Dissolved
mg/L
831
506
877
361
3301
16
16
0
Surface Water
TDS
Dissolved
mg/L
173
160
29
157
216
4
4
0
Percentage of left censored data.
53
-------
Retrospective Case Study in Wise County, Texas
May 2015
A comparison of the study's current ground water pH data to historical pH data on a countywide scale is
shown in Table 8. On this scale, the ranges of the historical pH data were similar to that of the study's
pH range. However, the median pH of the study samples was slightly higher than the median pH of the
historical samples, and this was statistically significant, using both parametric and non-parametric
statistics (p-values = 0.00019 and 0.000006, respectively).
The ORP of ground water samples collected in this study ranged from -103 to 227 millivolts (mV), with a
median ORP of 165 mV, which indicates the ground water is mildly reducing. The ORP data collected for
the Barnett Shale ranged from -0.7 to 75 mV, with a median ORP of 37.2 mV. The produced water was
considered reducing.
Specific conductivity in ground water ranged from 555 to 5,077 piS/cm, with a median SpC of 781 piS/cm.
The wide range found in the ground water was skewed because the SpC of samples from two wells
(WISETXGW01 and WISETXGW08) was much higher than in other wells. The SpC of Barnett Shale-
produced water ranged from 184,200 to 281,900 piS/cm, with a median SpC of 233,050 piS/cm.
Comparisons of the SpC data collected in this study to the historical data on a countywide scale are
shown in Table 8 and in Figure 13; Figure 14 is a map of the distribution. Although these ranges appear
to have significant overlap, the study data have two samples (WISETXGW01 and WISETXGW08) with
higher SPCs than the NWIS and NURE databases (Figure 13). Only the TXWDB reports values with SpC
data in the range of the two study data points (Figure 13). From Figure 13, it can also be seen that the
greatest SpC was in the study data and the third highest SpC was also in the study data. The remainder
of the study's SpC data were much lower than the data from these two wells. However, both ANOVA
and Kruskal-Wallis statistical analysis indicates that there were no significant differences between the
study data as a whole and the historical data.
For Location A, the SpC (Table 9), the median SpC, and the SpC range were lower than the historical data
for Location A in the NURE database.
The NWIS, TXWDB, and NURE databases contained data for locations within a 3-mile radius of Location
B (Table 10). The median SpC for study samples collected in Location B was similar to that of the
historical data in the TXWDB and NURE databases for locations within the 3-mile radius. The range for
the samples collected for the study was wider, as can be seen in a visual inspection of the statistical
plots in Figure 15, because two wells, WISETXGW01 and WISETXGW08, consistently had high SpC values
and are higher than any data in the historical databases.
The NWIS, TXWDB, and NURE databases also contained historical data for locations within a 3-mile
radius of Location C (Table 11). As shown in Table 11, the SpC values for samples from the study wells
were similar to the historical data, although the range suggests that Location C may have had slightly
lower SpC values than the historical databases indicate.
Although there were differences in pH and SpC at study locations A and C when compared with the
historical data, these differences were not significant. For Location B there were significant differences
in the pH of the study data compared with the historical data. Likewise, for Location B the SpC found in
two wells, WISTXGW01 and WISTXGW08 were found to be greater than the historical data. This could
indicate that there were impacts to WISTXGW01 and WISTXGW08.
54
-------
Retrospective Case Study in Wise County, Texas
May 2015
Table 8. Countywide-scale ground water data summaries and statistics for the historical databases (NWIS, TXWDB, and NURE) along with all study data
collected.
Data Source
Parameter
Dissolved/
Total
Units
Mean
Median
Standard
Deviation
Min
Max
Locations
N
Z1
Brine Components
NWIS
SpC

US/cm
1150
1120
506
617
2380
11
11
0
TXWDB
SpC

US/cm
1211
994
738
482
4572
94
92
0
NURE
SpC

US/cm
1292
1140
732
450
3870
79
79
0
This Study
SpC

US/cm
1278
781
1349
555
5077
16
16
0
TXWDB
TDS

mg/L
652
535
356
303
2186
94
94
0
This Study
TDS

mg/L
831
506
877
361
3301
16
16
0
NWIS
Bicarbonate
Dissolved
mg/L
422
432
82.0
272
517
11
11
0
TXWDB
Bicarbonate
Dissolved
mg/L
374
352
97.0
188
537
94
94
0
This Study
Bicarbonate
Dissolved
mg/L
314
312
51.0
189
427
16
16
0
NWIS
Chloride
Dissolved
mg/L
118
68
141
16
500
11
11
0
TXWDB
Chloride
Dissolved
mg/L
128
68
183
9
1170
94
94
1
This Study
Chloride
Dissolved
mg/L
189
42.6
420
4.59
1434
16
16
0
NWIS
Sulfate
Dissolved
mg/L
78
53
59
20
200
11
11
0
TXWDB
Sulfate
Dissolved
mg/L
80
48
78
29
421
94
93
1
NURE
Sulfate
Dissolved
mg/L
69
42
87
3
550
79
79
0
This Study
Sulfate
Dissolved
mg/L
75.1
65.4
57.1
24.5
219
16
16
0
NWIS
Bromide
Dissolved
mg/L
0.71
0.45
0.83
0.12
3.00
11
11
0
TXWDB
Bromide
Dissolved
mg/L
0.62
0.45
0.72
0.05
3.00
94
27
15
This Study
Bromide
Dissolved
mg/L
0.94
0.18
2.14
0.03
7.57
16
16
43
55
-------
Retrospective Case Study in Wise County, Texas
May 2015
Table 8. Countywide-scale ground water data summaries and statistics for the historical databases (NWIS, TXWDB, and NURE) along with all study data
collected.
Data Source
Parameter
Dissolved/
Total
Units
Mean
Median
Standard
Deviation
Min
Max
Locations
N
Z1
NWIS
Calcium
Dissolved
mg/L
81
71
56
4
200
11
11
0
TXWDB
Calcium
Dissolved
mg/L
71
71
56
4
250
94
94
0
NURE
Calcium
Dissolved
mg/L
69.7
63.9
56.8
0.8
260
79
79
0
This Study
Calcium
Dissolved
mg/L
31.2
9.51
40.8
1.13
144
16
16
0
NWIS
Potassium
Dissolved
mg/L
2.6
2.7
1.1
1
4.3
11
11
0
TXWDB
Potassium
Dissolved
mg/L
2.85
2.93
1.29
1.7
5.73
94
46
0
NURE
Potassium
Dissolved
mg/L
2.9
2.5
2.6
0.1
18
79
79
0
This Study
Potassium
Dissolved
mg/L
2.19
1.79
1.49
0.5
6.63
16
16
0
NWIS
Magnesium
Dissolved
mg/L
28
16
27
2
86
11
11
0
TXWDB
Magnesium
Dissolved
mg/L
20.8
10.9
24.2
2.0
134
94
94
1
NURE
Magnesium
Dissolved
mg/L
19.4
13.3
19.4
0.1
89.9
79
79
0
This Study
Magnesium
Dissolved
mg/L
13.2
4.06
18.1
0.41
62.7
16
16
0
NWIS
Sodium
Dissolved
mg/L
121
79
100
30
310
11
11
0
TXWDB
Sodium
Dissolved
mg/L
143
88
154
30
819
94
94
0
NURE
Sodium
Dissolved
mg/L
98.9
75.6
79.9
7.2
360
79
79
0
This Study
Sodium
Dissolved
mg/L
224
161
251
25.8
889
16
16
0
TXWDB
Boron
Dissolved
Hg/L
167
105
162
25
700
94
22
24
NURE
Boron
Dissolved
Hg/L
158
73
266
2
1824
79
79
0
This Study
Boron
Dissolved
Hg/L
179
175
111
64
481
16
16
7
TXWDB
Barium
Dissolved
M-g/L
103
81
80
23
314
94
31
2
NURE
Barium
Dissolved
M-g/L
78
63
67
2
367
79
79
0
This Study
Barium
Dissolved
M-g/L
45
23
38
13
138
16
16
17
56
-------
Retrospective Case Study in Wise County, Texas
May 2015
Table 8. Countywide-scale ground water data summaries and statistics for the historical databases (NWIS, TXWDB, and NURE) along with all study data
collected.
Data Source
Parameter
Dissolved/
Total
Units
Mean
Median
Standard
Deviation
Min
Max
Locations
N
Z1
TXWDB
Strontium
Dissolved
Hg/L
2046
1290
2044
750
8360
94
21
0
NURE
Strontium
Dissolved
Hg/L
1765
1053
1833
20
7913
79
79
0
This Study
Strontium
Dissolved
Hg/L
2026
605
2728
51
9454
16
16
0
Geochemical Parameters
NWIS
PH


7.4
7.3
0.7
6.8
9.0
11
11
0
TXWDB
PH


7.7
7.7
0.5
7.2
9.0
94
94
0
NURE
PH


8
7.2
0.7
6.3
10
79
79
0
This Study
PH


8.05
8.20
0.67
6.85
9.04
16
16
0
Trace Elements

NWIS
Manganese
Dissolved
Hg/L
18
2
38
0.5
130
11
11
36
TXWDB
Manganese
Dissolved
M-g/L
14
7
22
1
117
94
32
32
This Study
Manganese
Dissolved
M-g/L
21
12
23
2
71
16
16
13
TXWDB
Lithium
Dissolved
M-g/L
23
20
16
19
53
94
21
3
NURE
Lithium
Dissolved
M-g/L
22
17
17
1
82
79
79
0
This Study
Lithium
Dissolved
M-g/L
55
45
29
29
120
16
9
0
Organic Parameters
NWIS
Benzene
Dissolved
Mg/L
0.4
0.4
—
0.4
0.4
11
1
2
TXWDB
Benzene
Dissolved
Mg/L
0.4
0.4
—
0.4
0.4
11
1
2
This Study
Benzene
Dissolved
Mg/L
0.1
0.1
—
0.1
0.1
16
1
2
Percentage of left censored data.
Percentage of left censored data was not calculated because only one location had detectable concentrations.
57
-------
Retrospective Case Study in Wise County, Texas
May 2015

6000 ^

5000-
F
4000-
a

CO
=L
3000-
a>

a>

£
2000-
a:


1000-

0-
Specific Conductivity
Total Dissolved Solids
2000
h
NWIS
TXWDB
NURE
This Study
NWIS
TXWDB
NURE
This Study

800 -r

700-

600-

500-
E

O)
400-
O)

c

re
CC
300-

200-

100-

0-^

n=11
NWIS
Bicarbonate

n=94
TXWDB
NURE
>A£ <
n=16
This Study
1600-
1200
£ 800
400
Chloride
NWIS
TXWDB
NURE
This Study
Bromide
Sulfate
NWIS	TXWDB	NURE	This Study	NWIS	TXWDB	NURE	This Study
Figure 13. Ground water box and whisker plots comparing historical databases (NWIS, [USGS, 2013a], TXWDB [2013b], and NURE
[USGS, 2013b]) with all the study data on a county wide scale. The black dashed lines indicate, for constituents that have secondary
MCLs, the concentrations of the secondary MCLs.
58
-------
Retrospective Case Study in Wise County, Texas
May 2015
Calcium
200-
NWIS
TXWDB
NURE
This Study
Potassium
NWIS
TXWDB
NURE
This Study
100
Magnesium
NWIS
TXWDB
NURE
This Study
1000
800
_J 600
o>
E
o> 400
o>
c
(0
200
0
Sodium
X
-1-	<
n=11
NWIS
n=94
TXWDB
n=79
NURE
n=16
This Study
2000-
1500-
1000
500
Boron
This Study
400
300-
200
* 100
Barium
This Study
Figure 13 continued. Ground water box and whisker plots comparing historical databases (NWIS, [USGS, 2013a], TXWDB [2013b],
and NURE [USGS, 2013b]) with all the study data on a county wide scale. The black dashed lines indicate, for constituents that have
secondary MCLs, the concentrations of the secondary MCLs,
59
-------
Retrospective Case Study in Wise CountyTexas
May 2015
10000-
8000-
6000-
4000-
2000-
0-
I
~~~~~~
n=21
NWIS
TXWDB
%
T >

n=79
NURE
n=16
This Study
Lithium
NWIS
TXWDB
NURE
This Study
400-
300-
200-
100-
0
-100

Manganese


~


~

~
~

T ~ t
- - "t" ~ ~ jfr* <~	r "
H
%
n=11
n=32 n=79
n=16
400
300-
200
100
NWIS
TXWDB
NURE
This Study
-100
PH
i:;:- # c
~
$
n=11 n=94
x V
n=79 n=16
NWIS	TXWDB	NURE	This Study
Figure 13 continued. Ground water box and whisker plots comparing historical databases (NWIS, [USGS, 2013a], TXWDB [2013b], and
NURE [USGS, 2013b]) with all the study data on a county wide scale. The black dashed lines indicate, for constituents that have
secondary MCLs, the concentrations of the secondary MCLs,
60
-------
Retrospective Case Study in Wise County, Texas
May 2015
Location C
Location C
Location A
Location B
tozamp, eSRl. imping vji'.'.n itr\f Lcc/Ifx-V) EPA ORD
4
0 1.5 3	6
Miles
Specific
Conductivity
Wise County, Texas
EPA Hydraulic Fracturing Study
EPA HF
" Sampling Locations
Specific
Conductivity
(|iS/cm|
o 368-750
•	750 -1500
•	1500-2500
•	2500-4572
C 3 Search Areas
i i*t
LaM
Bridgeport
1015
2117#
1440
©
.620
Fa# view

•
1220s~797
100)
1125
990
fF
r M6««
«966
^ 1494
1390
1088^ ® M
2320
1390 01390
2448 v
2652 • ^
S®1
ij»njoi83:
1650
1300*1300
1J0S»*1931 Boyd
l9yl»- w	
1360
1606
Ai?S0»
O
1260*
810
482
628
of
626 576 #
o
WISE COUNTY
S90 578
O °
Figure 14. Map of specific conductivity values arid distributions for Wise County based on historical databases. (Data Sources: USGS
(2013a, 2013b) and TXWDB (2013b)).
61
-------
Retrospective Case Study in Wise County, Texas
May 2015
Table 9. Location A 3-mile-radius-scale data summaries and statistics for the historical databases (NURE) along with all study data collected in
Location A.
Data Source
Parameter
Dissolved/
Total
Units
Mean
Median
Standard
Deviation
Min
Max
Locations
N
Z1
Brine Components

NURE
SpC

US/cm
727
655
165
610
915
3
3
0
Location A
SpC

mS/cm
601
605
41
555
641
4
4
0
NURE
Sulfate
Dissolved
mg/L
44
45
6
38
50
3
3
0
Location A
Sulfate
Dissolved
mg/L
30.2
28.7
6.5
24.5
39.0
4
4
0
NURE
Calcium
Dissolved
mg/L
2.7
1.6
2.6
0.8
5.6
3
3
0
Location A
Calcium
Dissolved
mg/L
18.0
18.6
14.3
1.13
33.5
4
4
0
NURE
Potassium
Dissolved
mg/L
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.3
0.7
3
3
0
Location A
Potassium
Dissolved
mg/L
2.01
2.16
1.17
0.50
3.23
4
4
0
NURE
Magnesium
Dissolved
mg/L
0.3
0.3
0.1
0.2
0.3
3
3
0
Location A
Magnesium
Dissolved
mg/L
6.57
6.96
4.97
0.41
12.0
4
4
0
NURE
Sodium
Dissolved
mg/L
169
150
40
141
215
3
3
0
Location A
Sodium
Dissolved
mg/L
108
100
29.7
81.8
149
4
4
0
NURE
Boron
Dissolved
Mg/L
99
98
79
21
179
3
3
0
Location A
Boron
Dissolved
Hg/L
104
113
25
68
124
4
4
14
NURE
Barium
Dissolved
M-g/L
3
3
2
2
5
3
3
0
Location A
Barium
Dissolved
M-g/L
77
78
50
16
138
4
4
14
NURE
Strontium
Dissolved
Hg/L
48
48
9
40
57
3
3
0
Location A
Strontium
Dissolved
Hg/L
992
999
812
51
1920
4
4
0
Geochemical Parameters

NURE
PH


8.4
8.9
1.6
6.6
9.7
3
3
0
Location A
PH


8.02
7.78
0.72
7.47
9.04
4
4
0
1 Percentage of left censored data.
62
-------
Retrospective Case Study in Wise County, Texas
May 2015
Table 10. Location B 3-mile-radius-scale data summaries and statistics for the historical databases (NWIS, TXWDB, and NURE) along with all study
data collected in Location B.
Data Source
Parameter
Dissolved/Total
Units
Mean
Median
Standard
Deviation
Min
Max
Locations
N
Z1
Brine Components
NWIS
SpC

US/cm
2380
2380
—
2380
2380
1
1
0
TXWDB
SpC

US/cm
882
689
423
637
1515
4
4
0
NURE
SpC

US/cm
955
955
—
840
1070
2
2
0
Location B
SpC

US/cm
1619
846
1630
726
5077
10
10
0
TXWDB
TDS

mg/L
510
398
232
386
859
4
4
0
Location B
TDS

mg/L
1052
549
1060
472
3301
10
10
0
NWIS
Bicarbonate
Dissolved
mg/L
517
517
—
517
517
1
1
0
TXWDB
Bicarbonate
Dissolved
mg/L
351
323
69
303
453
4
4
0
Location B
Bicarbonate
Dissolved
mg/L
302
306
51
189
385
10
10
0
NWIS
Chloride
Dissolved
mg/L
500
500
—
500
500
1
1
0
TXWDB
Chloride
Dissolved
mg/L
93
44
105
34
250
4
4
14
Location B
Chloride
Dissolved
mg/L
294
64.7
211
34.9
1434
10
10
0
NWIS
Sulfate
Dissolved
mg/L
100
100
—
100
100
1
1
0
TXWDB
Sulfate
Dissolved
mg/L
36
30
17
24
62
4
4
0
NURE
Sulfate
Dissolved
mg/L
143
143
—
131
154
2
2
0
Location B
Sulfate
Dissolved
mg/L
83.7
79.8
43.1
25.8
167
10
10
0
NWIS
Bromide
Dissolved
mg/L
3
3
—
3
3.00
1
1
0
TXWDB
Bromide
Dissolved
mg/L
1.24
0.48
1.53
0.25
3.00
4
3
0
Location B
Bromide
Dissolved
mg/L
1.43
0.26
2.62
0.09
7.57
10
10
37
NWIS
Calcium
Dissolved
mg/L
200
200
—
200
200
1
1
0
TXWDB
Calcium
Dissolved
mg/L
53
52
50
7
100
4
4
0
63
-------
Retrospective Case Study in Wise County, Texas
May 2015
Table 10. Location B 3-mile-radius-scale data summaries and statistics for the historical databases (NWIS, TXWDB, and NURE) along with all study
data collected in Location B.
Data Source
Parameter
Dissolved/Total
Units
Mean
Median
Standard
Deviation
Min
Max
Locations
N
Z1
NURE
Calcium
Dissolved
mg/L
16.9
16.9
—
1.1
32.7
2
2
0
Location B
Calcium
Dissolved
mg/L
21.5
4.11
31.2
2.12
90.3
10
10
0
NWIS
Potassium
Dissolved
mg/L
2.8
2.8
—
2.8
2.8
1
1
0
TXWDB
Potassium
Dissolved
mg/L
2.2
2.3
0.5
1.6
2.6
4
3
0
NURE
Potassium
Dissolved
mg/L
2.55
2.55
—
0.6
4.5
2
2
0
Location B
Potassium
Dissolved
mg/L
2.08
1.44
1.69
1.03
6.63
10
10
0
NWIS
Magnesium
Dissolved
mg/L
86
86
—
86
86
1
1
0
TXWDB
Magnesium
Dissolved
mg/L
15.4
8.1
18.7
2.3
43.2
4
4
0
NURE
Magnesium
Dissolved
mg/L
10.3
10.3
—
0.4
20.1
2
2
0
Location B
Magnesium
Dissolved
mg/L
9.29
1.58
14.1
0.71
42.4
10
10
0
NWIS
Sodium
Dissolved
mg/L
150
150
—
150
150
1
1
0
TXWDB
Sodium
Dissolved
mg/L
118
137
51
43
154
4
4
0
NURE
Sodium
Dissolved
mg/L
143
143
—
93.7
192
2
2
0
Location B
Sodium
Dissolved
mg/L
310
174
287
144
889
10
10
0
NURE
Boron
Dissolved
mg/L
163
163
—
149
177
2
2
0
Location B
Boron
Dissolved
mg/L
231
180
110
157
481
10
10
0
TXWDB
Barium
Dissolved
M-g/L
68
50
65
14
140
4
4
0
NURE
Barium
Dissolved
M-g/L
58
58
—
6
110
2
2
0
Location B
Barium
Dissolved
M-g/L
31
19
29
13
92
10
10
33
TXWDB
Strontium
Dissolved
Mg/L
590
590
—
590
590
4
1
0
NURE
Strontium
Dissolved
Mg/L
2197
2197
—
126
4268
2
2
0
Location B
Strontium
Dissolved
Mg/L
1887
414
2983
237
9454
10
10
0
64
-------
Retrospective Case Study in Wise County, Texas
May 2015
Table 10. Location B 3-mile-radius-scale data summaries and statistics for the historical databases (NWIS, TXWDB, and NURE) along with all study
data collected in Location B.
Data Source
Parameter
Dissolved/Total
Units
Mean
Median
Standard
Deviation
Min
Max
Locations
N
Z1
Geochemical Parameters
NWIS
PH


6.8
6.8
—
6.8
6.8
1
1
0
TXWDB
PH


7.6
7.6
0.1
7.5
7.7
4
4
0
NURE
PH


8.4
8.4
—
7.4
9.3
2
2
0
Location B
PH


8.29
8.44
0.47
7.24
8.7
10
10
0
Trace Elements
TXWDB
Manganese
Dissolved
Hg/L
7.2
10.0
5.9
0.5
11.2
4
3
77
NURE
Manganese
Dissolved
Hg/L
18
18
—
1
34
2
2
50
Location B
Manganese
Dissolved
Hg/L
15
7
21
2
71
10
10
11
TXWDB
Lithium
Dissolved
M-g/L
21
21
—
21
21
4
1
0
NURE
Lithium
Dissolved
M-g/L
45
45
—
38
52
2
2
0
Location B
Lithium
Dissolved
Hg/L
55
45
29
29
120
9
9
0
Percentage of left censored data.
65
-------
Retrospective Case Study in Wise CountyTexas
May 2015
6000
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
600
500
400
300-
200
100
NWIS
TXWDB
NURE
Location B

Specific Conductance
~
~

r—I—, ' s
—i ~
n=10
n=1
i—i* ~. 1—
n=4
n=2
NWIS
TXWDB
NURE
Location B

Bicarbonate
JL '



Q ••

^•0*

' ' ~

n=1
n=4

~
n=10
NWIS
TXWDB
NURE
Location B
Sulfate
4000
3500
3000
_i 2500
o>
£ 2000
§> 1500
S. 1000
500
0
1800
1600
1400
~"1200
I'-fOOO
a) 800
O)
£ 600
400
200
0

Total Dissolved Solids
~
~

~


n=2
n=10
a:
8-
_ 6
o>
£ 4
NWIS
NWIS
TXWDB
NURE
Location B

Chloride



~


~




T i. , .

n=1
n=4
n=10
NWIS
TXWDB NURE
—i—
Location B

Bromide



~


~
'
X

n=1
n=3
n=10
NURE
Location B
Figure 15. Ground water box and whisker plots comparing historical databases (NWIS [USGS, 2013a], TXWDB [2013b], and NURE
[USGS, 2013b]) with all the study data at Location B using a 3-mile radius, The black dashed lines indicate, for constituents that have
secondary MCLs, the concentrations of the secondary MCLs.
66
-------
Retrospective Case Study in Wise County, Texas
May 2015
250-

Calcium
200-


150-


100-




T
50-

—
I ,~
0-
n=1
__
. . I	I ' I I .
n=
4 n=2 n=10
Potassium
NWIS
TXWDB
NURE
Location B
NWIS
TXWDB
NURE
Location B
Magnesium
1000
800
600
200
0-
Sodium
NWIS
TXWDB
NURE
Location B
NWIS
TXWDB
NURE
Location B
Boron
Barium
^ 120
o> 100
NWIS
TXWDB
NURE
Location B
NWIS
TXWDB
NURE
Location B
Figure 15 continued. Ground water box and whisker plots comparing historical databases (NWIS [USGS, 2013a], TXWDB [2013b],
and NURE [USGS, 2013b]) with all the study data at Location B using a 3-mile radius. The black dashed lines indicate, for constituents
that have secondary MCLs, the concentrations of the secondary MCLs,
67
-------
Retrospective Case Study in Wise County, Texas
May 2015
Strontium
10000

n=10
200
.150-
i
i)
L
; 100
0
NWIS
TXWDB
NURE
Location B

Iron

~



~
n=10
n=1
n=2
n=2
NWIS
TXWDB
NURE
Location B
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
Lithium

~
T *



	 ~


n=1
n=2
n=9
Manganese
n=10
NWIS
TXWDB
NURE
Location B
NWIS
TXWDB
NURE
Location B
pH

~
	
r—

| ^ | ~ ~

~

~
n=1 n=4 n=2
n=10
NWIS	TXWDB	NURE	Location B
Figure 15 continued. Ground water box and whisker plots comparing historical databases (NWIS [IJSGS, 2013a], TXWDB [2013b], and
NURE [USGS, 2013b]) with all the study data at Location B using a 3-mile radius. The black dashed lines indicate, for constituents that have
secondary MCLs, the concentrations of the secondary MCLs.
68
-------
Retrospective Case Study in Wise County, Texas
May 2015
Table 11. Location C 3-mile-radius-scale data summaries and statistics for the historical databases (NWIS, TXWDB, and NURE) along with all study data
collected in Location C.
Data Source
Parameter
Dissolved/
Total
Units
Mean
Median
Standard
Deviation
Min
Max
Locations
N
Z1
Brine Components
NWIS
SpC

US/cm
1070
1070
—
1070
1070
1
1
0
TXWDB
SpC

US/cm
1030
1030
—
1030
1030
1
1
0
NURE
SpC

US/cm
2590
2590
—
1310
3870
2
2
0
Location C
SpC

US/cm
932
932
—
668
1195
2
2
0
TXWDB
TDS

mg/L
651
651
—
651
651
1
1
0
Location C
TDS

mg/L
606
606
—
434
111
2
2
0
NWIS
Bicarbonate
Dissolved
mg/L
432
432
—
432
432
1
1
0
TXWDB
Bicarbonate
Dissolved
mg/L
425
425
—
425
425
1
1
0
Location C
Bicarbonate
Dissolved
mg/L
374
374
—
320
427
2
2
0
NWIS
Chloride
Dissolved
mg/L
30
30
—
30
30
1
1
0
TXWDB
Chloride
Dissolved
mg/L
30
30
—
30
30
1
1
0
Location C
Chloride
Dissolved
mg/L
27.8
27.8
—
25.8
29.8
2
2
0
NWIS
Sulfate
Dissolved
mg/L
200
200
—
200
200
1
1
0
TXWDB
Sulfate
Dissolved
mg/L
194
194
—
194
194
1
1
0
NURE
Sulfate
Dissolved
mg/L
447
447
—
343
550
2
2
0
Location C
Sulfate
Dissolved
mg/L
122
122
—
24.8
219
2
2
0
NWIS
Bromide
Dissolved
mg/L
0.18
0.18
—
0.18
0.18
1
1
0
TXWDB
Bromide
Dissolved
mg/L
0.17
0.17
—
0.17
0.17
1
1
0
Location C
Bromide
Dissolved
mg/L
0.24
0.24
—
0.13
0.36
2
2
50
69
-------
Retrospective Case Study in Wise County, Texas
May 2015
Table 11. Location C 3-mile-radius-scale data summaries and statistics for the historical databases (NWIS, TXWDB, and NURE) along with all study data
collected in Location C.
Data Source
Parameter
Dissolved/
Total
Units
Mean
Median
Standard
Deviation
Min
Max
Locations
N
Z1
NWIS
Calcium
Dissolved
mg/L
110
110
—
110
110
1
1
0
TXWDB
Calcium
Dissolved
mg/L
107
107
—
107
107
1
1
0
NURE
Calcium
Dissolved
mg/L
197
197
—
134
260
2
2
0
Location C
Calcium
Dissolved
mg/L
106
106
—
68.4
144
2
2
0
NWIS
Potassium
Dissolved
mg/L
3.7
3.7
—
3.7
3.7
1
1
0
TXWDB
Potassium
Dissolved
mg/L
3.6
3.6
—
3.6
3.6
1
1
0
NURE
Potassium
Dissolved
mg/L
4
4
—
4
4.0
2
2
0
Location C
Potassium
Dissolved
mg/L
3.12
3.12
—
2.24
4.00
2
2
0
NWIS
Magnesium
Dissolved
mg/L
55
55
—
55
55
1
1
0
TXWDB
Magnesium
Dissolved
mg/L
56.2
56.2
—
56.2
56.2
1
1
0
NURE
Magnesium
Dissolved
mg/L
78
78.0
—
66
89.9
2
2
0
Location C
Magnesium
Dissolved
mg/L
45.9
45.9
—
29.1
62.7
2
2
0
NWIS
Sodium
Dissolved
mg/L
30
30
—
30
30
1
1
0
TXWDB
Sodium
Dissolved
mg/L
30
30
—
30
30
1
1
0
NURE
Sodium
Dissolved
mg/L
121
121
—
39.6
203
2
2
0
Location C
Sodium
Dissolved
mg/L
28.7
28.7
—
25.8
31.7
2
2
0
TXWDB
Boron
Dissolved
Hg/L
104
104
—
104
104
1
1
0
NURE
Boron
Dissolved
Hg/L
84
84
—
77
90
2
2
0
Location C
Boron
Dissolved
Hg/L
65
65
—
64
67
2
2
50
TXWDB
Barium
Dissolved
M-g/L
110
110
—
110
110
1
1
0
NURE
Barium
Dissolved
M-g/L
30
30
—
17
43
2
2
0
Location C
Barium
Dissolved
M-g/L
45
45
—
32
59
2
2
50
70
-------
Retrospective Case Study in Wise County, Texas
May 2015
Table 11. Location C 3-mile-radius-scale data summaries and statistics for the historical databases (NWIS, TXWDB, and NURE) along with all study data
collected in Location C.
Data Source
Parameter
Dissolved/
Total
Units
Mean
Median
Standard
Deviation
Min
Max
Locations
N
Z1
TXWDB
Strontium
Dissolved
Hg/L
4430
4430
—
4430
4430
1
1
0
NURE
Strontium
Dissolved
Hg/L
2966
2966
—
1991
3940
2
2
0
Location C
Strontium
Dissolved
Hg/L
4790
4790
—
2580
7000
2
2
0
Geochemical Parameters
NWIS
PH


7.0
7.0
—
7.0
7.0
1
1
0
TXWDB
PH


7.1
7.1
—
7.1
7.1
1
1
0
NURE
PH


7.0
7.0
—
6.9
7.0
2
2
0
Location C
PH


6.91
6.91
—
6.85
6.97
2
2
0
Trace Elements
NWIS
Iron
Dissolved
Hg/L
320
320
—
320
320
1
1
0
TXWDB
Iron
Dissolved
M-g/L
332
332
—
332
332
1
1
0
NURE
Iron
Dissolved
M-g/L
8
8
—
5
10
2
2
50
Location C
Iron
Dissolved
M-g/L
214
214
—
150
279
2
2
0
NWIS
Manganese
Dissolved
M-g/L
130
130
—
130
130
1
1
0
TXWDB
Manganese
Dissolved
M-g/L
117
117
—
117
117
1
1
0
NURE
Manganese
Dissolved
Mg/L
157
157
—
4
309
2
2
0
Location C
Manganese
Dissolved
Mg/L
60
60
—
53
68
2
2
0
1 Percentage of left censored data.
71
-------
Retrospective Case Study in Wise County, Texas
May 2015
6.3.2. Major Ions
Bicarbonate concentrations collected in the study can be compared with historical bicarbonate
concentrations contained in the NWIS and TXWDB databases (Table 8 and Figure 13) on a county wide
scale. The ranges and median concentrations of the historical bicarbonate data and the study
bicarbonate data are similar.
The historical bicarbonate data were compared with the study data from Locations B and C on a 3-mile
radius scale. The Location B study bicarbonate data had a slightly lower range and median bicarbonate
concentration than the historical data (Table 10 and Figure 15). The study data were significantly lower
than the NWIS and TXWDB values in the Kruskal-Wallis tests (p-value = 0.00236). In the Scheffe tests,
both original and log-transformed values from this study were significantly lower than the values in the
NWIS database, but the values from this study only approached a significant difference from the
TXWDB. The 3-mile radius historical data from the NWIS for Location C had a slightly lower median
bicarbonate concentration (Table 11).
Chloride occurs naturally in water (Hounslow, 1995; Eby, 2004), and there are also many anthropogenic
sources of chloride (Eby, 2004). Anthropogenic sources of chloride are extensive, since chloride is one
of the most widely used elements in modern chemistry (Eby, 2004). Chloride concentrations in ground
water study samples ranged from 4.59 to 1,434 mg/L (Table 7). Chloride concentrations in the Barnett
Shale-produced water ranged from 110,100 to 143,400 mg/L.
As is the case with other parameters collected for the study, chloride in ground water was compared on
a countywide scale with historical data contained in the NWIS and TXWDB databases (Table 8 and Figure
13). Chloride distributions are shown on Figure 16. Statistical analysis on this scale of all the study data
indicated that there were no significant differences between the historical data and the study data.
Although this indicates the chloride concentrations are similar, this scale may not provide an accurate
assessment of the chloride concentrations at a particular study location when taking geographical
locations and geologic information into account, and does not account for potential differences at
different study locations.
Ground water chloride concentrations at Locations B and C were compared with the historical data in
the NWIS and TXWDB databases using a 3-mile radius. The differences seen between the historical data
and the Location B study data (Table 10 and Figure 15) were due to the high chloride concentration
found in two of the study wells, WISETXGW01 and WISETXGW08. No historical wells had concentrations
in the same range as WISETXGW01 and WISETXGW08; therefore, at this scale, these wells appear to be
outliers. The historical chloride concentrations and the study chloride concentrations at Location C were
similar (Table 11).
Calcium (Table 7) also occurs naturally in water (Hounslow, 1995). Anthropogenic sources of calcium
are agriculture and industrial and construction uses. In study samples, calcium concentrations in ground
water ranged from 1.13 to 144 mg/L, with a median concentration of 9.51 mg/L. The Barnett Shale-
produced water collected as part of the study had calcium concentrations that ranged from 16,200 to
21,200 mg/L, with a median concentration of 18,700 mg/L.
72
-------
Retrospective Case Study in Wise County, Texas	May 2015
Location C
Location A
Location B
Bridgeport
BnWWOfl

WISE COUNTY
	Parfcty
EPA HF
a Sampling Locations
Chloride Results (mg/L)
o 5-25
® 25-100
•	100-250
•	250-1170
Search Areas
I Miles
Chloride
Sampling Results
Wise County, Texas
EPA Hydraulic Fracturing Study
Figure 16. Map of chloride concentrations and chloride distributions within Wise County based on historical databases. (Data Sources: USGS
(2013a) and TXWDB (2013b)).
73
-------
Retrospective Case Study in Wise County, Texas
May 2015
The median concentration for calcium in this study was much lower than the historical calcium
concentrations on a countywide scale (Table 8 and Figure 13). For calcium, the Kruskal-Wallis tests
indicated that the study data were significantly lower than historical data (p-value = 0.0115). ANOVA
tests using untransformed and log-transformed data had p-values = 0.0472 and 0.00292, respectively.
This indicates that calcium concentrations for samples collected during the study were significantly
lower than the historical data for Wise County.
For study Location A, the NURE was the only historical database available for comparison of calcium
concentrations on a 3-mile radius basis. For Location A, the median calcium concentrations in samples
from the study were higher than the historical concentrations in the NURE database (Table 9).
For Location B, all three historical databases could be used for comparison with the study data (Table 10
and Figure 15). Comparison of the historical calcium concentrations with the Location B concentrations
showed that the median calcium concentration at Location B was lower than the historical
concentration. Unfortunately, the historical data could not be compared statistically with the study data
because of the lack of data in the individual historical databases. Data from the pooled historical
databases can be compared with the study Location B data, but this should be done with caution
because of the differences in sampling methods and analysis. The ANOVA test results were almost
significant, with p-value = 0.0499. The Kruskal-Wallis test was nearly significant at the a=0.05 level of
significance, with a p-value = 0.0641.
For Location C, data from the NWIS, TXWDB, and NURE historical databases could be compared with the
Location C study data. The study data for dissolved calcium were similar to with the calcium
concentrations reported in the historical databases (Table 11).
Another naturally occurring major cation analyzed for in this study was potassium (Table 7) (Hounslow,
1995). Potassium sources also include anthropogenic sources such as fertilizers and industrial
processes. The potassium concentration in study ground water ranged from 0.50 to 6.63 mg/L, with a
median concentration of 1.79 mg/L. The Barnett Shale-produced water samples had potassium
concentrations that ranged from 928 to 1,780 mg/L, with a median concentration of 1,354 mg/L.
The potassium concentrations in samples collected as part of this study were compared with historical
potassium concentrations on a countywide basis using all three historical databases (Table 8 and Figure
13). The comparison showed that the median potassium concentration in the study samples was slightly
lower than the historical potassium concentrations.
The potassium results for all three study locations were compared with the historical potassium
concentrations within a 3-mile radius. For Location A, the NURE database provided the historical data
for comparison (Table 9). For location A, the potassium concentrations and ranges from the study were
higher than the concentrations in the historical data. For Location B, all three historical databases
provided the historical data for comparison with potassium concentrations from the study (Table 10 and
Figure 15). As was the case in the countywide comparisons, the median potassium concentration in the
Location B data was lower than the concentration in the historical data, and the Location B study data
had a higher maximum potassium concentration because of WISETXGW01 and WISETXGW08. For
Location C, all three historical databases provided the historical data for comparison with potassium
concentrations from the study (Table 11). The potassium concentrations from Location C were similar
to with the historical potassium concentrations.
74
-------
Retrospective Case Study in Wise County, Texas
May 2015
Magnesium (Table 7) is a naturally occurring major cation in ground water and surface water (Hounslow,
1995) and can be derived from anthropogenic sources such as agriculture, mining, and industry.
Magnesium concentrations in study sample ground water ranged from 0.41 to 62.7 mg/L, with a median
concentration of 4.06 mg/L. The Barnett Shale-produced water had magnesium concentrations that
ranged from 1,860 to 2,410 mg/L, with a median concentration of 2,135 mg/L.
The magnesium data collected for the study was compared with the historical magnesium data on a
countywide basis (Table 8 and Figure 13). The range of magnesium concentrations collected as part of
this study was somewhat smaller than that in the historical data, but there was considerable overlap.
The median concentration in the study was less than the median concentrations in the historical
databases.
The magnesium data for the individual study locations were compared with the historical magnesium
concentrations within a 3-mile radius. For Location A, the historical magnesium concentrations from the
NURE database ranged from 0.2 to 0.3 mg/L, with a median concentration of 0.3 mg/L (Table 9); the
magnesium concentrations from the study ranged from 0.41 to 12.0 mg/L, with a median concentration
of 6.96 mg/L. As can be seen, at Location A the range and median concentration of magnesium were
different than the historical concentrations in the NURE database (Table 9). For Location B (Table 10
and Figure 15), although the range of magnesium data collected in study Location B overlapped with the
historical magnesium data, the median magnesium concentrations was lower than the historical data.
For Location C, the magnesium concentration from the study was lower than the concentrations in the
historical data (Table 11).
Sodium (Table 7) occurs naturally in most ground water (Hounslow, 1995). Anthropogenic sources of
sodium include waste water, industrial activities, water treatment, and road salt. Sodium in our ground
water ranged from 25.8 to 889 mg/L, with a median concentration of 161 mg/L. It should be noted that
the wide range in the study's ground water data was due to two wells in Location B (WISETXGW01 and
WISETXGW08). The sodium concentrations in the produced water from the Barnett Shale ranged from
60,100 to 96,400 mg/L, with a median concentration of 78,250 mg/L.
The sodium data from the study were compared with the historical sodium data on a countywide scale
(Table 8 and Figure 13). As can be seen, the median concentrations and ranges from the study differed
from those from the NWIS and NURE databases. The historical sodium concentrations found in the
TXWDB data base had a few higher sodium concentrations, similar to the study. The median
concentration from the study data was approximately double the concentration in the TXWDB database.
Statistical ANOVA analysis revealed that for both the untransformed data and the transformed data, the
study data were significantly higher than the historical data (p-values = 0.007 and 0.03, respectively.
The Kruskal-Wallis nonparametric test also indicated nearly significant differences (p-value = 0.06).
The results from all three study locations were compared with the historical data for locations within a
3-mile radius. The NURE database had historical sodium concentrations ranging from 141 to 215 mg/L
for Location A, and a median concentration of 150 mg/L (Table 9). The study had sodium concentrations
for Location A ranging from 81.8 to 149 mg/L, with a median concentration of 100 mg/L, and the
minimum sodium concentration and median sodium concentration were lower than the historical
sodium concentrations (Table 9). For Location B (Table 10 and Figure 15), the maximum sodium
concentration and the median sodium concentration were higher than the historical sodium data, most
likely because of two wells, WISETXGW01 and WISETXGW08. Because of the lack of data on this scale,
75
-------
Retrospective Case Study in Wise County, Texas
May 2015
the statistical test for individual databases could not be performed. The pooled data can shed some
light if the historical data are different than the study data, but these interpretations need to be used
with caution. Both the ANOVA and Kruskal-Wallis statistics showed that the historical data and study
data were significantly different (p-values = 0.036 and 0.011, respectively). For Location C, the sodium
concentrations from the study were similar to those in the historical databases (Table 11).
In summary, there were no significant differences in the concentrations in the parameters discussed
above between the study data and the historical data for Locations A and C. For Location B,
bicarbonate, chloride, calcium, and sodium were significantly different when comparing the study data
with the historical data. These differences were likely due to the concentrations observed in
WISETXGW01 and WISETXGW08. These differences could potentially be due to an impact to
WISETXGW01 and WISETXGW08.
6.3.3. Trace Elements
Trace elements can occur naturally in ground water, surface water, and produced water (Alpha
Environmental Consultants, 2009; U.S. House of Representatives, 2011; Veil et al. et al., 2004). Trace
elements can also result from industrial, agricultural, and oil and gas exploration activities.
Bromide is a naturally occurring element found primarily in seawater, brines, and evaporites (Hounslow,
1995). Because the bromide concentration in freshwater are naturally low, it is often used as an
indicator of brine intrusion (Hounslow, 1995). Potential anthropogenic sources of bromide include
water purification agents, anti-knocking agents in gasoline, bleaching agents, fire retardants, and
pharmaceuticals (Hounslow, 1995). Detectable bromide concentrations in ground water samples
collected during the study ranged from 0.03 to 7.57 mg/L, with a median concentration of 0.18 mg/L
(Table 7). In most cases, the highest bromide concentrations were collected in two wells at study
Location B (WISETXGW01 and WISETXGW08). The bromide concentration in the produced water
samples from the Barnett Shale was 903 mg/L, which is within the range of bromide concentrations
expected for natural brines (100 mg/L to 1,000 mg/L; Hounslow, 1995).
All the study data for bromide were compared with historical data from the NWIS and TXWDB databases
on a countywide scale (Table 8 and Figure 13). Although the median bromide concentration from the
study was lower than the median concentration from the historical data, the bromide concentrations
from the study had a wider range than that seen in the historical data. This was due to two wells at
Location B, WISETXGW01 and WISETXGW08, which had higher bromide concentrations, skewing the
data. This can be seen in Figure 13, which shows these two outliers.
The bromide ground water data from Locations B and C were compared with historical ground water
data from the NWIS and TXWDB databases within a 3-mile radius of each of these locations. As was the
case with the countywide scale, the differences between the bromide concentrations at Location B and
the historical data can be attributed to two wells, WISETXGW01 and WISETXGW08, which had higher
concentrations of bromide (Table 10 and Figure 15). For Location C, the historical bromide
concentrations were comparable to the concentrations obtained from samples collected in the study
(Table 11).
Iodide occurs naturally in the environment and, depending on the type of water, can have detectable
concentrations in ground water (Lloyd et al., 1982). Typical sources of iodide in the environment include
evaporites, caliche deposits, and marine or oceanic deposits rich in organic matter (Lloyd, 1982).
76
-------
Retrospective Case Study in Wise County, Texas
May 2015
Ground water in contact with these deposits typically has higher iodide concentrations than water that
is not in contact with these types of deposits (Lloyd et al., 1982). Lloyd et al. (1982) stated that much of
the work with iodide in ground water was associated with petroleum brines and with salt water
intrusion. Therefore, iodide may be a good indicator of brine intrusion. Iodide concentrations found in
produced water in this study ranged from 57,800 to 126,000 ng/L in the Barnett-Shale-produced water,
with a median concentration of 91,900 ng/L (Table 7). Ground water at Location B had detectable
concentrations of iodide that ranged from 16.4 to 269 ng/L, with a median concentration of 19.8 ng/L.
Since no historical samples containing iodide could be found, the iodide concentrations from the study
cannot be compared with historical iodide concentrations in the Trinity aquifer.
The first screening round for these trace elements used ICP-OES because of data quality problems
(interferences) associated with the ICP-MS data in the first round of sampling. In all cases, the ICP-OES
had much higher detection limits than those of ICP-MS. Thus, only the trace element data from ICP-MS
was used for this study (see Table B-3). A more complete explanation is presented in Appendix A.
Boron can be from naturally occurring sources, and several recent reports have linked the use of boron
to hydraulic fracturing and produced water (U.S House of Representatives, 2011; Alpha Environmental
Consultants, 2009). In the study, boron concentrations in ground water ranged from 64 to 481 ng/L,
with a median concentration of 175 ng/L (Table 7). Produced water samples collected from the Barnett
Shale over the course of the study had boron concentrations ranging from 25,800 to 27,100 ng/L, with a
median concentration of 26,450 ng/L.
The TXWDB and NURE databases both contain historical boron data that can be compared with the data
collected in the study on a countywide scale (Table 8 and Figure 13). The countywide distributions of
boron can be seen in Figure 17. Although the ranges of boron concentrations overlap, the median
boron concentrations in the historical data and the study data are different. The study's median
concentrations are somewhat higher than the historical data. Statistical analysis using ANOVA could
only be done using the log normal transformed data. The ANOVA analysis indicated that the historical
boron concentrations were lower than those collected as part of this study (p-value = 0.03). This is also
supported by the Kruskal-Wallis test, which also indicated significant differences (p-value = 0.0035).
The historical boron data from the NURE database for locations within a 3-mile radius of Locations A, B,
and C were compared to the boron data from the study locations. For Location A, boron concentrations
from the study generally agreed with the historical concentrations (Table 9). For Location B, the median
boron concentrations from the study were generally similar to the historical boron concentrations
(Table 10 and Figure 15). For Location B, the maximum boron concentrations from the study were
higher than the historical concentrations. For Location C, the median concentrations and ranges for
boron obtained from the study differed from the historical boron concentrations and ranges (Table 11).
Barium is another element that has been found as potentially associated with hydraulic fracturing and
has been found in produced water (U.S. House of Representatives, 2011; Veil et al., 2004; Alpha
Environmental Consultants, 2009). Detectable barium concentrations in ground water samples
collected during the study ranged from 13 to 138 ng/L, with a median concentration of 23 ng/L (Table
7). The barium concentrations in produced water from the Barnett Shale were much greater than in
ground water and ranged from 8,510 to 12,300 ng/L, with a median concentration of 10,405 ng/L.
77
-------
Retrospective Case Study in Wise County, Texas
May 2015
Location C
Location A
Location B
Aurora J'n
I ik*
p *po/f
LA«
483 3°°""d
WISE COUNTY i00
f->	Bfiscrrwp. ESRl.	ftcsy.'fs nn<] LccoiKn. EPA ORD
1061
160
O
48
O
»58"«
24
o
eioo
EPA HF
" Sampling Locations
Boron Results (ng/L)
o 2-25
® 25-100
G 100-200
• 200-1824
c' '^3 Search Areas
0 1.5 3	6
Miles
Boron Sampling
Results
Wise County, Texas
EPA Hydraulic Fracturing Study
3$
65°
©
38
O*co
Figure 17. Map of boron concentrations and boron distributions within Wise County based on historical databases. (Data Sources: USGS
(2013b) and TXWDB (2013b)).
78
-------
Retrospective Case Study in Wise County, Texas
May 2015
The barium concentrations obtained from the study were compared with historical barium
concentrations obtained from the TXWDB and NURE databases on a countywide basis (Table 8 and
Figure 13). The distribution of historical barium concentrations are shown on Figure 18. The study data
concentrations of barium fall within the historical data ranges. The median barium concentration in the
study was somewhat lower than the historical data. The Kruskal-Wallis statistical test revealed that
historical barium concentrations were significantly different than the study data (p-value = 0.0397).
Barium concentrations from the individual study locations were also compared with barium
concentrations from the TXWDB and NURE databases using data from sites within a 3-mile radius of the
study locations. For Location A, (Table 9), the study barium concentrations on this scale differ from the
historical barium concentrations. The barium concentrations from Location B had a lower median
concentration than that in the historical databases (Table 10 and Figure 15). The barium concentrations
from Location C were similar to those found in the historical databases (Table 11).
Strontium has also been found in produced water (U.S. House of Representatives, 2011; Alpha
Environmental Consultants, 2009). The strontium concentration in produced water from the Barnett
Shale ranged from 584,000 to 752,000 ng/L, with a median concentration of 668,000 ng/L (Table 7).
Strontium concentrations in ground water samples collected at all study locations ranged from 51 to
9,454 ng/L, with a median concentration of 605 ng/L. It should be noted that samples from wells
WISETXGW01, WISETXGW05, and WISETXGW08 had much higher strontium concentrations than
samples from the other wells in the study. The results from these two wells biased the strontium ranges
to higher concentrations.
As was the case with barium, strontium concentrations from the study were compared with historical
strontium concentrations from the NURE and TXWDB databases on a countywide basis (Table 8 and
Figure 13). The historical distribution of strontium concentrations in Wise County is shown on Figure 19.
Although the ranges of strontium concentrations from the study and the historical databases were
similar, the median concentration of strontium in the study data was lower than the median
concentration from the historical data.
Strontium concentrations from the individual study locations were also compared with strontium
concentrations from the TXWDB and NURE databases using data obtained from sites within a 3-mile
radius of the study locations. For Location A, the historical strontium data and study strontium data
were different (Table 9). For Location B, the differences in the maximum strontium concentrations in
the study data and the historical data (Table 10 and Figure 15) were due primarily to the results from
three study wells, WISTETXGW01, WISETXGW05, and WISTETXGW08, both of which produced high
strontium concentrations. For Location C, median concentration from the study data were similar to the
historical data from the TXWDB database (Table 11). However, the range of strontium concentrations
from the study data (WISETXGW06) had a higher maximum concentration than the range from the
historical data (Table 11).
Both iron and manganese also have been found in hydraulic fracturing and produced water (U.S. House
of Representatives, 2011; Alpha Environmental Consultants, 2009). Iron and manganese were also
analyzed for in this study. On several occasions, the concentrations of these elements approached or
exceeded their respective SMCL regulatory threshold. SMCLs are not health-based, but they are
important because they are generally set for aesthetic purposes or for water supply issues (US EPA,
2009).
79
-------
Retrospective Case Study in Wise County, Texas
May 2015
Location C
EPA HF
a Sampling Locations
Barium Results (ng/L)
° 2-10
Location A
Bndg«pcxi
Search Areas
Location B
Miles
O ©
Barium
Sampling Results
Wise County, Texas
				EPA Hydraulic Fracturing Study
flSS "'*1 Locrficr £PA ORD	^^
Figure 18. Map of barium concentrations and barium distributions within Wise County based on historical databases. (Data Sources: USGS
(2013b) and TXWDB (2013b)).
WISE COUNTY
80
-------
Retrospective Case Study in Wise County, Texas
May 2015
Location C
H79JM
EPA HF
a Sampling Locations
Strontium Results (pg/L)
Location A
° No Detection
• 750-1500
A Lit*
ii> .Iff+p&'t
L*.
BMdgvpcrt
Brtdgapofi
® 1500-3500
• 3500-8360
C 3 Search Areas
Location B
'2680k
\~r . ^
Aurora
Strontium
Sampling Results
Wise County, Texas
EPA Hydraulic Fracturing Study
WISE COUNTY
Figure 19. Map of strontium concentrations and strontium distributions within Wise County based on historical databases. (Data Sources:
USGS (2013b) and TXWDB (2013b)).
81
-------
Retrospective Case Study in Wise County, Texas
May 2015
Several samples show differences between dissolved and total manganese. The reasons for the
differences are attributed to colloidal manganese. The detectable dissolved manganese concentrations
ranged from 2 to 71 ng/L, with a median concentration of 12 ng/L (Table 12); the detectable total
manganese concentrations ranged from 2 to 72 ng/L, with a median concentration of 12 ng/L. In the
produced water samples collected from the Barnett Shale, the dissolved manganese concentrations
ranged from 2,560 to 3,400 ng/L, with a median concentration of 2,980 ng/L. Produced waters samples
had higher manganese concentrations than those detected in the surface water and ground water
samples collected in the study.
In summary, boron and barium concentrations observed in the study were significantly different than
the historical data. Boron study concentrations were greater than the boron historical concentrations
and barium study concentrations were lower than the historical concentrations overall. However, there
were no significant differences found for boron and barium concentrations using a 3-mile radius for any
of the study locations. The study bromide concentrations were greater than historical bromide
concentrations at location B. This was due do the concentrations of bromide in WISETXGW01 and
WISETXGW08. Similarly, at Location B, the study strontium concentrations observed were greater than
the historical strontium concentrations. However, this was due to three wells WISETXGW01,
WISETXGW05, and WISETXGW08.
6.3.4. Geochemical Relationships
The previous analysis compared only the single parameters with their historical counterparts. These
single comparisons do not account for the more complicated geochemical relationships that also
contribute to water quality or that can be used to detect changes in water quality or fingerprint source
waters. The use of ratios and graphical techniques are also important in discussing water quality
relationships and determining potential sources of water (Hounslow, 1995). These relationships are
discussed below within the framework of the historical data for each study location.
Location A and C Groundwater
The water types give an overall impression of the dominant anions and cations in the water samples.
Figure 20 shows the study water types for Locations A and C as a percentage of the samples. The
countywide historical data indicate that the dominant water types in the NWIS and TXWDB databases
are sodium-bicarbonate and calcium-bicarbonate waters, with smaller percentages of other water types.
The NURE data do not contain several of the major anions needed to calculate water types, so no
information on water types is obtainable from this database.
In Location A, all the study samples were sodium-bicarbonate waters (Figure 20A). Both the historical
data and study data for Location A contain sodium-bicarbonate waters. No water-type data from within
a 3-mile radius of Location A was obtainable; therefore this scale cannot be used. In Location C, all study
samples were calcium-bicarbonate water type. Similar to Location A, on a countywide scale, the water
types from Location C are comparable to the dominant water types in the historical data (Figure 20B).
This is even more evident when the study data is compared with the historical data for locations within a
3-mile radius of Location C. In both the historical data and study data, the only water type is calcium-
bicarbonate (Figure 20C).
82
-------
Retrospective Case Study in Wise County, Texas
May 2015
Table 12. Study data summaries and statistics for ground water.
Location
Parameter
Dissolved/
Total
Units
Mean
Median
Standard
Deviation
Min
Max
Locations
N
Z1
Brine Components
A
SpC

US/cm
601
605
41
555
641
4
4
0
B
SpC

US/cm
1619
846
1630
726
5077
10
10
0
C
SpC

US/cm
932
932
—
668
1195
2
2
0
Combined
SpC

US/cm
1278
781
1349
555
5077
16
16
0
A
TDS

mg/L
391
393
27
361
416
4
4
0
B
TDS

mg/L
1052
549
1060
472
3301
10
10
0
C
TDS

mg/L
606
606
—
434
111
2
2
0
Combined
TDS
Dissolved
mg/L
831
506
877
361
3301
16
16
0
A
Bicarbonate
Dissolved
mg/L
314
308
19
301
341
4
4
0
B
Bicarbonate
Dissolved
mg/L
302
306
51
189
385
10
10
0
C
Bicarbonate
Dissolved
mg/L
374
374
—
320
427
2
2
0
Combined
Bicarbonate
Dissolved
mg/L
314
312
51
189
427
16
16
0
A
Chloride
Dissolved
mg/L
5.85
5.89
1.02
4.59
7.03
4
4
0
B
Chloride
Dissolved
mg/L
294
64.7
511
34.9
1434
10
10
0
C
Chloride
Dissolved
mg/L
27.8
27.8
—
25.8
29.8
2
2
0
Combined
Chloride
Dissolved
mg/L
188.9
42.6
420
4.59
1434
16
16
0
A
Sulfate
Dissolved
mg/L
30.2
28.7
6.46
24.5
39.0
4
4
0
B
Sulfate
Dissolved
mg/L
83.7
79.8
43.1
25.8
167
10
10
0
C
Sulfate
Dissolved
mg/L
122
122
—
24.8
219
2
2
0
Combined
Sulfate
Dissolved
mg/L
75.1
65.4
57.1
24.5
219
16
16
0
83
-------
Retrospective Case Study in Wise County, Texas
May 2015
Table 12. Study data summaries and statistics for ground water.
Location
Parameter
Dissolved/
Total
Units
Mean
Median
Standard
Deviation
Min
Max
Locations
N
Z1
A
Bromide
Dissolved
mg/L
0.06
0.06
0.02
0.03
0.08
4
4
86
B
Bromide
Dissolved
mg/L
1.43
0.26
2.62
0.09
7.57
10
10
37
C
Bromide
Dissolved
mg/L
0.24
0.24
—
0.13
0.36
2
2
25
Combined
Bromide
Dissolved
mg/L
0.94
0.18
2.14
0.03
7.57
16
16
43
A
Iodide
Dissolved
Hg/L
—
—
—
—
—
0
0
n
B
Iodide
Dissolved
Hg/L
50
19
88
16
269
10
8
0
C
Iodide
Dissolved
Hg/L
134
134
—
134
134
2
1
n
Combined
Iodide
Dissolved
Hg/L
60
20
87
16
269
9
9
0
A
Calcium
Dissolved
mg/L
18.0
18.6
14.3
1.13
33.5
4
4
0
B
Calcium
Dissolved
mg/L
21.5
4.11
31.2
2.12
90.3
10
10
0
C
Calcium
Dissolved
mg/L
106
106
—
68.4
144
2
2
0
Combined
Calcium
Dissolved
mg/L
31.2
9.51
40.8
1.13
144
16
16
0
A
Potassium
Dissolved
mg/L
2.01
2.16
1.17
0.50
3.23
4
4
0
B
Potassium
Dissolved
mg/L
2.08
1.44
1.69
1.03
6.63
10
10
0
C
Potassium
Dissolved
mg/L
3.12
3.12
—
2.24
4.00
2
2
0
Combined
Potassium
Dissolved
mg/L
2.19
1.79
1.49
0.50
6.63
16
16
0
A
Magnesium
Dissolved
mg/L
6.57
6.96
4.97
0.41
12.0
4
4
0
B
Magnesium
Dissolved
mg/L
9.29
1.58
14.1
0.71
42.4
10
10
0
C
Magnesium
Dissolved
mg/L
45.9
45.9
—
29.1
62.7
2
2
0
Combined
Magnesium
Dissolved
mg/L
13.2
4.06
18.1
0.41
62.7
16
16
0
84
-------
Retrospective Case Study in Wise County, Texas
May 2015
Table 12. Study data summaries and statistics for ground water.
Location
Parameter
Dissolved/
Total
Units
Mean
Median
Standard
Deviation
Min
Max
Locations
N
Z1
A
Sodium
Dissolved
mg/L
108
100
29.7
81.8
149
4
4
0
B
Sodium
Dissolved
mg/L
310
174
287
144
889
10
10
0
C
Sodium
Dissolved
mg/L
28.7
28.7
—
25.8
31.7
2
2
0
Combined
Sodium
Dissolved
mg/L
224
161
251
25.8
889
16
16
0
A
Boron
Dissolved
M-g/L
104
113
25
68
124
4
4
14
B
Boron
Dissolved
M-g/L
231
180
110
157
481
10
10
0
C
Boron
Dissolved
M-g/L
65
65
—
64
67
2
2
50
Combined
Boron
Dissolved
M-g/L
179
175
Ill
64
481
16
16
7
A
Barium
Dissolved
Mg/L
77
78
50
16
138
4
4
14
B
Barium
Dissolved
Mg/L
32
19
29
13
92
10
10
33
C
Barium
Dissolved
Mg/L
45
45
—
32
59
2
2
25
Combined
Barium
Dissolved
Mg/L
45
23
38
13
138
16
16
17
A
Strontium
Dissolved
Mg/L
992
999
812
51
1920
4
4
0
B
Strontium
Dissolved
Mg/L
1887
414
2983
237
9454
10
10
0
C
Strontium
Dissolved
Mg/L
4790
4790
—
2580
7000
2
2
0
Combined
Strontium
Dissolved
Mg/L
2026
605
2728
51
9454
16
16
0
Geochemical Parameters
A
Temp

-C
20.0
20.1
0.8
19.0
20.9
4
4
0
B
Temp

-C
20.7
20.8
0.6
19.7
21.5
10
10
0
C
Temp

-C
22.0
22.0
—
20.8
23.3
2
2
0
Combined
Temp

-C
20.7
20.7
1.0
19.0
23.3
16
16
0
85
-------
Retrospective Case Study in Wise County, Texas
May 2015
Table 12. Study data summaries and statistics for ground water.
Location
Parameter
Dissolved/
Total
Units
Mean
Median
Standard
Deviation
Min
Max
Locations
N
Z1
A
DO

mg/L
0.27
0.27
0.21
0.07
0.50
4
4
0
B
DO

mg/L
0.99
0.71
1.10
0.10
3.36
10
10
0
C
DO

mg/L
0.40
0.40
—
0.37
0.43
2
2
0
Combined
DO

mg/L
0.74
0.41
0.92
0.07
3.36
16
16
0
A
PH


8.02
7.78
0.72
7.47
9.04
4
4
0
B
PH


8.29
8.44
0.47
7.24
8.70
10
10
0
C
PH


6.91
6.91
—
6.85
6.97
2
2
0
Combined
PH


8.05
8.20
0.67
6.85
9.04
16
16
0
A
ORP

mV
168
167
55
111
227
4
4
0
B
ORP

mV
140
179
98
-103
213
10
10
0
C
ORP

mV
60
60
—
48
71
2
2
0
Combined
ORP

mV
137
165
87
-103
227
16
16
0
A
Turbidity
Dissolved
NTU
0.45
0.48
0.11
0.30
0.55
4
4
0
B
Turbidity
Dissolved
NTU
1.15
0.46
1.34
0.13
4.34
10
10
0
C
Turbidity
Dissolved
NTU
11.5
11.5
—
8.7
14.4
2
2
0
Combined
Turbidity
Dissolved
NTU
2.27
0.48
3.90
0.13
14.4
16
16
0
A
Alkalinity
Dissolved
mg CaCO /L
219
237
45
153
251
4
4
0
B
Alkalinity
Dissolved
mg CaCO /L
249
244
48
146
341
10
10
0
C
Alkalinity
Dissolved
mg CaCO /L
306
306
—
266
347
2
2
0
Combined
Alkalinity
Dissolved
mg CaCO /L
249
244
52
146
347
16
16
0
86
-------
Retrospective Case Study in Wise County, Texas
May 2015
Table 12. Study data summaries and statistics for ground water.
Location
Parameter
Dissolved/
Total
Units
Mean
Median
Standard
Deviation
Min
Max
Locations
N
Z1
Nutrients/DOC/Other Anions
A
Ammonia
Dissolved
mg N/L
1.22
1.36
0.64
0.42
1.74
4
4
0
B
Ammonia
Dissolved
mg N/L
0.91
0.66
0.68
0.59
2.82
10
10
0
C
Ammonia
Dissolved
mg N/L
0.06
0.06
—
0.02
0.11
2
2
25
Combined
Ammonia
Dissolved
mg N/L
0.88
0.66
0.69
0.02
2.82
16
16
2
A
Nitrate + Nitrite
Dissolved
mg N/L
0.02
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.03
4
4
57
B
Nitrate + Nitrite
Dissolved
mg N/L
0.06
0.02
0.08
0.01
0.25
10
10
40
C
Nitrate + Nitrite
Dissolved
mg N/L
0.01
0.01
—
0.01
0.02
2
2
75
Combined
Nitrate + Nitrite
Dissolved
mg N/L
0.04
0.02
0.07
0.01
0.25
16
16
61
A
DOC

mg/L
0.29
0.22
0.29
0.04
0.70
4
4
57
B
DOC

mg/L
0.35
0.28
0.19
0.10
0.67
10
10
34
C
DOC

mg/L
0.74
0.74
—
0.68
0.79
2
2
0
Combined
DOC

mg/L
0.38
0.28
0.24
0.04
0.79
16
16
35
A
Fluoride
Dissolved
mg/L
0.11
0.12
0.05
0.06
0.17
4
4
14
B
Fluoride
Dissolved
mg/L
0.10
0.08
0.06
0.05
0.22
10
10
43
C
Fluoride
Dissolved
mg/L
0.24
0.24
—
0.16
0.33
2
2
0
Combined
Fluoride
Dissolved
mg/L
0.12
0.10
0.07
0.05
0.33
16
16
26
Trace Elements
A
Iron
Dissolved
Hg/L
20
19
10
11
30
4
4
71
B
Iron
Dissolved
Hg/L
35
18
50
11
176
10
10
80
C
Iron
Dissolved
Hg/L
214
214
—
150
279
2
2
0
Combined
Iron
Dissolved
Hg/L
—
—
—
—
—
16
0
72
87
-------
Retrospective Case Study in Wise County, Texas
May 2015
Table 12. Study data summaries and statistics for ground water.
Location
Parameter
Dissolved/
Total
Units
Mean
Median
Standard
Deviation
Min
Max
Locations
N
Z1
A
Manganese
Dissolved
M-g/L
16
19
10
2
26
4
4
29
B
Manganese
Dissolved
M-g/L
15
7
21
2
71
10
10
11
C
Manganese
Dissolved
M-g/L
60
60
—
53
68
2
2
0
Combined
Manganese
Dissolved
M-g/L
21
12
23
2
71
16
16
15
A
Lithium
Dissolved
Mg/L
—
—
—
—
—
0
0
—
B
Lithium
Dissolved
Mg/L
55
45
29
29
120
10
9
0
C
Lithium
Dissolved
Mg/L
—
—
—
—
—
2
0
—
Combined
Lithium
Dissolved
Mg/L
55
45
29
29
120
16
9
0
Dissolved Gases
A
Methane
Dissolved
mg/L
0.0008
0.0008
0.0001
0.0007
0.0009
4
2
71
B
Methane
Dissolved
mg/L
0.0043
0.0017
0.0058
0.0013
0.0171
10
10
19
C
Methane
Dissolved
mg/L
0.0215
0.0215
—
0.0215
0.0215
2
1
75
Combined
Methane
Dissolved
mg/L
0.0051
0.0016
0.0072
0.0007
0.0215
16
13
33
Organic Parameters- VOCs
A
acetone
Dissolved
Mg/L
—
—
—
—
—
4
0
n
B
acetone
Dissolved
Mg/L
5.09
2.75
3.93
2.10
12.9
10
8
20
C
acetone
Dissolved
Mg/L
—
—
—
—
—
2
0
n
Combined
acetone
Dissolved
Mg/L
5.09
2.75
3.93
2.10
12.9
16
8
50
A
Tert-amyl methyl ether
Dissolved
Mg/L
—
—
—
—
—
4
0
n
B
Tert-amyl methyl ether
Dissolved
Mg/L
0.08
0.08
—
0.08
0.08
10
1
n
C
Tert-amyl methyl ether
Dissolved
Mg/L
—
—
—
—
—
2
0
n
Combined
Tert-amyl methyl ether
Dissolved
Mg/L
0.08
0.08
—
0.08
0.08
16
1
n
88
-------
Retrospective Case Study in Wise County, Texas
May 2015
Table 12. Study data summaries and statistics for ground water.
Location
Parameter
Dissolved/
Total
Units
Mean
Median
Standard
Deviation
Min
Max
Locations
N
z1
A
benzene
Dissolved
Hg/L
—
—
—
—
—
4
0
n
B
benzene
Dissolved
Hg/L
0.12
0.12
—
0.12
0.12
10
1
n
C
benzene
Dissolved
Hg/L
—
—
—
—
—
2
0
n
Combined
benzene
Dissolved
Hg/L
0.12
0.12
—
0.12
0.12
16
1
n
A
m+p xylene
Dissolved
M-g/L
—
—
—
—
—
4
0
n
B
m+p xylene
Dissolved
M-g/L
0.25
0.25
—
0.25
0.25
10
1
n
C
m+p xylene
Dissolved
M-g/L
—
—
—
—
—
2
0
n
Combined
m+p xylene
Dissolved
M-g/L
0.25
0.25
—
0.25
0.25
16
1
n
A
methyl tert-butyl ether
Dissolved
M-g/L
—
—
—
—
—
4
0
n
B
methyl tert-butyl ether
Dissolved
M-g/L
0.56
0.56
—
0.56
0.56
10
1
n
C
methyl tert-butyl ether
Dissolved
M-g/L
—
—
—
—
—
2
0
n
Combined
methyl tert-butyl ether
Dissolved
M-g/L
0.56
0.56
—
0.56
0.56
16
1
n
A
o-xylene
Dissolved
M-g/L
—
—
—
—
—
4
0
n
B
o-xylene
Dissolved
M-g/L
0.09
0.09
—
0.09
0.09
10
1
n
C
o-xylene
Dissolved
M-g/L
—
—
—
—
—
2
0
n
Combined
o-xylene
Dissolved
M-g/L
0.09
0.09
—
0.09
0.09
16
1
n
A
tert-butyl Alcohol
Dissolved
|Jg/L
—
—
—
—
—
4
0
n
B
tert-butyl Alcohol
Dissolved
|Jg/L
38
38
—
38
38
10
1
n
C
tert-butyl Alcohol
Dissolved
|Jg/L
—
—
—
—
—
2
0
n
Combined
tert-butyl Alcohol
Dissolved
|Jg/L
38
38
—
38
38
16
1
n
89
-------
Retrospective Case Study in Wise County, Texas
May 2015
Table 12. Study data summaries and statistics for ground water.
Location
Parameter
Dissolved/
Total
Units
Mean
Median
Standard
Deviation
Min
Max
Locations
N
Z1
Organic Parameters- Low Molecular Weight Acids
A
Acetate
Dissolved
mg/L
0.23
0.23
—
0.23
0.23
4
1
n
B
Acetate
Dissolved
mg/L
0.16
0.15
0.05
0.12
0.23
10
4
n
C
Acetate
Dissolved
mg/L
0.15
0.15
—
0.14
0.16
2
2
n
Combined
Acetate
Dissolved
mg/L
0.17
0.16
0.05
0.12
0.23
16
7
n
A
Formate
Dissolved
mg/L
0.23
0.22
0.04
0.20
0.28
4
3
n
B
Formate
Dissolved
mg/L
0.51
0.43
0.17
0.39
0.85
10
9
n
C
Formate
Dissolved
mg/L
0.19
0.19
—
0.16
0.22
2
2
n
Combined
Formate
Dissolved
mg/L
0.41
0.40
0.16
0.16
0.76
16
14
n
Organic Parameters- sVOCs
A
Bis-(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
Dissolved
Hg/L
2.02
2.02
—
2.02
2.02
4
1
n
B
Bis-(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
Dissolved
Hg/L
—
—
—
—
—
10
0
n
C
Bis-(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
Dissolved
Hg/L
2.51
2.51
—
2.51
2.51
2
1
n
Combined
Bis-(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
Dissolved
Hg/L
2.27
2.27
—
2.02
2.51
16
2
n
Organic Parameters- DRO/GRO
A
DRO

M-g/L
—
—
—
—
—
4
0
n
B
DRO

M-g/L
—
—
—
—
—
10
0
n
C
DRO

M-g/L
—
—
—
—
—
2
0
n
Combined
DRO

M-g/L
—
—
—
—
—
16
0
n
90
-------
Retrospective Case Study in Wise County, Texas
May 2015
Table 12. Study data summaries and statistics for ground water.
Location
Parameter
Dissolved/
Total
Units
Mean
Median
Standard
Deviation
Min
Max
Locations
N
z1
A
GRO/TPH
Dissolved
Hg/L
—
—
—
—
—
4
0
n
B
GRO/TPH
Dissolved
M-g/L
20.4
20.4
—
20.4
20.4
10
1
n
C
GRO/TPH
Dissolved
M-g/L
—
—
—
—
—
2
0
n
Combined
GRO/TPH
Dissolved
M-g/L
—
—
—
—
—
16
0
N
Percentage of left censored data,
n = Percentage of left censored data was not calculated because a few data points had detectable concentrations.
91
-------
Retrospective Case Study in Wise CountyTexas
May 2015
03
Q
c
0
O
i_
V
CL
100
90 -|
80
70-
60-
50
40
30
20-
10-
0
I
NWIS

100-

80-

0)
0)

Q.
£ 60-
CB
if)

M—
O

1 40-
o


o
a>
a.
100-
80
60
40
20-
NWIS
TXWDB
Location C
Legend
Sodium-Chloride
Sodim-Sulfate
Sodim-Bicarbonate
Calcium-Chloride
Calcium-Sulfate
Calcium-Bicarbonate
Figure 20. Water type percentages for the study data collected in Locations A and C along with the historical data in the NWIS and TXWDB databases. (A)
Location A countywide scale, (B) Location C countywide scale, and (C) Location C 3-mile radius.
92
-------
Retrospective Case Study in Wise County, Texas
May 2015
Figure 21 and Figure 22 shows Piper diagrams for Locations A and C, respectively using the countywide
historical data. Figure 23 and Figure 24 shows Schoeller diagrams for Locations A and C, respectively
using the countywide historical data. All the study data for Locations A and C plot in the range of the
historical data, and there do not appear to be any significant deviations from background in these
locations at this scale.
Legend
WISETXGW09
WISETXGW10
WISETXGW11
WISETXGW12
tc
K1
&
~~\ 1 \ v ^ 1 \ « ^ ' \	r ' 7 7 7 ' 7 ' /	/
100 80 60 40 20 0	0 20 40 60 80 100
Calcium	Chloride
Figure 21. Piper diagram showing major cation and anion relationships for Location A and a comparison to the
historical data from the NWIS and TXWDB databases. The gray areas show the limits of the historical data from
the NWIS and TXWDB databases. The lower left triangular field is the cation field and the lower right triangular
field is the anion field. The center diamond field is the mixing field of the anions and cations. All study wells are
within the historical background on a countywide scale. (Data Sources: USGS (2013a) and TXWDB (2013b)).
93
-------
Retrospective Case Study in Wise County, Texas
May 2015

Legend
WISETXGW06
WISETXGW07
tv
Calcium
Chloride
Figure 22. Piper diagram showing major cation and anion relationships for Location C and a comparison to the
historical data from the NWIS and TXWDB databases. The gray areas show the limits of the historical data from
the NWIS and TXWDB databases. The lower left triangular field is the cation field and the lower right triangular
field is the anion field. The center diamond field is the mixing field of the anions and cations. All study wells are
within the historical background on a countywide scale. (Data Sources: USGS (2013a) and TXWDB (2013b)).
94
-------
Retrospective Case Study in Wise County, Texas
May 2015
O) 100
Legend
—A— WISETXGW09
—A— WISETXGW10
-A- WISETXGW11
—A— WISETXGW12
,4 ..v.3	„.a _ Na+K
Figure 23. Schoeller diagram showing major cation and anion relationships for Location A and a comparison to
the historical data from the NWIS and TXWDB databases. The gray areas show the limits of the historical data
from the NWIS and TXWDB databases. All study wells are within the historical background on a county wide
scale. (Data Sources: USGS (2013a) and TXWDB (2013b)).

Legend
—A— WISETXGW06
—A— WISETXGW07
-4	.. ...a - Na+K
Figure 24. Schoeller diagram showing major cation and anion relationships for Location C and a comparison to the
historical data from the NWIS and TXWDB databases. The gray areas show the limits of the historical data from the
NWIS and TXWDB databases. All study wells are within the historical background on a county wide scale. (Data
Sources: USGS (2013a) and TXWDB (2013b)).
95
-------
Retrospective Case Study in Wise County, Texas
May 2015
For Location A, the only wells within a 3-mile radius are from the NURE database, but the NURE
database does not contain all the major anions needed to make Piper and Schoeller diagrams.
Therefore, no comparisons could be done on this scale for this location. For Location C, a comparison at
this scale can be shown on a Piper diagram (Figure 25). At this scale, the data from WISETXGW06 are
within the limits of the historical data in the Piper diagram; however, the data from WISETXGW07 are
outside the historical data limits in the Piper mixing field and tri-linear plot for anions. The Schoeller
diagram (Figure 26) indicates that the data from both WISETXGW06 and WISETXGW07 are dissimilar to
the historical data at this scale. For WISETXGW06, the red dashed areas indicate that this well is slightly
enriched in calcium compared with background. WISETXGW07 is somewhat depleted with respect to
sulfate and magnesium compared with historical background.
Two types of plots and ratios have been suggested as potential ways to screen between waters with
brine sources from waters from other sources (Hounslow, 1995): brine differentiation plots and TDS
versus the ratio of chloride to the sum of anions (Cl/Z anions). The brine differentiation plots for
Locations A and C are shown on Figure 27 and Figure 28. The red dashed lines in this plot representing a
triangular area are what Hounslow (1995) indicated as brine-impacted waters using data he collected
from Texas and Oklahoma. To check this, the data from the USGS produced water database (USGS,
2002) for Texas were plotted. These data are represented by the rectangular area with the blue dashed
lines. On Figure 27, the brine differentiation plot indicates that all the study data are well outside the
areas that Hounslow and the USGS would suggest as being impacted by petroleum brines for Location A.
It should also be noted that on Figure 27, that many of the data points in the historical data from the
NWIS and TXWDB plot in the area that the brine differentiation plot would predict are petroleum brines.
This could suggest that these historical data points come from locations that were impacted by brine or
that the brine differentiation plots should be used with caution as a screening tool for potential brine
impacts. For Location C, Figure 28 indicates that the study data are just outside the region of the plot
one would expect for water potentially impacted by petroleum brine, and this is also true of the
historical data from the NWIS and TXWDB. The Location C study data are within the background water
quality on a countywide scale. The plots of TDS versus Cl/Z anions (Figure 29) show that the water in
Locations A and C are not influenced to any extent by brines. At Locations A and C, the water is
primarily influenced by rock weathering.
Based on the above analysis, there is very little evidence that the ground water in study Locations A and
C have been impacted. The slight variations in certain parameters from the historical ground water data
are likely the result of local variations in ground water quality. Other ground water parameters in
Locations A and C are discussed in other sections and in Appendix D.
Location B Ground Water
Water types in Location B give an overall impression of the dominant anions and cations in the water
samples, and Figure 30 shows the percentage of the samples in Locations B of a given water type. The
NURE data do not contain several of the major anions needed to calculate water types; therefore, no
information on water types is obtainable from this database. For Location B, a majority of the study
samples were sodium-bicarbonate waters (80 %), but 20 % of the samples were sodium-chloride type
waters. The countywide historical data indicate that the dominant water types in the NWIS and TXWDB
databases were calcium-bicarbonate waters and sodium-bicarbonate, with smaller percentages of other
water types, including approximately 14% as sodium-chloride type water (Figure 30A). As discussed
96
-------
Retrospective Case Study in Wise County, Texas
May 2015
earlier, Wise County has a diverse geology, and it is important to also compare the site data with the
historical data at a smaller scale. Data obtained for a 3-mile radius from Location B indicated that, in the
NWIS database, all the wells at this scale were calcium-chloride type water (Figure BOB). In the TXWDB
database, most of the waters were either sodium-bicarbonate or calcium-bicarbonate types, with a
small percentage being calcium-chloride type waters (Figure BOB). Location B in general differs in terms
of the dominant cation: a majority of the samples in the historical data were calcium dominant, whereas
in the study data, the dominant cation was sodium.
Figure 31 shows Piper diagram and Figure 32 shows Schoeller diagram for Locations B using the
countywide historical data. The countywide assessment using the Piper diagram indicates that the
samples from Location B are similar to those in the historical data. Samples from WISETXGW01 and
WISETXGWQ8 were also the sodium-chloride water type, and this is reflected in the Schoeller diagram.
For these wells, both sodium and chloride are enriched compared to the historical background on a
countywide basis.
Legend
A WISETXGW06
A WISETXGW07
100 80 60 40 20 0
Calcium	Chloride
Figure 25. Piper diagram showing major cation and anion relationships for Location C and a comparison to the
historical data from the NWIS and TXWDB databases using a three mile radius. The gray areas show the limits of
the historical data from the NWIS and TXWDB databases. The lower left triangular field is the cation field and the
lower right triangular field is the anion field. The center diamond field is the mixing field of the anions and cations.
This indicates that WISETXGW07 is different than the historical background data using a 3-mile radius; however,
the historical data at this scale are extremely limited, (Data Sources: USGS (2013a) and TXWDB (2013b)).
97
-------
Retrospective Case Study in Wise County, Texas
May 2015
400
o>
£
c
o
03
s_
-t—>
C
-------
Retrospective Case Study in Wise County, Texas
May 2015
E
3
'o
re
O
a>
<«-•
re
3
(/)
+
E
u
re
O
w

p-
Rd'ch a
#i
Legend
+	NWIS
~	TXWDB
A	WISETXGW09
A	WISETXGW10
A	WISETXGW11
A	WISETXGW12
Sodium
Sodium + Chloride
Figure 27. Brine differentiation plots for study Location A. Brine differentiation plots were used to screen study data to indicate if the water was potentially
impacted by brine. The triangular area inside the red dash areas are water potentially impacted by oil field brines that was proposed by Hounslow (1995). The
area inside the blue dash areas are water potentially impacted by formation brines based on the USGS Produced Water Data base (USGS; 2002). The gray
shades areas highlight the study data. Although there were no study data that plotted within the region expected for brine impacted water, several of the
historical data points did fall within that region. (Data Sources: USGS (2013a) and TXWDB (2013b)).
99
-------
Retrospective Case Study in Wise County, Texas
May 2015
-------
Retrospective Case Study in Wise County, Texas
May 2015
1.0
0.6-
0.4
0.2-
0.0
A

i
L
-H-
1


++ +>+

+**£+i++
+j +* j-



Legend
+ TXWDB
WISETXGW09
WISETXGW10
WISETXGW11
WISETXGW12
WISETXGW06
WISETXGW07
0	500 1000 1500 2000 2500
TDS (mg/L)
m
500 1000 1500 2000 2500
TDS (mg/L)
Figure 29. Plots of TDS versus Chloride/Z Anions for (A) Location A and (B) Location C. These plots were also used
to screen study and historical data for potential sources. The green shaded area represents precipitation like
water; the yellow shaded area is brine, seawater, and evaporite like water suggested by Hounslow (1995); the
magenta shaded area plus the yellow shaded areas are brine influenced water based on USGS Produced Water
data base (USGS, 2002); the cyan shaded area represents water influenced by rock weathering; and gray area is
the study data. Although there were no study data that plotted within the region expected for brine impacted
water, several of the historical data points did fall within that region. (Data Sources: USGS (2013a) and TXWDB
(2013b)).
101
-------
Retrospective Case Study in Wise CountyTexas
May 2015
u>
_Q)
Q.
E
aj

o
L-
a>
a.
100
90 H
80
70-
60-
50-
40-
30
20-
10-
0
Li
i
100
V)
®
Q.
E
re
w
c
v
o
a
CL
| Na-CI
j Na-S04
Na-HC03
| Ca-CI
Ca-S04
I Ca-HC03
I
NWIS
TXWDB
Location B
NWIS
TXWDB
Location B
Legend
Sodium-Chloride
Sodium-Sulfate
Sodium-Bicarbonate
Calcium-Chloride
Calcium-Sulfate
Calcium-Bicarbonate
Figure 30. Water type percentages for the study data collected at Location B using (A) a county-wide scale and (B) using a 3-mile radius. The historical
data used were from the NWIS and TXWDB databases. (Data Sources: USGS (2013a) and TXWDB (2013b)).
102
-------
Retrospective Case Study in Wise County, Texas
May 2015
Legend
*	WISETXGW01
A WISETXGW02
A WISETXGW03
A WISETXGW04
A WISETXGW05
~	WISETXGW08
WISETXGW13
A WISETXGW14
A WISETXGW15
A WISETXGW16
Calcium	Chloride
Figure 31. Piper diagram showing major cation and anion relationships for Location B and a comparison to the
historical data from the NWIS and TXWDB databases using a county wide scale. The gray areas show the limits of
the historical data from the NWIS and TXWDB databases. The lower left triangular field is the cation field and the
lower right triangular field is the anion field. The center diamond field is the mixing field of the anion and cations.
This plot suggest that WISETXGW01 and WISETXGW08 did have differences in water quality based on data from
the historical databases on the county wide scale. (Data Sources: USGS (2013a) and TXWDB (2013b)).
103
-------
Retrospective Case Study in Wise County, Texas
May 2015
1000
100
U)
E
I 1.
TO
C
0)
o
c
o
o
1
0.1
so4 hco3
Legend
WISETXGW01
WISETXGW02
WISETXGW03
WISETXGW04
WISETXGW05
WISETXGW08
WISETXGW13
WISETXGW14
WISETXGW15
WISETXGW16
Ca Na+K
Figure 32. Schoeller diagram showing major cation and anion relationships for Location B and a comparison to the historical data from the NWIS and TXWDB
databases using a county wide scale. The gray areas show the limits of the historical data from the NWIS and TXWDB databases. The data highlighted in tan
indicates deviation from historical water quality on this scale. This plot suggest that WISETXGW01 and WISETXGW08 did have differences in water quality
based on data from the historical databases on the county wide scale. (Data Sources: USGS (2013a) and TXWDB (2013b)).
104
-------
Retrospective Case Study in Wise County, Texas
May 2015
Figure 33 shows a Piper diagram and Figure 34 shows a Schoeller diagrams for a 3-mile radius area
around Location B. Unlike the countywide assessment, the anion tri-linear plot in the Piper diagram for
the 3-mile-radius area shows that there are differences between the historical data and the study data
(Figure 33). This is also seen in the mixing diamond. In both cases, the data from wells WISETXGW01
and WISETXGW08 differ from the historical data. The Schoeller diagram also shows more differences on
the 3-mile radius scale than the countywide scale (Figure 34). Again, several of the samples from
WISETXGW01 and WISETXGW08 were enriched in chloride and sodium compared with the historical
data. Also, several samples from WISETXGW08 were enriched with sulfate, and a sample from
WISETXGW01 was depleted with respect to bicarbonate compared with the historical data.
The brine differentiation plots for Location B are shown on Figures 35 and 36. The plots show that
WISETXGW01 and WISETXGW08 are influenced by brine. In comparing this with the historical data on a
countywide basis, one can see that there are historical data that also are indicative of a brine influence
(Figure 35). It is also important to note that on Figure 27, that many of the data points in the historical
data from the NWIS and TXWDB plot in the area that the brine differentiation plot would predict are
petroleum brines. This could suggest that these historical data points come from locations that were
impacted by brine or that the brine differentiation plots should be used with caution as a screening tool
for potential brine impacts. When looking at the historical data on the more relevant 3-mile radius basis
(Figure 36), it can be seen that there are no historical data indicated brine influenced. Further support
of this is seen in the plots of TDS versus chloride/Z anions on Figure 37. This type of plot is useful in
deducing the source of the water, but it is not a definitive. As shown on Figure 37A, many of the
historical wells in the countywide assessment appeared to have a brine influence. As was stated
previously for the brine differentiation plots, it is not known if some of the historical data were
influenced by brine contamination; however caution should be used with this screening tool. The TDS
versus chloride/Z anions plot shows that most of those wells appear to have been influenced by rock
weathering (Figure 37A). The historical data using a 3-mile radius indicated that all the historical water
samples near Location B would be influenced by rock weathering processes (Figure 37B). The study data
show that two wells are influenced by brine, WISETXGW01 and WISETXGW08. Samples from both of
these wells also showed that the samples could have been influenced by the natural chemical
constituents of the bedrock released by rock weathering. This issue is discussed in more detail in the
site-specific focus area section of this report.
The above analysis indicates that the ground water in two wells in study Location B, WISETXGW01 and
WISETXGW08, are potentially impacted by brine. There is also evidence that the other wells could be
used as site-specific background for Location B. The potential influence of brine intrusion is discussed in
more detail in the site-specific focus area section of this report.
6.4. Other Collected Data Comparisons
6.4.1. Dissolved Gases
As part of this study, dissolved gas samples were collected and analyzed for methane, ethane, propane,
and butane. The dissolved gas samples were collected only for ground water and surface water. These
gases have also been found in hydraulic fracturing (U.S. House of Representatives, 2011; Alpha
Environmental Consultants, 2009). With the exception of one ground water sample, there was no
detectable ethane, propane, or butane in any of the dissolved gas samples collected as part of this
105
-------
Retrospective Case Study in Wise County, Texas
May 2015
study. In one ground water sample, these gases (ethane, propane, and butane) were detected at
concentrations below the QL and were not detected in samples from this well during any following
sampling rounds. This would indicate that the concentrations of ethane, propane, and butane detected
in the study locations are not of concern.
Methane was detected in 64% of the samples collected during the study. Methane concentrations in
the ground water ranged from 0.007 to 0.0242 mg/L, with a median concentration of 0.0016 mg/L. No
historical dissolved gas data for Wise County were identified; however, a report published by Zhang et
al. (1998) for the Trinity aquifer south of Wise County indicated that the methane concentrations ranged
from 0.0014 to 0.0347 mg/L. Based on the Zhang et al. (1998) data for the Trinity aquifer, the low-level
concentrations found in the study samples are likely background concentrations of methane (Table 12).
A
O.
Legend
*	WISETXGW01
A WISETXGW02
A WISETXGW03
A WISETXGW04
A WISETXGW05
*	WISETXGW08
WISETXGW13
A WISETXGW14
A WISETXGW15
A WISETXGW16
Calcium	Chloride
Figure 33. Piper diagram showing major cation and anion relationships for Location B and a comparison to the
historical data from the NWIS and TXWDB databases using a 3-mile radius. (Data Sources: USGS (2013a) and
TXWDB (2013b)).
106
-------
Retrospective Case Study in Wise County, Texas
May 2015
1000
o>
E
c
o
<4—•
<0
-------
Retrospective Case Study in Wise County, Texas
May 2015
E
3
¦
o
TO
O
0)
03
3
CO
+
O
<0
O
%
Legend
NWIS
~ TXWDB
~
~
WISETXGW01
WISETXGW02
WISETXGW03
WISETXGW04
WISETXGW05
WISETXGW08
WISETXGW13
WISETXGW14
WISETXGW15
WISETXGW16
Sodium
Sodium + Chloride
Figure 35. Brine differentiation plots for study Location B using historical data from the NWIS and TXWDB using a countywide scale. Brine
differentiation plots were used to screen study data to indicate if the water was potentially impacted by brine. The triangular area inside the red dash
areas are water potentially impacted by oil field brines that was proposed by Hounslow (1995). The area inside the blue dash areas are water
potentially impacted by formation brines based on the USGS Produced Water Data base (USGS, 2002). Based on this plot, WISETXGW01 and
WISETXGW08 would be potentially impacted by brines. (Data Sources: USGS (2013a) and TXWDB (2013b)).
108
-------
Retrospective Case Study in Wise County, Texas
May 2015
o
ro
O
1.0
0.8
0.6
2 0.4
0.2
CD
"5
(/>
+
E
3
o
cu
O
0.0
v--r—
\ 1
\ 1
\ 1
\'
¦ v
• \
8 +
~
1 *
I
- + -
' i '
i.i
* ' +
-^r A
V ~
Legend
NWIS
~ TXWDB
*	WISETXGW01
~	WISETXGW02
~	WISETXGW03
A WISETXGW04
~	WISETXGW05
*	WISETXGW08
WISETXGW13
A WISETXGW14
A WISETXGW15
A WISETXGW16
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
Sodium
Sodium + Chloride
Figure 36. Brine differentiation plots for study Location B using historical data from the NWIS and TXWDB using a 3-mile radius. Brine differentiation
plots were used to screen study data to indicate if the water was potentially impacted by brine. The triangular area inside the red dash areas are water
potentially impacted by oil field brines that was proposed by Hounslow (1995). The area inside the blue dash areas are water potentially impacted by
formation brines based on the USGS Produced Water Data base (USGS, 2002). The gray shades areas highlight the study data. Based on this plot,
WISETXGW01 and WISETXGW08 would be potentially impacted by brines. (Data Sources: USGS (2013a) and TXWDB (2013b)).
109
-------
Retrospective Case Study in Wise County, Texas
May 2015
#
2000 3000
TDS (mg/L)
5000
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
B
i
i
i
¦
k
Legend
TXWDB
WISETXGW01
WISETXGW02
WISETXGW03
WISETXGW04
WISETXGW05
WISETXGW08
WISETXGW14
WISETXGW14
WISETXGW15
WISETXGW16
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
TDS (mg/L)
Figure 37. Plots of TDS versus Chloride/Z Anions for Location B using a (A) county wide scale and using a (B) 3-mile
radius. These plots were also used to screen study and historical data for potential sources. The green shaded
area represents precipitation like water; the yellow shaded area is brine, seawater, and evaporite like water
suggested by Hounslow (1995); the magenta shaded area plus the yellow shaded areas are brine influenced water
based on USGS Produced Water data base (USGS, 2002); the cyan shaded area represents water influenced by rock
weathering; and gray area is the study data. Based on this piot, WISETXGW01 and WISETXGW08 would be
potentially impacted by brines. (Data Sources: USGS (2013a) and TXWDB (2013b)).
110
-------
Retrospective Case Study in Wise County, Texas
May 2015
6.4.2. Organic Components
The organic parameters analyzed for during this study comprised several suites: VOCs, low-molecular-
weight acids, glycols, SVOCs, DROs, and GROs. Each of these suites of analysis is discussed in the
following sections.
Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs)
VOCs are generally thought of as indicators of anthropogenic sources of contamination, e.g., leaky
underground storage tanks and industrial activities. Several recent references also indicate that some
VOCs are also found in hydraulic fracturing fluids (U.S. House of Representatives, 2011; Alpha
Environmental Consultants, 2009; Veil et al., 2004). Tables 8 and 13 list the VOCs analyzed in this study
that were in common with the available historical data. A majority of the VOCs analyzed for during this
study were not detected in the surface water, ground water, or produced water samples. Where
available, the VOC data from this study are compared with historical VOC data (two detections of
benzene) (Tables 8 and 12). Acetone, tert-butyl alcohol (TBA), methyl tert-butyl ether (MTBE), benzene,
m+p-xylene, tert-amyl methyl ether, and o-xylene were detected in ground water (Tables 8 and 12), and
only acetone was detected in surface water.
Acetone was detected in 11 ground water samples collected over the four sampling rounds in which
VOCs were analyzed. During the QA process, it was determined that the acetone data were unusable
because of blank contamination for ground water and surface water. Acetone is a common laboratory
and field contaminant (US EPA, 1992; Douglas, 2012; Miller, 2015). In the produced water samples,
acetone was only analyzed for once. In the produced water from the Barnett Shale, the acetone
concentration was 770 ng/L.
With the exception of acetone, no other VOCs were detected in surface water samples during the study.
In ground water (Tables 8 and 12), the other VOC detections (except benzene) already identified were
detected in only one sample (WISETXGW08) in the December 2012 sampling round. Just prior to the
December 2012 sampling round, the homeowner's pump failed and the top of the well casing was left
uncovered and exposed to the atmosphere. These two factors make it very difficult to identify the
source of the detected VOCs. Benzene was also detected in two additional samples, WISETXGW01 (May
2013 sampling round) and WISETXGW05 (March 2012 sampling round). Because there were no
additional detections of benzene in previous VOC sampling rounds, no potential source for the detected
benzene can be ascertained. WISETXGW05 is a well located at a brine disposal facility and is not used as
a drinking water source. During the March 2012 sampling round, considerable truck traffic and off-
loading of brine took place during the sampling. Brine disposal collection tanks also are vented to the
atmosphere at this location. Benzene is also a common laboratory and field contaminant (US EPA, 1992;
Douglas, 2012; Miller, 2015). These factors suggest that the benzene detected in this sample was the
result of field contamination.
The VOCs detected in the produced water samples from the Barnett Shale are consistent with what has
previously been reported for produced water (U.S House of Representatives, 2011; Alpha Environmental
Consultants, 2009; Veil et al., 2004). Although VOCs were detected in several study samples, the
detections could also be explained by other activities that were occurring at the time of sampling. No
trends in the data for any well suggest contamination by VOCs. Therefore, VOCs could not be
definitively linked to any potential source.
Ill
-------
Retrospective Case Study in Wise County, Texas
May 2015
Semi-Volatile Organic Compounds
A listing of the SVOCs analyzed for is presented in Table B-6 in Appendix B. Several SVOCs have been
recognized as potentially associated with hydraulic fracturing and produced water (U.S. House of
Representatives, 2011; Alpha Environmental Consultants, 2009; GWPC, 2009). SVOCs are also linked to
other anthropogenic sources.
There were no detectable concentrations of SVOCs in any surface water samples collected during the
study. There were two detections of bis-(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate in ground water samples, which
ranged from 2.02 to 2.51 ng/L (Table 12). Bis-(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate is ubiquitous in the environment
and is, therefore, not useful for source identification (Griffiths et al., 1985) or to determine whether
water was impacted by any particular source. Bis-(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate contamination is problematic
in ground water sampling (WDNR, 2002; Miller, 2015).
Low-Molecular-Weight Acids
Low-molecular-weight acids are both naturally occurring and of anthropogenic origin. In nature, low-
molecular-weight acids are produced through biological processes and microbial degradation of other
organic compounds (Dwyer and Tiedje, 1983, 1986; Mrklas et al., 2004; Wilson et al., 2005; Wilson and
Adair, 2007; Carnegie and Ramsay, 2009; Da Silva et al., 2013; Rasa et al., 2013). Several of these low-
molecular-weight acids are found in industrial processes, and acetate, formate, and lactate have been
linked to components of hydraulic fracturing fluids and produced water (U.S. House of Representatives,
2011; Alpha Environmental Consultants, 2009). The low-molecular-weight acids analyzed for in this
study were lactate, formate, acetate, propionate, and butyrate.
Formate was detected only in ground water (Table 12) and surface water samples. Although formate
was analyzed for in three of the five sampling rounds, there were quality control issues (blanks) in the
March 2012 and December 2012 sampling rounds (see Appendix A, Table A23). Table 12 presents the
summary statistics for the data collected, but the data are questionable.
Acetate, like formate, was not detected in any of the produced water samples analyzed. However, there
were quality control issues (all equipment blanks) during the September 2011 sampling round (See
Appendix A for details concerning equipment blanks). Acetate was detected in a total of 17 surface
water and ground water samples (Table 12), and 11 of those detections were for the September 2011
sampling round, which were deemed unusable. The five remaining detections were in ground water
samples, and this is likely naturally occurring acetate in the aquifer. The surface water detections were
likely indicative of background conditions.
Glycols
The presence and concentration of glycol compounds were evaluated in part because they are used in
hydraulic fracturing (U.S. House of Representatives, 2011; Alpha Environmental Consultants, 2009;
GWPC, 2009). Both surface water and ground water samples were analyzed for glycols
(2-butoxyethanol, diethylene glycol, triethylene glycol, and tetraethylene glycol). Glycols were not
detected in any of the surface water or ground water samples (Table B-5, Appendix B).
112
-------
Retrospective Case Study in Wise County, Texas
May 2015
Diesel Range Organic Compounds (DRO) and Gasoline Range Organic Compounds (GRO)
DROs and GROs were used to screen for petroleum contamination in this study. A summary of all the
data collected for DROs and GROs is presented in Table B-5, Appendix B.
DROs were detected in surface water samples at concentrations ranging from 162 to 770 ng/L, with a
median concentration of 178 ng/L (Table 12). Although DROs were detected in these samples, there
were no corresponding detections of other organic parameters that would be in this range.
Isotopes
Isotopic data collected as part of this study comprised stable water isotopes (62H and 6lsO) and
strontium isotopes (87Sr and 86Sr). Isotopes can be used to fingerprint water to identify potential
sources. In this study, isotope data were collected for ground water, surface water, and produced
water. Stable isotope data collected during the study are detailed in Appendix B, Table B-7. Stable
isotope results are discussed in detail in the site-specific section of this report; however, it should be
noted that WISETXGW01, WISETXGW05 and WISETXGW 08 appear to be outliers.
113
-------
Retrospective Case Study in Wise County, Texas
May 2015
7. Site-Specific Focus Area - Location B
The approach used for the historical data comparisons may not be representative of the true
background, or geogenic background, in Wise County, because it potentially neglects data that may be
impacted by other sources of contamination. For example, Battelle (2013) reported that there were 211
known ground water contaminations between 1993 and 2008 as the result of oil and gas activities in
Wise County. This means that the water quality data from the historical databases used for the previous
comparisons may have been impacted. In their analysis of the Trinity and Woodbine aquifers,
Chandhuri and Ale (2013) concluded there should be zone-specific groundwater management. This
conclusion was based on the evolving hydrogeochemical facies and increasing salinization in distinct
spatial zones overtime.
7.1. Other Approaches to Determining Background
Other approaches can be used to help delineate background in geochemical data (Matschullat et al.,
2000; Reimann et al., 2008). Matschullat et al. (2000) proposed several other means of determining
background concentrations, specifically, methods designed to predict the upper limits of the threshold
of background. These methods include the Iterative 2o technique, the 4o outlier test, the calculated
distribution function, and the Inflection points on a cumulative frequency curve. Reimann et al. (2008)
suggested the use of the mean±2o. Matschullat et al. (2000) concluded that the iterative 2o-technique
and the calculated distribution function provide realistic approximations of the background condition;
however, they further point out that no single method can provide absolute results due to the inherent
complexity of geochemical data sets.
These techniques were applied to the chloride data from the NWIS and TXWDB databases and collected
in the study. Chloride was chosen because of chloride's conservative chemical behavior in most ground
water environments and showed the biggest differences when compared with previous discussion
comparing study data to historical data. The results of these tests are summarized in Table 13. The
critical value for the upper threshold of background is the mean±2o. Examination of the table indicates
that when all the historical and collected study data are used, the mean±2o is at least 1.5 times greater
than the other methods and can be as much as 6.9 times greater than the other methods. This suggests
that the use of all of the chloride data is much more prone to include outliers that are not part of the
background. In addition, it has already been pointed out from another study (Battelle, 2013) that the
historical data should be used with caution and there have been many reported ground water
contaminations. These facts need to be factored into any background water quality assessment, as
there could be outliers that need to be accounted for before comparing the study data with background
data.
The Iterative 2o technique and the calculated distribution function were the least conservative
approaches, and the use of these two approaches presents the greatest risk of developing erroneous
conclusions (Table 13). The other three methods, the 4o outlier test, inflection points on a cumulative
frequency curve, and the classical mean±2o, all yielded comparable critical mean±2o values (Table 13).
The latter three methods are more likely to provide realistic reflections of the background chloride
concentrations and the natural variability of chloride concentrations.
114
-------
Retrospective Case Study in Wise County, Texas
May 2015
Table 13. Alternative approaches to determining background using chloride concentrations as an example.
Method
n
Mean
Median
Std Dev
Min
Max
Mean +
2STD
All Data
223
176
60.2
317
0.5
1970
810
Classical (2x Standard Deviation)
214
123
57.9
163
0.5
788
449
Iterative 2o technique
198
86
52.3
101
0.5
449
288
4a outlier test
218
139
59
202
0.5
1170
544
Calculated Distribution Function
160
46
39.5
36
0.5
143
118
Inflection points on cumulative
frequency curve
—
—
—
—
—
—
500
Samples from WISETXGW01 had the three highest concentrations of chloride ever detected in Wise
County, based on the historical data used. In fact, all of the samples collected from WISETXGW01 had
chloride concentrations that were above the 90th percentile, and four of the five samples collected had
concentrations above the 95th percentile. Similarly, samples collected from WISETXGW08 had the
fourth and fifth highest concentrations of chloride detected in Wise County. All of the samples from this
well had chloride concentrations above the 90th percentile, and four of these five samples also had
chloride concentrations above the 95th percentile. This further supports the conclusion that the results
from WISETXGW01 and WISETXGW08 are outliers and have impacted ground water. Most samples for
WISETXGW01 and WISETXGW08 exceed the critical mean±2o value using all the data, and exceed the
critical mean±2o value for all other tests. This also supports the conclusions that the results from
WISETXGW01 and WISETXGW08 are outliers and the ground water from these wells has been impacted.
The chloride concentrations in the site-specific background wells never exceeded the 61st percentile.
The presence of five site-specific background wells less than 1,025 ft from WISETXGW01 and five site-
specific background wells within 2,000 ft of WISETXGW08, in which chloride concentrations were least
6.5 times to more than 25 times lower, also supports the conclusion that these two wells have been
impacted. Based on this analysis, further investigations were needed into the cause of the anomalies
found for WISETXGW01 and WISETXGW08. Therefore a standard methodology for how to establish the
background conditions of these impacted wells was developed and is discussed below.
7.2. EPA Guidance on Establishment of Background (Site-Specific Background)
Consistent with almost all reported incidents of private water well contamination, no site-specific, pre-
existing baseline water quality monitoring data were available at the Wise County retrospective case
study locations. Therefore, background concentrations of potential constituents of concern cannot be
established based on data from before the nearby oil and gas activities were implemented.
EPA has long-established policies and guidance documents for establishing background concentrations.
Examples include the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Corrective Action Program, RCRA
Facility Investigation (RFI) Guidance (US EPA, 1989), and the Superfund program, Guidance for
Conducting Remedial Investigations and Feasibility Studies under CERCLA, Interim Final (US EPA, 1988).
These guidance documents were developed for robust investigations at either RCRA-regulated facilities
conducting corrective action investigations or Superfund remedial investigations at National Priorities
115
-------
Retrospective Case Study in Wise County, Texas
May 2015
List (NPL) sites. In addition to the review of existing information and available reports, these programs
require extensive testing of environmental media at and/or near the site, including the installation of
monitoring wells in unimpacted, upgradient areas to establish background conditions. These
requirements exceed what is appropriate for an initial investigation of reports of impacts in private
water wells.
A more appropriate analogy for comparison of the Tier 2 investigatory efforts for this case study is the
approach of the Superfund program's Preliminary Assessment and Site Inspection (PA/SI) process. The
case study was an initial investigation, designed not to characterize the full extent of potential
contamination but to confirm that an impact on the site exists and could inform future work. This is
very similar to the PA/SI purpose.
The Superfund program's document, Establishing Background Levels, (US EPA, 1995), provides guidance
on how EPA establishes background concentrations for the PA/SI process and describes the approach
taken in the Tier 2 of this case study.
Sampling is not always required to establish background, as some anthropogenic constituents can only
be attributed to a source. Some constituents (e.g., metals) may occur either naturally or result from
human activities. In the Wise County case study, generally all wells in each sampling round were
sampled for the full suite of constituents (see Table 2) so that if anthropogenic or natural background
levels were present, they would be accurately reflected (Table 2).
As described in detail in the Study Methods section, EPA sampled additional wells around the originally
reported impacted wells in an attempt to (1) identify potentially unimpacted wells that could be used to
establish background concentrations, and (2) evaluate the extent of impacts, if such impacts were
confirmed. EPA also located published information about the aquifers in the area as well as any water
quality data available from local, state, or federal entities. Where available, well construction records
were also reviewed. EPA used a systematic approach to plan and implement well purging and sampling
and analytical procedures, as documented in each case study QAPP, to ensure consistent results,
comparability, and usefulness of data.
7.2.1. Application to Location B
Location B is located in central Wise County; five homeowners and one corporate-owned site, with a
total of ten water wells in the area, participated in the study (Figure 10). All of the wells in this area
were completed in the Trinity aquifer at similar depths by a single water well driller who has operated in
the county for approximately 40 years. The driller indicated that all of the wells were completed in the
Trinity aquifer, using similar well construction techniques (Bisidas, 2011). As noted in the guidance, this
helps to ensure comparability between wells and allows confidence in establishing background
concentrations. Local gradients could not be established because of the inability to measure static
water levels and lack of surveyed well elevation data. The consistency of the analytical data from
surrounding wells allows impacted wells with significantly different water quality to be identified.
Samples from two wells in this area (WISETXGW01 and WISETXGW08) had significant deviations from
the background water quality, which was established by comparison with the surrounding, unimpacted
water wells. Additionally, several published reports that discuss water quality in the Trinity aquifer in
this area were identified (Scott and Armstrong, 1932; Hudak and Blanchard, 1997; Nordstorm, 1982).
116
-------
Retrospective Case Study in Wise County, Texas
May 2015
In summary, the analysis for Location B met the appropriate procedures for establishing background
values by using the following: (1) historical reports of water quality in the area; (2) analytical data from
nearby, unimpacted wells; (3) wells completed in the same aquifer; (4) wells completed with similar
techniques; (5) consistent well purging and sampling techniques; and (6) documented quality assurance
procedures that met project requirements. These procedures complied with the applicable and relevant
guidance and allowed establishment of background levels of constituents of concern in the study areas
sufficient for identifying potentially impacted wells. Comparisons of the potentially impacted wells with
site-specific wells are discussed below.
7.3. Site-Specific Background Comparisons
7.3.1.	Parameter-to-Parameter Comparisons
The summary statistic and statistical plot for anions are given in Table 14 and on Figure 38. Statistical
analysis for chloride showed that the potentially impacted wells were significantly different from the
site-specific background wells (p-value = 0.000001). The differences described at this scale for sulfate
were also statistically significant (p-value = 0.002). WISETXGW01 and WISETXGW08 had bromide
concentrations that were much higher than the concentrations in other wells in Location B
(p-value = 0.000001). The iodide concentrations in the potentially impacted wells were also statistically
different than in the site-specific background wells (p-value = 0.00003).
Summary statistics and statistical plots were also developed for cations analyzed during the study (Table
14 and Figure 28). As this comparison shows, calcium concentrations in the potentially impacted wells
were different than the site-specific background wells (p-value = 0.000045). The potentially impacted
wells had a wider range of potassium concentrations and a higher median potassium concentration than
the site-specific background wells (p-value = 0.0009). The site-specific background has lower median
concentration and ranges of magnesium than the potentially impacted wells (p-value = 0.00005). For
sodium, the site-specific background wells and the potentially impacted wells are different (p-value =
0.000002). With regard to boron, there were differences between the site-specific background
concentrations and the concentrations from the potentially impacted wells (p-value = 0.00006). As can
be seen, the potentially impacted wells were in general higher in median barium concentration, and the
maximum of the concentration range was higher (p-value = 0.047). Both the range of strontium
concentrations and the median concentrations in the site-specific background wells were different than
those from the potentially impacted wells (p-value = 0.00003). These differences were on the order of
at least 10x. Fontenot et al. (2013) found that strontium and barium concentrations were elevated in
areas near active gas extraction in the Barnett Shale.
Summary statistics and plots for SpC are shown in Table 14 and on Figure 38. Statistical analysis
indicates that the three potentially impacted wells SpC were significantly different than the SpC for site-
specific background wells (p-value = 0.000000).
7.3.2.	Time Trends
In addition to comparing study data to background data, it is also useful to examine the temporal
changes of the study data over the course of the study. This type of analysis allows one to understand
the changes in a parameter over time and is useful in understanding the natural variability of
117
-------
Retrospective Case Study in Wise County, Texas
May 2015
Table 14. Ground water summaries and statistics for Location B using site-specific background and potentially impacted wells.
Data Source
Parameter
Dissolved/
Total
Units
Mean
Median
Standard
Deviation
Min
Max
Locations
N
Z
Brine Components
Site-Specific Background
SPC

US/cm
821
788
94
726
998
7
7
0
Potentially Impacted Wells
SPC

US/cm
3479
4293
2125
1067
5077
3
3
0
Site-Specific Background
TDS

mg/L
533
510
61
472
649
7
7
0
Potentially Impacted Wells
TDS

mg/L
2352
2790
1229
694
3301
3
3
0
Site-Specific Background
Bicarbonate
Dissolved
mg/L
306
303
23
273
343
7
7
0
Potentially Impacted Wells
Bicarbonate
Dissolved
mg/L
295
310
99
189
385
3
3
0
Site-Specific Background
Chloride
Dissolved
mg/L
53.7
57.5
13.5
34.9
68.7
7
7
0
Potentially Impacted Wells
Chloride
Dissolved
mg/L
856
1064
705
69.8
1434
3
3
0
Site-Specific Background
Sulfate
Dissolved
mg/L
63.8
65.7
29.9
25.8
104
7
7
0
Potentially Impacted Wells
Sulfate
Dissolved
mg/L
130
118
33.1
104
167
3
3
0
Site-Specific Background
Bromide
Dissolved
mg/L
0.20
0.21
0.07
0.09
0.27
7
7
0
Potentially Impacted Wells
Bromide
Dissolved
mg/L
4.31
4.95
3.62
0.42
7.57
3
3
0
Site-Specific Background
Iodide
Dissolved
Hg/L
19
17.8
2.39
16.4
23.2
7
7
0
Potentially Impacted Wells
Iodide
Dissolved
Hg/L
202
202
—
134
269
2
2
0
Site-Specific Background
Calcium
Dissolved
mg/L
3.53
2.54
1.73
2.12
6.91
7
7
0
Potentially Impacted Wells
Calcium
Dissolved
mg/L
63.5
58.4
24.6
41.8
90.3
3
3
0
Site-Specific Background
Potassium
Dissolved
mg/L
1.32
1.19
0.27
1.03
1.82
7
7
0
Potentially Impacted Wells
Potassium
Dissolved
mg/L
3.87
2.67
2.4
2.31
6.63
3
3
0
Site-Specific Background
Magnesium
Dissolved
mg/L
1.38
1.03
0.85
0.71
3.05
7
7
0
Potentially Impacted Wells
Magnesium
Dissolved
mg/L
27.8
23.2
13.0
17.7
42.4
3
3
0
118
-------
Retrospective Case Study in Wise County, Texas
May 2015
Table 14. Ground water summaries and statistics for Location B using site-specific background and potentially impacted wells.
Data Source
Parameter
Dissolved/
Total
Units
Mean
Median
Standard
Deviation
Min
Max
Locations
N
Z
Site-Specific Background
Sodium
Dissolved
mg/L
179
173
20
159
212
7
7
0
Potentially Impacted Wells
Sodium
Dissolved
mg/L
616
815
410
144
889
3
3
0
Site-Specific Background
Boron
Dissolved
M-g/L
176
178
9
157
188
7
7
0
Potentially Impacted Wells
Boron
Dissolved
M-g/L
360
386
136
212
481
3
3
0
Site-Specific Background
Barium
Dissolved
M-g/L
19
19
3
16
24
7
7
32
Potentially Impacted Wells
Barium
Dissolved
Mg/L
62
82
43
13
92
3
3
10
Site-Specific Background
Strontium
Dissolved
M-g/L
350
295
128
237
553
7
7
0
Potentially Impacted Wells
Strontium
Dissolved
Mg/L
5473
4226
3527
2740
9454
3
3
0
Geochemical Parameters
Site-Specific Background
PH


8.52
8.6
0.21
8.12
8.70
7
7
0
Potentially Impacted Wells
PH


7.77
7.78
0.52
7.24
8.28
3
3
0
Trace Elements
Site-Specific Background
Manganese
Dissolved
Mg/L
5
5
2
2
7
7
7
20
Potentially Impacted Wells
Manganese
Dissolved
Mg/L
39
28
29
17
71
3
3
0
Site-Specific Background
Lithium
Dissolved
Mg/L
42
42
10
29
59
7
7
0
Potentially Impacted Wells
Lithium
Dissolved
Mg/L
100
100
—
79
120
2
2
0
119
-------
Retrospective Case Study in Wise CountyTexas
May 2015
6000
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
Specfic Conductance






~
n=7
n=3
Site Specific Background
Potentially Impacted
4000
3500
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
Bicarbonate
Total Dissolved Solids








T	=	T


n=7
n=
2
Site Specific Background
Potentially Impacted
Chloride











n=7
n=
=3
Sit Specific Background
Potentially Impacted
Site Specific Background
Potentially Impacted
Sulfate
Site Specfic Background
Potentially Impacted
Bromide








All 
-------
Retrospective Case Study in Wise County, Texas
May 2015
B

c
CO
OH
Calcium
E,

c
TO
a:
Potassium








,—=i=—, *. ~
i—=—> ~ ~ ~ ~


n=7
n=
3
Site Specific Background
Potentially Impacted
Site Specific Background
Potentially Impacted
d 400 -
o>
c
RJ
on
300
200
Magnesium


1000-
Sodium












800-






-1






600-






Q)
^ 400-
re
on
200-









n=7
n=
3
0-
n=7
n
~
=3
Site Specific Background
Potentially Impacted

Site Specific Background
Potentially Impacted
Boron


100-
Barium












80-
3






ro 60-
a;
c 40-






on






20-

















n=7
n=
3
0-
n=7
n=

Site Specific Background
Potentially Impacted
Site Specfic Background
Potentially Impacted
Figure 38 continued. Ground water box and whisker plots comparing site-specific background with potentially impacted wells. The black dashed lines
indicate, for constituents that have secondary MCLs, the concentrations of the secondary MCLs.
121
-------
Retrospective Case Study in Wise CountyTexas
May 2015
10000-
8000-
6000-
Strontium
n=7
Site Specific Background
n=3
Potentially Impacted
_ 150
A 
-------
Retrospective Case Study in Wise County, Texas
May 2015
parameters. Time trends are also valuable in understanding contaminant movement in the water
(Guerrero et al., 2010; Olayiwola et al., 2013; Perez Guerrero et al., 2013). The following discussion will
focus on time trends in selected parameters from study Location B.
Time trend data for select parameters is shown on Figure 39. From Figure 39 it can be seen that in all
cases, two wells—WISETXGW01 and WISETXGW08—had concentrations greater than most other wells.
Additionally, calcium and magnesium in WISETXGW05 was much higher than the other wells at Location
B (Figure 39C and 39E). It should be noted that iodide (Figure 39D) was not analyzed for in the initial
two sampling rounds and, therefore, there are no iodide data for WISETXGW05.
The concentrations in the site-specific background wells were generally similar and consistent
throughout the duration of the study (Figure 39). WISETXGW01 parameter concentrations varied
throughout the duration of the study. The exact cause of this variation is unknown, but there are
several possibilities. The variability seen in WISETXGW01 could be due to natural variability,
contaminant migration, or an anomalous sample. It appears that the concentrations are fluctuating
around a mean value or possibly increasing slightly, with the exception of iodide, which appears to have
been increasing (Figure 39D). The trend for WISETXGW08 appears to be decreasing concentrations in all
parameters except for iodide (Figure 39). This trend is possibly an artifact of the change in the sampling
method. After the initial two rounds of sampling, the pump in the well at WISETXGW08 failed and was
removed from the well and not replaced by the homeowner. During the remaining sampling rounds,
WISETXGW08 was sampled using a portable pump. This could explain the dramatic drop in
concentrations seen during the September 2012 sampling, because the well was not completely purged
before sampling. The increase in concentrations seen in the May 2013 sampling round may have been
caused by the increased purge time, which allowed the well to be purged more completely enabling
more effective sampling of formation water. Additional sampling would be required to confirm the
trends seen in the data for WISETXGW01 and WISETXGW08. Finally, WISETXGW05 trends cannot be
ascertained because EPA was granted access to sample this well only during the initial two sampling
rounds.
Several important points can be derived from the time-trend analysis. The site-specific background well
samples, in general, have had minimal changes over the course of the study. WISETXGW01 and
WISETXGW08, for the parameters discussed, were always higher than the site-specific background wells.
Calcium and magnesium concentrations in WISETXGW05 were higher than in site-specific background
wells.
7.3.3. Geochemical Relationships
Piper and Schoeller diagrams are useful in the investigation of major ion chemistry (Hounslow, 1995).
Figure 40 shows Piper diagram for Location B. The Piper diagram in Figure 40 shows differences in water
quality in three wells at Location B. The gray-shaded area represent the extent of the site-specific
background in all fields of this plot. In the tri-linear cation field it is apparent that WISETXGW05 is
different than the site-specific background. WISETXGW05 is enriched in calcium and magnesium
compared with the site-specific background (Figure 40). This was also seen in the time-trend data. The
tri-linear anion field of this diagram indicates that WISETXGW01 and WISETXGW08 are enriched with
chloride compared with the site-specific background at Location B. The mixing diamond in this Piper
123
-------
Retrospective Case Study in Wise County, Texas
May 2015
¦E 1000
Legend
*— WISETXGW01
—	WISETXGW02
—	WISETXGW03
WISETXGW04
- WISETXGW05
—	WISETXGW08
WISETXGW13
WISETXGW14
—	WISETXGW15
WISETXGW16
Date
Date
CM 
-------
Retrospective Case Study in Wise County, Texas
May 2015
Legend
—WISETXGW01
-a- WISETXGW02
-a- WISETXGW03
WISETXGW04
WISETXGW08
W1SETXGW13
-a-WISETXGW14
-a- WISETXGW15
-A-WISETXGW16
Date
Date
700
o
eo
H
~
*—~	~
/ *
~

V"
~" """"



	A
—4	
— ^

	m —

Date
Date
Figure 39 continued. Time trend plots for Location B. (E) magnesium, (F) sodium, (G) boron, and (H) SpC. The yellow box indicates ± 1 standard deviation
around the mean site specific background concentration. As is shown WISETXGW01 and WISETXGW08 over the duration of the study were different than site-
specific background. WISETXGW05 was different than site-specific background for calcium and manganese when sampled.
125
-------
Retrospective Case Study in Wise County, Texas
May 2015
diagram also shows that WISETXGW01, WISETXGW05, and WISETXGW08 are different than the site-
specific background. WISETXGW01 and WISETXGW08 are enriched with sulfate + chloride, but also are
slightly enriched with respect to calcium + magnesium compared with the site-specific background.
WISETXGW05 in the mixing diamond is enriched with respect to calcium + magnesium and slightly
enriched with respect to sulfate + chloride.
The Schoeller diagram also provides evidence of differences in water chemistry at Location B (Figure 41).
The extent of the site-specific background is highlighted by the gray shaded area on this plot. This
Schoeller diagram indicates that WISETXGW01, WISETXGW05 and WISETXGW08 are different than the
site-specific background. WISETXGW01 (Figure 41) is, in general, enriched with respect to chloride,
magnesium, calcium, and sodium + potassium, and in two samples were slightly depleted with respect
to bicarbonate. WISETXGW05 as was shown previously is enriched with respect to calcium and
magnesium compared to site-specific background (Figure 41). The trends for WISETXGW08 are in
general similar to those of WISETXGW01 with the exception that WISETXGW08 is not depleted with
respect to bicarbonate and is enriched with respect to sulfate (Figure 41).
Another technique that can be used to infer information about water quality is the use of XY plots of
chloride and other parameters (Stoessell, 1997; Faye et al., 2005). This type of plot is shown on Figure
42 for selected parameters. The relative extent of site-specific background is shown by the gray shaded
area on this plot. In all cases, WISETXGW01 and WISETXGW08 lie between the site-specific background
and the Barnett Shale formation water. (This is discussed in more detail below in the discussion of
"Distinguishing Potential Sources of Contamination."). It can also be seen that barium and strontium in
WISETXGW05 (Figure 42A, 42D) differ from the site-specific background (see also the discussion of
potential sources of contamination for more details).
XY plots of SpC and other parameters can also be evaluated. The usefulness of SpC is that this
measurement factors in all chemical species that contribute to the measurement of SpC, not just a single
parameter. Figure 43 shows the XY plots of SpC versus barium, chloride, sulfate and strontium. Again,
the relative extent of site-specific background is shown by the gray shaded area on this plot. What is
apparent in this figure is that WISETXGW01 and WISETXGW08 are different than the site-specific
background and Barnett Shale formation water. Barium and strontium concentrations in WISETXGW05
differ from the site-specific background (Figures 43A,C,D) and the other potentially impacted wells.
Fontenot et al. (2013) found that strontium and barium concentrations were elevated in areas near
active gas extraction in the Barnett Shale. This suggests a different source for WISETXGW01 and
WISETXGW08 (see the discussion of potential sources of contamination for more detail).
WISETXGW01, WISETXGW05, and WISETXGW08 are also different than the site specific background with
respect to trace elements (Figure 44). WISETXGW01 was elevated with respect to bromide, boron,
barium, iron, manganese, strontium, iodide, and lithium. Similarly, WISETXGW08 was elevated with
respect to bromide, boron, manganese, strontium, iodide, and lithium. On the other hand,
WISETXGW05 was elevated with respect to barium, manganese and strontium. It is important to note
that lithium and iodide analysis were not performed on WISETXGW05 since site access was only given
for the first two sampling rounds. All of these trace elements are typically elevated in brines. Iron and
manganese elevation can also be indicative of naturally occurring processes or other sources of
potential impacts.
126
-------
Retrospective Case Study in Wise County, Texas
May 2015
Legend
WISETXGW01
WISETXGW02
WISETXGW03
WISETXGW04
WISETXGW05
WISETXGW08
WISETXGW13
WISETXGW14
WISETXGW15
WISETXGW16
Calcium	Chloride
Figure 40. Piper diagram showing major cation and anion relationships for Location B and a comparison to site-
specific background. The gray areas show the limits of the site-specific background. The lower left triangular field
is the cation field and the lower right triangular field is the anion field. The center diamond field is the mixing field
of the anion and cations. WISETXGW01, WISETXGW05 and WISETXGW08 show differences in water quality when
compared to site-specific background.
127
-------
Retrospective Case Study in Wise County, Texas
May 2015
1000
a>
o
c
o
o
100
U)
E
» 10
-------
Retrospective Case Study in Wise County, Texas
May 2015
log Chloride (mg/L)
2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0
log Chloride (mg/L)
e
a>
-g
E
o
m
o oH
C/5
O)
o
B
m
J
**
/TVT\






2
3 4
log Chloride (mg/L)
5
D


t
± if *

Jt
~

3	4
log Chloride (mg/L)
Legend
* Barnett PW
Sea Water
WISETXGW01
WISETXGW02
WISETXGW03
WISETXGW04
WISETXGW05
WISETXGW08
WISETXGW13
WISETXGW14
WISETXGW15
WISETXGW16
Figure 42. Scatter plots of chloride versus (A) barium, (B) bromide, (C) iodide, and (D) strontium for study Location B. Shaded areas represent the limits of the
site-specific background. WISETXGW01 and WISETXGW08 show differences in water quality when compared to site-specific background and generally plot
between the site-specific background and Barnett water. WISETXGW05 was different than site-specific background for barium and strontium, but may not plot
between the site-specific background and the Barnett water; rather where it plots may indicate a different potential source.
129
-------
Retrospective Case Study in Wise County, Texas
May 2015
100000
10000
O)
3
E
3
'C
(0
CD
1000
100
100	1000 10000 100000 1000000
SpC (|iS/cm)
Legend
* Barnett PW
Sea Water
WISETXGW01
WISETXGW02
WISETXGW03
WISETXGW04
WISETXGW05
WISETXGW08
WISETXGW13
WISETXGW14
WISETXGW15
WISETXGW16
100	1000 10000 100000
SpC (nS/cm)
1000000
10000
100	1000 10000 100000
SpC ((iS/cm)
1000000
— 10000
1000 10000 100000 1000000
SpC (|iS/cm)
Figure 43. Scatter plots of SpC versus (A) barium, (B) chloride, (C) sulfate, and (D) strontium for study data in Locations B. The gray shaded areas show the
limits of the site-specific data. WISETXGW01 and WISETXGW08 show differences in water quality when compared to site-specific background and generally
plot between the site-specific background and Barnett water. WISETXGW05 was different than site-specific background for barium strontium, and sulfate, but
may not plot between the site-specific background and the Barnett water; rather where it plots may indicate a different potential source.
130
-------
Retrospective Case Study in Wise County, Texas
May 2015
100000
10000
1000
100
10
1
Legend
—*— WISETXGW01
—A— WISETXGW02
—A— WISETXGW03
-A- WISETXGW04
—A— WISETXGW05
WISETXGW08
WISETXGW13
—A— WISETXGW14
—A— WISETXGW15
—A— WISETXGW16
Figure 44. Schoeller diagram of select trace elements at Location B. The cyan shaded area is the limits of the site-
specific background data at Location B. The gray shaded areas highlight the deviations from site-specific
background. With the exception of fluoride, all selected trace elements for WISETXGW01 and WISETXGW08 were
different than site-specific background; for WISETXGW05, barium, manganese, and strontium were different than
site-specific background.
WISETXGW01 and WISETXGW08 are consistently different from the site-specific background for all
parameters discussed. This indicates that an impact had occurred, although the source of the impact
has not been identified. WISETXGW05 differs from the site-specific background for only a few
parameters. The source of this contamination could possibly be the same as seen in WISETXGW01 and
WISETXGW08, but another plausible explanation has to do with this well's intended purpose.
WISETXGW05 is not primarily used for drinking water; it was designed as a supply well. The TRRC has
explained to EPA that supply wells are often open bores, or sand-packed bores with just a shallow
cementing of the casing at the surface (TRRC, 2013), because this type of well is designed to capture as
many water-producing zones as possible to yield the maximum amount of water obtainable. Although
WISETXGW05 is completed in the Trinity aquifer, if other water-bearing zones were allowed to mix with
Trinity aquifer ground water one would expect this to affect the signature of the water and thus look
different than what one would expect from the Trinity aquifer. Because the actual well construction
details are unknown, this is a plausible explanation for the observed data for this well. However, other
explanations, such as other sources of contamination, could also be plausible and will be addressed in
the next section.
7.4. Distinguishing Potential Sources of Contamination
Chloride occurs naturally in groundwater, but elevated concentrations may be due to a number of
anthropogenic sources. The Hydraulic Fracturing Study Plan (US EPA, 2011b) states that the
131
-------
Retrospective Case Study in Wise County, Texas
May 2015
retrospective case studies would attempt to identify sources or potential sources of impacts on drinking
water quality. The following text discusses the potential sources of contamination at study Location B.
EPA conducted a comprehensive search to identify potential sources of contamination at the study
locations (see Appendix C). Based on the initial comparisons of historical background data with the
study data collected from Location B, chloride and other components of brine are believed to be what
caused the impacts on water quality at this location. This narrows the potential sources of
contamination in this location to migration of brines from underlying formations either through
naturally occurring fractures or fissures or through penetrations that allow migration of underlying brine
into the Trinity aquifer; leaks from reserve pits or impoundments migrating downward to the Trinity
aquifer; landfill leachate; and/or land uses such as agriculture. Additionally, there could be other
sources of contamination that are currently unknown. Likewise, Battelle (2013), in its assessment of
background in Wise County, considered that the most significant sources of contamination were
livestock, oil/gas, and construction. Battelle also discussed other sources such an agriculture, mining,
waste water, and manufacturing and commercial activities, many of which were found in EPA's search.
Based on the above discussion, an analysis was conducted to help identify the potential source or
sources of contamination observed at this study location. Local data for formation brines were available
for Wise County from the USGS Produced Water database (USGS, 2002). However, local data were not
available for the other potential sources of contamination such as landfill leachate and other land uses.
Therefore, a literature search was conducted for data from these sources. It should be noted that there
are limitations to the use of literature data over site-specific data for this type of analysis. For example,
the fluids from which the literature data were obtained may not derive from the same precipitation,
geology, and ambient groundwater chemistry as the study samples, which could cause variations in the
signatures of the source fluids. However, the use of literature data can be useful in screening potential
sources of contamination as long as the limitations are recognized. The subsequent analysis used a
combination of site-specific data and literature review data to provide insight into which potential
sources could potentially explain the contamination at Study Location B.
7.5. Source Identification
Hounslow (1995) proposed methods for determining impacts on ground water from petroleum brines
using a brine differentiation plot (TDS versus the ratio of chloride to the sum of anions (Cl/Z anions;
Figure 45). The brine differentiation plot (Figure 45A) shows that the site-specific background is not
related to petroleum brines. The WISETXGW05 samples are also not impacted by petroleum brines, but
are different than the site-specific background and the other potentially impacted wells. Thus, this brine
differentiation plot does not provide clues as to the origin of the differences in water quality for
WISETXGW05. The data from WISETXGW01 and WISETXGW08, with the exception of one point for
WISETXGW08, clearly are consistent with brine impact. This plot does not rule out other sources of
contamination; it only suggests that brine is a potential source of the impacts.
Figure 45B indicates that the site-specific background data are consistent with water that is influenced
by water-rock interactions, as one would expect. This plot shows that WISETXGW05 is consistent with
the site-specific background for Location B and consistent with water sourced from water-rock
interactions. A majority of the data for WISETXGW01 is consistent with brine impacts, and two out of
132
-------
Retrospective Case Study in Wise County, Texas
May 2015
Legend
~	WISETXGW01
A WISETXGW02
A WISETXGW03
A WISETXGW04
A WISETXGW05
~	WISETXGW08
WISETXGW13
A WISETXGW14
A WISETXGW15
A WISETXGW16
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Sodium
Sodium + Chloride
0)
-------
Retrospective Case Study in Wise County, Texas
May 2015
three data points for WISETXGW08 are consistent with brine-impacted water. This plot points to the
potential for samples from WISETXGW01 and WISETXGW08 to be derived from brines.
Much work has been done to determine sources of contamination in ground water and surface water
using ratios, correlation plots, and mixing curves (Leonard and Ward, 1962; Chaudhuri and Clauer, 1993;
Howard and Beck, 1993; Stoessell, 1997; Lloyd et al., 1982; Davis et al., 1998; Vengosh and Pankratov,
1998; Hudak and Wachal, 2001; Sanchez-Martos et al., 2002; Hudak, 2003; Faye et al., 2005, Panno et
al., 2005; Panno et al., 2006; Freeman, 2007; Peterman et al., 2010; Katz et al., 2011; Hudak, 2012;
Peterman et al. 2012; Harkness et al., 2015) as well as the use of isotopes. These ratios, correlation
plots, isotopes, and mixing curves are discussed below to try to ascertain the source of the brine seen in
the potentially contaminated wells at Location B.
The use of chloride/bromide ratios (CI/Br) or chloride/iodide ratios (Cl/I) can be used to distinguish
between different sources of contamination in water (Stoessell, 1997; Davis et al. 1998; Vengosh and
Pankratov, 1998; Panno et al., 2006; Katz et al., 2011; Osborn et al., 2012; Harkness et al., 2015). Data
for the several potential sources (sewage/septic tank, halite/road salt, landfill leachate, animal waste,
and formation brines) were taken from the literature using U.S. data. It is important to note that
although these sources may not be completely appropriate for Location B, they are useful in screening
potential sources. Figure 46 shows the CI/Br and Figure 47 shows the Cl/I for Location B plotted against
chloride. Figure 46 shows that the CI/Br of the site-specific background are very similar to those of the
potentially impacted wells, sea water, and water from the Barnett Shale. The dashed lines represent the
mixing curves between the median value of the site-specific background and the median values of other
sources. What is apparent from this is that potentially impacted wells WISETXGW01 and WISETXGW08
could be the product of mixing of several sources: halite/road salt, seawater, water from the Barnett
Shale and/or basin brines. For WISETXGW05 the CI/Br ratio is similar to site-specific background and no
source is suggested. If the native CI/Br are similar to those of the source, then the effect could be
difficult to see (Vengosh and Pankratov, 1998) as is the case at Location B. Therefore the use of the
CI/Br may not be usable as the sole indicator of source (Vengosh and Pankratov, 1998). Sea water can
be eliminated as a potential source since Location B is a considerable distance from any sea water
source. Halite/road salt is still a potential source even though it is unlikely that road salt is used at
Location B, but halite is commonly used in water softeners. Water from the Barnett Shale and basin
brines are also potential sources. To provide a better understanding of potential sources, the colored
geometric areas represent the chloride and CI/Br distributions of the various sources (Figure 46). From
this, another potential source of the impacts would be landfill leachate. Landfill leachate is a potential
source of contamination at Location B, because during the search for other potential contamination
sources, a closed landfill was found less than a mile from Location B (see Appendix C).
Figure 47 shows the Cl/I for the data from Location B plotted against chloride. In the case of Cl/I, the
produced water from the Barnett Shale is different than the site-specific background and potentially
impacted wells. The potentially impacted data lie between the mixing curves of halite/road salt and
basin brines and produced water from the Barnett Shale, using the median values to develop the mixing
curve. Depending on the point chosen, it would be possible to develop a mixing curve that would go
through the potentially impacted data. Therefore, these are potential sources of the impacts. Stoessell
(1997) also used ratios of l/CI (the inverse of Cl/I) to help distinguish water impacted by formation brines
in Louisiana and found that it could be a useful tool. Using this method, other sources such as landfill
134
-------
Retrospective Case Study in Wise County, Texas
May 2015
10000
m
o
1000
100
Legend
WISETXGW01
WISETXGW02
WISETXGW03
WISETXGW04
WISETXGW05
WISETXGW08
WISETXGW13
WISETXGW14
WISETXGW15
L WISETXGW16
—	Barnett Mixing Trend
—	Sea Water Mixing Trend
—	Sewage/Septic Mixing Trend
Halite/Road Salt Mixing Trend
—	Landfill Leachate Mixing Trend
—	Animal Waste Mixing Trend
—	Basin Brine Mixing Trend
CI (mg/L)
Figure 46. Mixing trends and source fieids using chloride versus CI/Br at Location B. Black outlined area = Barnett field, green outlined area = sea water field,
blue outlined area = sewage/septic tank field, cyan outlined area = halite/road salt field, magenta outlined area = landfill leachate field, dark yellow outlined
area = animal waste field, red outlined area = basin brines field. See text for discussion.
135
-------
Retrospective Case Study in Wise County, Texas
May 2015
Legend
*	WISETXGW01
A WISETXGW02
A WISETXGW03
WISETXGW04
~	WISETXGW08
WISETXGW13
A WISETXGW14
A WISETXGW15
A WISETXGW16
—	— Barnett
—	— Sea Water
—	— Sewage/Septic Tank
Halite/Road Salt
—	— Landfill Leachate
—	— Animal Waste
—	— Basin Brines
Chloride (mg/L)
Figure 47. Mixing trends and source fieids using chloride versus Cl/I at Location B. Black outlined area = Barnett field, green outlined area = sea water field,
blue outlined area = sewage/septic tank field, cyan outlined area = halite/road salt field, magenta outlined area = landfill leachate field, dark yellow outlined
area = animal waste field, red outlined area = basin brines field. See text for discussion.
136
-------
Retrospective Case Study in Wise County, Texas
May 2015
leachate and animal waste would be potential sources of impact at Location B (Figure 47). As noted
above, a landfill was identified close to Location B. Animal waste also is possible, because there are
cattle and horses near Location B (see Appendix C). Because of the lack of site-specific data for these
potential sources of contamination, as well as the lack of information regarding the local hydrology, it is
difficult to delineate between the potential sources of contamination at Location B using these methods.
Another ratio plot that can be used is the K/Rb plot. Figure 48 is a plot of potassium versus
potassium/rubidium ratio (K/Rb). This figure indicates that the K/Rb for WISETXGW01, WISETXGW05,
and WISETXGW08 were intermediate between the site-specific background and Barnett water or
seawater and could result from the mixing of these end members. Since no rubidium data were
available for the other potential sources the K/Rb could not be compared with WISETXGW01,
WISETXGW05, and WISETXGW08.
Isotopic data, such as the stable isotopes of water (62H and 6lsO) and strontium isotopes (87Sr/86Sr),
have been used in the past to help delineate sources that impact water (Cai et al., 2001; Ma et al.,2007;
Chapman et al., 2012; J0rgensen et al., 2008; Szynkiewicz et al., 2008; Peterman et al., 2012; Warner et
al., 2012). The stable isotope of water plot for Location B is shown on Figure 49. Figure 49A shows the
data collected as part of the study for the site-specific background, potentially impacted wells, and the
water from the Barnett Shale. At this scale, it is difficult to see the relationship of the site-specific
background and the potentially impacted wells. Figure 49B is an enlargement of the region in Figure
49A shaded in yellow. What is apparent in Figure 49B is that the water isotopic composition of the site-
specific background wells and the potentially impacted wells are very similar. Therefore, the stable
isotopes of water are not useful in trying to delineate potential sources of impacts found at Location B.
Warner et al. (2012) found that the 62H and 6lsO would need to be a minimum of 20% different to see a
significant difference between sources.
The use of strontium isotopes can be a sensitive method to delineate sources of impacts, especially in
cases where end-member fluids differ significantly in both concentration and isotope ratio (Peterman et
al., 2012). Figure 50 shows hypothetical mixing curves between water from the Barnett Shale and the
data collected at Location B. The mixing curves were calculated using the equation from Faure and
Mensing (2005) and also used in Peterman et al. (2012):
where the (87Sr/86Sr)mix is the isotopic ratio in the mixture, [Sr]mix is the strontium concentration in the
mixture, and a and b are constants calculated from the end-member isotopic ratios and concentrations
(Faure and Mensing, 2005).
Fluid mixing is expected to be a dynamic rather than a static process, and strontium concentrations and
isotope ratios should vary in time as mixing occurs. Figure 51 shows that the 87Sr/86Sr values have been
consistent across each sampling round throughout the course of the study, with perhaps a slight
decreasing trend, with the exception of WISETXGW13, which shows a marked increase between the
December 2012 and May 2013 sampling rounds. An estimate of the uncertainty in the 87Sr/86Sr values is
1.6xl0~5 based on six duplicate field samples collected over the course of this study. Variability in
87Sr/86Sr ratio observed values at the sampling locations ranged from 0 to 3.5x10 s, with a median value
1.3xl0~5. The lack of change or the very slight decreases in strontium isotope ratios suggests that the
(2)
137
-------
Retrospective Case Study in Wise County, Texas
May 2015
.D
0£
2
7000
6000
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
Legend
~	WISETXGW01
~	WISETXGW02
~	WISETXGW03
~	WISETXGW04
~	WISETXGW05
~	WISETXGW08
WISETXGW13
A WISETXGW14
~	WISETXGW15
~	WISETXGW16
Barnett
Sea Water
Potassium (mM)
Figure 48. Mixing trends using potassium versus K/Rb at Location B. This figure suggests that WISETXGW01, WISETXGW05 and WISETXGW08 were brine
impacted.
138
-------
Retrospective Case Study in Wise County, Texas
May 2015
Legend
*	Barnett
*	WISETXGW01
t WISETXGW02
~	WISETXGW03
WISETXGW04
~	WISETXGW05
*	WISETXGW08
WISETXGW13
~	WISETXGW14
t WISETXGW15
t WISETXGW16
-35
-36-
-10
-15
-20
I
N
'.O
-25
-30
-32-
-33-
-34-
-35'
-6.25	-6.00	-5.75	-5.50	-5.25	-5.00
Figure 49. Plots showing the stable isotopes of water for Location B. (A) All data and (B) shows a more detailed view of the shaded area in A. The gray area in B
outlines the site specific background and GMWL = global meteoric water line (Craig, 1961). See text for discussion.
139
-------
Retrospective Case Study in Wise County, Texas
May 2015
-------
Retrospective Case Study in Wise County, Texas
May 2015
0.7095
t 0.7090
0.7085
15000
10000
U)
=L
(/)
5000
12/13/2011 6/13/2012 12/13/2012 6/13/2013
Time
Legend
-~-WISETXGW01
—A— WISETXGW02
—A— WISETXGW03
—A— WISETXGW04
—WISETXGW08
—A— WISETXGW13
—A—WISETXGW14
—A— WISETXGW15
—A— WISETXGW16
Figure 51. Plots of the temporal variations of" Sr/ Sr and strontium concentrations. See text for discussion.
141
-------
Retrospective Case Study in Wise County, Texas
May 2015
water is near equilibrium with surrounding aquifer materials. The lack of temporal variability could
suggest that water from the Barnett Shale is not generally impacting the Trinity aquifer over the
timescale of this study. Even though there was little temporal variability in the 87Sr/86Sr ratio, there was a
slight difference in the ratios between the site-specific background and the potentially impacted wells
(WISETXGW01 and WISETXGW08) consistently throughout the duration of the study (Figures 50 and 51).
The strontium concentration from WISETXGW08 decreased with time, and the strontium concentration
from WISTXGW01 was variable with time. However, there was a difference in strontium concentrations
between the site-specific background and WISETXGW01 and WISETXGW08 as is shown on Figure 51. This
difference is not likely due to natural variations in strontium concentrations in the Trinity aquifer, since
the site-specific background strontium concentration are very similar in strontium concentration and do
not appear to change during the duration of the study. Rather, this difference is likely attributed to
mixing of unimpacted Trinity aquifer water with water from another source. Therefore, mixing curves
were made as shown on Figure 50. Two mixing curves were constructed using the maximum 87Sr/86Sr
ratio for the water from the Barnett Shale and the maximum 87Sr/86Sr ratio for the site-specific
background. The other mixing curve was constructed using the minimum 87Sr/86Sr ratio for both. As
shown on Figure 50, most of the data collected for WISETXGW01 lies on the mixing curve of the
maximum 87Sr/86Sr ratio mixing curve, and the data collected for WISETXGW08 plotted just above the
maximum 87Sr/86Sr ratio curve. With this limited data set for the water from the Barnett Shale, the
maximum 87Sr/86Sr ratio mixing curve is consistent with a potential impact from this source. This is also
consistent with studies of produced water impacting surface water in Montana (Peterman et al., 2012).
The contribution of water from the Barnett Shale to the potentially impacted samples is discussed below.
Strontium isotopic data were not found for other potential sources of contamination, so this type of
comparison could not be made for these sources. It is plausible that mixing relationships for these
sources using 87Sr/86Sr ratios could be potentially made. Unlike for the other potential sources of
contamination using 87Sr/86Sr ratios, it is plausible that water from the Barnett Shale mixing with
unimpacted Trinity aquifer water could explain the impacts observed in WISETXGW01 and
WISETXGW08. However, this is based solely on the data collected during this study. Nonetheless, one
cannot definitively conclude that the Barnett Shale water is the source of the impact seen at Location B.
Correlation plots can also be used for source identification (Stoessell, 1997; Panno et al., 2006). These
authors were able to use these types of plots to help distinguish waters consistent with water-rock
interactions from other sources and delineated potential sources using conservative mixing of native
water with water from another source. Plots of chloride versus bromide reveal that there are
potentially three sources for the impacts seen in WISETXGW01 and WISETXGW08 (Figure 52). These
potential sources are sea water, animal waste, and water from the Barnett Shale. It is very unlikely that
sea water is the source of contamination at Location B in Wise County, because the nearest sea water
source is a considerable distance away. Animal waste and water from the Barnett Shale are plausible
candidates, because both can be found at or near Location B. Figure 52 would suggest that for
WISETXGW05 that the plot of chloride versus bromide was not useful in distinguishing a potential
source of the observed difference observed in this well. Using a data set of sources in Louisiana,
Stoessel (1997) was able to show impacts on water from formation brines, and Panno et al. (2006) was
able to use these relationships to help distinguish water impacted by other anthropogenic sources.
However, based on the data collected as part of this study, a definitive source could not be determined
using chloride versus bromide plots.
142
-------
Retrospective Case Study in Wise County, Texas
May 2015
The correlation between chloride and calcium (Figure 53) indicates that there are four potential sources
for the impacts observed in WISETXGW01 and WISETXGW08. Again, sea water, halite/road salt, and
water from the Barnett Shale are suggested as potential sources. As was the case earlier, sea water can
be eliminated as a potential source because of the distance from Location B to the nearest sea water
source. Also halite is an unlikely source as was suggested previously. Using calcium allowed for the
inclusion of sources of other formation brines in Texas (Cisco, Canyon, Strawn, Boonesville Bend
Conglomerate, Viola, Simpson, and Ellenburger) and these sources were also found to be consistent with
the observed impacts (Figure 53B). Therefore, impacts from all of these brine formation waters are
plausible at Location B because penetrations through these strata could be a path of migration into the
overlying Trinity aquifer (see Figure 3). Figure 53A shows that sewage/septic tanks or animal waste was
a potential source for the observed differences observed in WISETXGW05. Brines did not appear to be a
potential source in WISETXGW05 based on chloride versus calcium plots. Because of the lack of local
hydrologic data and the lack of local source data, the source or sources of the impacts observed could
not be definitively determined.
Plots of chloride and bicarbonate are shown on Figure 54. As is shown on Figure 54A, the potential
sources would be formation brines, seawater, and halite/road salt. As has been already indicated sea
water and halite/road salt are not likely sources. On Figure 54B, only the brine sources are plotted.
Although WISETXGW01 and WISETXGW08 are generally slightly enriched with respect to bicarbonate, it
would be difficult to rule out any of the brines as a potential source, because bicarbonate is not
conservative and is subject to chemical reactions and biological activity. Using chloride versus
bicarbonate plots (Figure 54A), brines did not appear to be a source on the observed impacts to
WISETXGW05. This analysis suggests that landfill leachate or animal waste was the most likely source
for the observed differences in WISETXGW05. Because of the lack of local hydrologic data and the lack
of local source data, the source or sources of the impacts observed could not be definitively
determined.
Figure 55 is a plot of chloride versus potassium. Although WISETXGW01 and WISTXGW08 in all cases
were depleted with respect to other sources of potassium, the likely source would be brines, sea water,
and halite/road salt. Potassium is not a conservative element and can undergo chemical changes and
participate in chemical reactions in the environment, so the depletion of potassium in WISETXGW01 and
WISETXGW08 is not unexpected. Again sea water and halite/road salt are very unlikely sources of the
impacts observed in WISETXGW01 and WISETXGW08. Plots of chloride versus potassium indicated that
all sources are potential sources for WISETXGW05 (Figure 55). This suggests that plots of chloride versus
potassium were not useful for source delineation for the changes observed in WISETXGW05.
The only sources of potential impact to WISETXGW01 and WISETXGW08 based on chloride versus
magnesium plots were formation brines and sea water (Figure 56A). Sea water is not a potential source,
because of the distance between Location B and the nearest sea water source. Based on this plot the
only potential sources for WISETXGW05 are sewage/septic tanks or animal waste (Figure 56A). Figure
56B is a plot showing several of the potential brine sources for Location B. The chloride versus
magnesium plot however could not distinguish between the brine sources or indicate the most likely
brine source.
143
-------
Retrospective Case Study in Wise County, Texas
May 2015
101 10' 10
Chloride (mM)
Legend
*	WISETXGW01
~	WISETXGW02
~	WISETXGW03
WISETXGW04
~	WISETXGW05
*	WISETXGW08
WISETXGW13
~	WISETXGW14
A WISETXGW15
~	WISETXGW16
-	— Barnett
-	- - Sea Water
-	- • Sewage/Septic Tank
-	- - Halite/Road Salt
Landfill Leachate
-	- - Animal Waste
Figure 52. A cross plot of the conservative elements chloride and bromide in relationship to potential sources of contamination at Location B. This figure
strongly suggests that WISETXGW01 and WISETXGW08 were impacted by a brine source.
144
-------
Retrospective Case Study in Wise County, Texas
May 2015
Chloride (mM)
Chloride (mM)
Legend
~	WISETXGW01
~	WISETXGW02
~	WISETXGW03
~	WISETXGW04
A WISETXGW05
~	WISETXGW08
WISETXGW13
A WISETXGW14
A WISETXGW15
A WISETXGW16
—	- Barnett
-	- Cisco
-	— Canyon
Strawn
Boonesville Bend Conglomerate
—	- Viola
—	— Simpson
-	- Ellenburger
•	• • Seawater
•	¦ ¦ Sewage/Septic Tank
•	• • Halite/Road Salt
Landfill Leachate
Animal Waste
Figure 53. Plots of the mixing curves for chloride versus calcium using (A) all potential sources and (B) brine sources with the potentially impacted wells and
the site-specific background wells. The gray shaded area is the limits of the site-specific background and the yellow shaded areas highlights WISETXGW05. This
plot suggests that the potentially impacted wells WISETXGW01 and WISETXGW08 were likely impacted by a brine source. This plot suggests that the
WISETXGW05 was potentially impacted by animal waste and sewage/septic tanks.
145
-------
Retrospective Case Study in Wise County, Texas
May 2015
101	10"
Chloride (mM)
Legend
~	WISETXGW01
~ WISETXGW02
A WISETXGW03
A WISETXGW04
A WISETXGW05
~	WISETXGW08
WISETXGW13
A WISETXGW14
A WISETXGW15
A WISETXGW16
	Barnett
	Cisco
	Canyon
Strawn
	Boonesville Bend Conglomerate
	Viola
	Simpson
	Ellenburger
• • • Sea Water
¦	• • Sewage/Septic Tank
¦	• • Halite/Road Salt
Landfill Leachate
Animal Waste
Chloride (mM)
Figure 54. Plots of the mixing curves for chloride versus bicarbonate using (A) all potential sources and (B) brine sources with the potentially impacted wells
and the site-specific background wells. The gray shaded area is the limits of the site-specific background and the yellow shaded areas highlights WISETXGW05.
This plot suggests that the potentially impacted wells WISETXGW01 and WISETXGW08 were potentially impacted by brines. This plot suggests that the
WISETXGW05 was potentially impacted by animal waste and landfill leachate.
146
-------
Retrospective Case Study in Wise County, Texas
May 2015
102
101
10°
(/)
 •*" , JL*
~ * iT
-1	1	1 iii—i—r
10°
t	i	1	1—i—i—i—r-|	i	i	i	1—i—i—i—i-|	i	i	i	i—i—i—r
101	102
Chloride (mM)
10J
102
| 101
| 10°
'
(/> .
« 10
o
Q.
10
-2
B
***
-*» ^ ^

- " ^ *
- "i -» *
- c - ' *
at***
• i «o i m
~ * it
ir* *
Legend
~	WISETXGW01
A WISETXGW02
A WISETXGW03
A WISETXGW04
A WISETXGW05
~	WISETXGW08
WISETXGW13
A WISETXGW14
A WISETXGW15
, A WISETXGW16
10	Barnett
	Cisco
—	— Canyon
Strawn
—	— Boonesville Bend Conglomerate
—	— Viola
	Simpson
—	— Ellenburger
•	• • Sea Water
•	• • Sewage/Septic Tank
•	• • Halite/Road Salt
Landfill Leachate
Animal Waste
-i—i—iii	i	1 iii—i—i i |	1	1	i i—i i i i |	1	iii—i—i i i
i	i	1—i i i—i—r
10°
101
10'
10J
10
Chloride (mM)
Figure 55. Plots of the mixing curves for chloride versus potassium using (A) all potential sources and (B) brine sources with the potentially impacted wells and
the site-specific background wells. The gray shaded area is the limits of the site-specific background, and the yellow shaded areas highlights WISETXGW05.
This plot suggests that the potentially impacted wells WISETXGW01 and WISETXGW08 were potentially impacted by brines.
147
-------
Retrospective Case Study in Wise County, Texas
May 2015
Legend
~
~
~
~
~
~
10'
Chloride (mM)
^ B

A
~

- -

*
WISETXGW01
WISETXGW02
WISETXGW03
WISETXGW04
WISETXGW05
WISETXGW08
WISETXGW13
WISETXGW14
WISETXGW15
WISETXGW16
-|Q4	Barnett
	Cisco
	 Canyon
Strawn
	Boonesville Bend Conglomerate
	Viola
	Simpson
	Ellenburger
•	• • Sea Water
•	• • Sewage/Septic Tank
•	• • Halite/Road Salt
Landfill Leachate
Animal Waste
-i	1—i i
10°
101
102
103
10
Chloride (mM)
Figure 56. Plots of the mixing curves for chloride versus magnesium using (A) all potential sources and (B) brine sources with the potentially impacted wells
and the site-specific background wells. The gray shaded area is the limits of the site-specific background, and the yellow shaded areas highlights WISETXGW05.
The potentially impacted wells WISETXGW01 and WISETXGW08 were impacted by brines. This plot suggests that WISETXGW05 was potentially impacted by
animal waste or sewage/septic tank.
148
-------
Retrospective Case Study in Wise County, Texas
May 2015
Figure 57 is a plot of chloride versus sodium. Like potassium, WISETXGW01 and WISTXGW08 in all cases
were depleted with respect to other sources of sodium, the likely source of which would be brines, sea
water, and halite/road salt. Sodium, like potassium is not a conservative element and can undergo
chemical changes and participate in chemical reactions in the environment, so the depletion of sodium
in WISETXGW01 and WISETXGW08 is not unexpected. Again sea water and halite/road salt are very
unlikely sources of the impacts observed in WISETXGW01 and WISETXGW08. Plots of chloride versus
sodium indicated that all sources with the exception of halite/road salt and sea water are potential
sources for WISETXGW05 (Figure 57).
For plots of chloride versus sulfate (Figures 58) the only potential sources identified for WISETXGW01,
WISETXGW05, and WISETXGW08 were brine, sea water, and halite/road salt. For WISETXGW05, the
samples were enriched with respect to sulfate as compared to the sources. Since sulfate is not
conservative and is subject to chemical reactions and biological activity, this could mean that for
WISETXGW05 that another potential source not identified is responsible to the observed differences.
Finally, Osborn et al. (2012) used plots of bromide versus boron in their analysis of Northern
Appalachian brines. Bromide versus boron cross plots are plotted in Figure 59. WISETXGW01 and
WISETXGW08 plot between halite/road salt and sea water/Barnett suggesting that these are potential
sources of the observed impacts. WISETXGW05 using bromide versus boron was the same as the site-
specific background and no further information could be ascertained from this plot. As was the case in
the other cross plots, sea water and halite/road salt are likely not the source of the impacts to
WISETXGW01 and WISETXGW08.
In addition to identifying potential sources of contamination, mixing curves can also be used to calculate
relative percent contributions to an impacted well from a source (Faye et al., 2005; Freeman, 2007). As
conservative elements, chloride and bromide were used in this analysis, because conservative elements
typically do not have interactions with the surrounding media and biological activity typically does not
affect the concentrations. Faye et al. (2005) used these binary mixing relationships to evaluate the
salinization process resulting from the mixing of fresh water and salt water intrusion from a saline river
source. Freeman (2007) was able to use these mixing relationships to help delineate freshwater
contamination from two saline sources, salt dissolution brines, and formation brines. Figure 60 is an
example of using this method to calculate the percent contribution of brine and landfill leachate sources
to the potentially impacted wells at Location B using chloride and bromide. Both bromide and chloride
are generally considered conservative elements. Figures 60A and 60C are plots showing the percent
contribution of brine to the wells at Location B. In both cases, the potentially impacted wells have a
greater contribution of brine than the site-specific background, which is to be expected. Visually they
appear to have the same relative contribution of brine regardless of whether chloride or bromide is
used. Figures 60B and 60D use the same method as previously described but calculate the percent
contribution of landfill leachate to the wells in Location B. Unlike the brine calculations, where the brine
had much higher concentrations of bromide and chloride than the potentially impacted wells, the
potentially impacted wells had much greater concentrations than the landfill leachate. This causes the
potentially impacted wells to have contributions of landfill leachate much greater than 100%, which is
not possible. This could provide a check constraint to the mixing relationships discussed earlier. It is
important to point out that these were literature values for other locations in the U.S. and may not
reflect landfill leachate in Wise County.
149
-------
Retrospective Case Study in Wise County, Texas
May 2015
- *

10°
101
102
Chloride (mM)
103
Legend
~	WISETXGW01
~	WISETXGW02
~	WISETXGW03
~	WISETXGW04
~	WISETXGW05
~	WISETXGW08
WISETXGW13
~	WISETXGW14
~	WISETXGW15
~	WISETXGW16
	Barnett
-	— Cisco
^ q4	Canyon
Strawn
-	— Boonesville Bend Conglomerate
	Viola
	Simpson
	Ellenburger
•	• • Sea Water
•	• • Sewage/Septic Tank
•	• • Halite/Road Salt
Landfill Leachate
Animal Waste
10'
Chloride (mM)
Figure 57. Plots of the mixing curves for chloride versus sodium using (A) all potential sources and (B) brine sources with the potentially impacted wells and the
site-specific background wells. The gray shaded area is the limits of the site-specific background, and the yellow shaded areas highlights WISETXGW05. The
potentially impacted wells WISETXGW01 and WISETXGW08 were possibly impacted by brines.
150
-------
Retrospective Case Study in Wise County, Texas
May 2015

o
N)

101-


£
O
o
-------
Retrospective Case Study in Wise County, Texas
May 2015
1
0.1
c
o
o
CO
0.01
1E-3
111111 i i 1111111 i rTTTTiii i i 1111111 i i 1111111 i i 1111111 i i 1111111 i i 1111
1E-5 1E-4 1E-3 0.01 0.1 1 10
Legend
*	WISETXGW01
A WISETXGW02
~	WISETXGW03
~	WISETXGW04
A WISETXGW05
*	WISETXGW08
~	WISETXGW13
~	WISETXGW14
~	WISETXGW15
A WISETXGW16
—	— Barnett Trend
—	— Sea Water Trend
—	— Sewage/Septic Tank Trend
Halite/Road Salt Trend
—	Landfill Leachate Trend
—	Animal Waste Trend
Bromide (mM)
Figure 59. Plots of the mixing curves for bromide versus boron using (A) all potential sources and (B) brine sources with the potentially impacted wells and the
site-specific background wells. The gray shaded area is the limits of the site-specific background, and the tan shaded areas highlights WISETXGW05. The
potentially impacted wells WISETXGW01 and WISETXGW08 were impacted by brines.
152
-------
Retrospective Case Study in Wise County, Texas
May 2015
1000000
100000-
10000-
1000-
100-
1000,
100,
% Brine
0.01	0.1	1	10
% Brine
100
cs)
E
0
"O
'i—
o
JZ
O
2000
1500
1000
500
600%
500%
400% '
300::
100%
D)
 Source
Barnett
% Landfill Leachate
Figure 60. Examples of the use of mixing curves to calculate the relative contribution of the source waters to the wells in Location B using (A) chloride and
Barnett Produced Water, (B) chloride and landfill leachate, (C) bromide and Barnett Produced Water, and (D) bromide and landfill leachate. What is apparent
is that landfill leachate is an unlikely source of the impacts to WISETXGW01 and WISETXGW08.
153
-------
Retrospective Case Study in Wise County, Texas
May 2015
A summary of the source delineation analysis above is listed in Table 15. Again, it should be noted that
since site-specific data were not used for this source delineation analysis, the results are not a definitive
assessment as to which sources of contamination may be responsible for the observed impacts at
WISETXGW01 and WISETXGW08. However, based on the analysis conducted, the likely source for the
impacts observed in WISETXGW01 and WISETXGW08 was from brine because brine was implicated in
all of the analyses done. Although sea water and halite/road salt were also implicated (in 100% and 90%
of the analyses, respectively), these can be eliminated based on distance to the source and use. The
other two sources, animal waste and landfill leachate, which were implicated each in 20 % of the
analysis are also not likely and will be discussed next. As can be seen in Table 15, WISETXGW05 is more
difficult to eliminate potential sources based on the above analysis. This also will be discussed next.
Table 16 shows the actual calculated source contribution to the potentially impacted wells
(WISETXGW01, WISETXGW05, and WISETXGW08) using collected data from the study and using
conservative elements. Non conservative elements were not used because of their potential
interactions and reactions that could alter their concentrations and give erroneous mixing results.
Water from the Barnett Shale should not be inferred as the only potential brine source of
contamination, but this is the only case in which all the conservative elements had the data necessary to
perform the mixing calculations. Sea water is also not shown in Table 16, because of the unrealistic
distance to the nearest sea water source from Location B.
The chloride mixing indicated that for WISETXGW01, WISETXGW05, and WISETXGW08 that the Barnett
water yielded similar percentages (Table 16). For WISETXGW01 and WISETXGW08, using sewage/septic
tanks, landfill leachate, and animal waste as the end members in the mixing calculations showed
percentages of mixing that were not possible. For these sources, the mixing values would indicate that
WISETXGW01 and WISETXGW08 were more suited as sources rather than the result of mixing. As would
be expected from the analysis, halite/road salt water mixing with unimpacted Trinity aquifer water could
reasonably be a source for the observed impacts to WISETXGW01 and WISETXGW08. However, as has
been stated this is not a likely source for the observed impacts to WISETXGW01 and WISETXGW08.
Based on the percentages resulting from the mixing of sewage/septic tanks and animal waste with
background Trinity aquifer water, it is unlikely that these were the sources of the observed impacts to
WISETXGW05, since these would require the water to be more than 50% of these sources (Table 16). If
this were the case, then one would expect other parameters already discussed to also indicate an
impact to WISETXGW05, which was not the case. Again, for reasons already stated, it is unlikely that
halite/road salt would be the source of the observed impact to WISETXGW05. The only other potential
source which could have caused the observed impacts to WISETXGW05 was landfill leachate (Table 16).
The chloride mixing indicated that landfill leachate mixing with unimpacted Trinity aquifer water could
be a potential source for the observed impacts to WISETXGW05. Because of the lack of local hydrologic
information and the lack of source data for landfill leachate, a more definitive identification of the
source of the potential impacts observed for WISETXGW05 could not be made.
The mixing of bromide from the different sources with unimpacted Trinity aquifer water for
WISETXGW05 was similar to that of chloride (Table 16). Again, for bromide the only realistic potential
sources of the observed impacts to WISETXGW05 would be from brine or landfill leachate. As was the
case with chloride, additional work would need to be done to distinguish between these sources.
Similar to WISETXGW05, the only potential sources for the observed impacts to WISETXGW01 and
WISETXGW08 using bromide were brines and halite/road salt (Table 16). However, in the case of
154
-------
Retrospective Case Study in Wise County, Texas
May 2015
bromide, halite/road salt can be eliminated also because of the high percentages of halite/road salt that
would be needed to obtain the observed concentrations in WISETXGW01 and WISTXGW08. If
halite/road salt were the source, one would expect the chloride mixing percentages to be greater than
what was observed. In addition, the previously stated reasons why halite/road salt is not the likely
source would also be true for bromide mixing.
The last conservative element used in the mixing calculations was iodide (Table 16). There were no
iodide data collected for WISETXGW05, so iodide mixing could not be performed for WISETXGW05.
WISETXGW01 and WISETXGW08 iodide mixing showed similar results for most of the sources with the
exception of landfill leachate (Table 16). In the case of landfill leachate, the iodide mixing would
indicate that this was a potential source for the observed impacts to WISETXGW01 and WISETXGW08;
however, if this were the case, other parameters used in the source delineation analysis should also
have indicated that landfill leachate is a potential source of the impacts. The other parameters used in
the source delineation analysis did not implicate landfill leachate, so landfill leachate was not a likely
potential source of observed impacts to WISETXGW01 and WISETXGW08.
Based on the information presented in this section, there are several potential sources of the impacts
seen at Location B in this study. Water from the Barnett Shale or other brine formation waters was
indicated in most cases, especially for WISETXGW01 and WISETXGW08. Also, landfill leachates were
suspected as a potential source of the contamination at Location B; however, only at WISETXGW05 was
landfill leachate a realistic source for the observed impacts. Other potential contaminant sources were
suggested, but were not likely based on the totality of the analysis at Location B. Because of the lack of
monitoring well data and the limited literature data for the local potential source chemical composition,
confirmation of the potential sources responsible for the observed impacts could not be made.
155
-------
Retrospective Case Study in Wise County, Texas
May 2015
Table 15. Summary of source delineation analysis.
Well
Technique
Brine
Sea Water
Halite/Road
Salt
Landfill
Leachate
Sewage/Septic
Tank
Animal Waste

Bromide vs. Boron
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No

Chloride vs. Magnesium
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No

Chloride vs. Bromide
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes

Chloride vs. Bicarbonate
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No

Chloride vs. Calcium
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No

Chloride vs. Potassium
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
WISETXGW01
Chloride vs. Sodium
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No

Chloride vs. Sulfate
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No

CI/Br
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No

Cl/I
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes

K/Rb
Yes
Yes
No Data
No Data
No Data
No Data

Sr Isotope
Yes
No Data
No Data
No Data
No Data
No Data

Percentage Of Yes2
100
100
90
20
0
20

Bromide vs. Boron
No
No
No
No
No
No

Chloride vs. Magnesium
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes

Chloride vs Bromide
No
No
No
No
No
No

Chloride vs. Bicarbonate
No
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
WISETXGW05
Chloride vs. Calcium
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes

Chloride vs. Potassium
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes

Chloride vs. Sodium
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes

Chloride vs. Sulfate
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No

CI/Br
No
No
No
No
No
No
156
-------
Retrospective Case Study in Wise County, Texas
May 2015
Table 15. Summary of source delineation analysis.
Well
Technique
Brine
Sea Water
Halite/Road
Salt
Landfill
Leachate
Sewage/Septic
Tank
Animal Waste

Cl/I
No Data
No Data
No Data
No Data
No Data
No Data

K/Rb
Yes
Yes
No Data
No Data
No Data
No Data

Sr Isotope
Yes
No Data
No Data
No Data
No Data
No Data

Percentage Of Yes2
45
30
22
33
44
46

Bromide vs. Boron
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No

Chloride vs. Magnesium
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No

Chloride vs. Bromide
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes

Chloride vs. Bicarbonate
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No

Chloride vs. Calcium
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No

Chloride vs. Potassium
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
WISETXGW08
Chloride vs. Sodium
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No

Chloride vs. Sulfate
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No

CI/Br
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No

Cl/I
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes

K/Rb
Yes
Yes
No Data2
No Data2
No Data
No Data

Sr Isotope
Yes
No Data
No Data
No Data
No Data
No Data

Percentage Of Yes2
100
100
90
20
0
20
1	Although there was no data for the other sources, the analysis done for brine sources is consistent with brines as a source of the observed impacts (see Figure 50
and the discussion in the "Source Identification" section of this report).
2	K/Rb and Sr isotope data were not found in the literature for these sources.
3	If data was not available and where data was not available they used for the calculations of the percentage of yes in this table.
157
-------
Retrospective Case Study in Wise County, Texas
May 2015
Table 16. Mixing percentages using conservative elements for the impacted wells WISETXGW01, WISETXGW05,
and WISETXGW08 for the different sources. The mixing calculations used site-specific background and the
listed sources as end members in the calculations.
Source
WISETXGW01 Range (%)
WISETXGW05 Range (%)
WISETXGW08 Range (%)
Chloride
Barnett
0.4-1.5
0.3
0.5-1.2
Sewage/Septic Tank
937 - 3467
59-69
1056 - 2846
Halite/Road Salt
1.1-4.2
0.07 - 0.08
1.3-3.5
Landfill Leachate
206 - 770
13-15
232-627
Animal Waste
1507 - 5626
94 -110
1698 - 4580
Bromide
Barnett
0.2-1.5
0.02 - 0.03
0.3-0.8
Sewage/Septic Tank
13500 - 2230
280 - 2440
6980 - 2440
Halite/Road Salt
44 - 264
3-5
48 -136
Landfill Leachate
89 - 536
6-11
97 - 278
Animal Waste
223000 - 1350000
1500 - 28000
244000 - 698000
Iodide
Barnett
0.09-0.38

0.11 - 0.16
Sewage/Septic Tank
11384-2613

4674 - 3352
Halite/Road Salt
7.8-34

10-14
Landfill Leachate
18-77

23-32
Animal Waste
313-1363

401 - 559
158
-------
Retrospective Case Study in Wise County, Texas
May 2015
8. Summary of Case Study Results
The Wise County Retrospective Case Study was conducted at three locations in north-central Texas
where both conventional and unconventional gas production is currently occurring and has occurred in
the past. Currently, unconventional gas production occurs in the Mississippian-aged Barnett Shale. The
Barnett Shale extends throughout the Bend Arch-Fort Worth Basin (formed during the Mississippian age
320 to 360 million years ago), which extends south from the Muenster Arch, near the Oklahoma border,
to the Llano Uplift in Burnet County, and west from the Ouachita Thrust Front, near Dallas, to Taylor
County. Gas production from the Barnett Shale depends upon recent advances in horizontal drilling and
hydraulic fracturing technologies to enhance and create fracture porosity, permeability, and gas flow.
Water-quality samples were collected from 16 domestic wells and four surface water bodies at three
locations in Wise County (Locations A, B, and C). The study wells sampled in Wise County were screened
primarily in the Trinity aquifer; the one exception was a well that was screened in an alluvial deposit.
Two primary water types are found in Wise County although other water types are occasionally
identified: calcium-bicarbonate and sodium-bicarbonate. These water types divide Wise County into
two distinct regions along a line running from the northeast to the southwest. Calcium-bicarbonate
waters are located north of this line, with sodium-bicarbonate waters to the south. This water quality
trend is consistent with the reported geology of the Trinity aquifer (the aquifer in the northern portion
of the county comprised of the Paluxy and the Twin Mountains Formations and the aquifer in the
southern portion of the county comprised of the Paluxy, Glen Rose, and Twin Mountains formations).
Other water types presented in historical databases appear to be randomly distributed throughout Wise
County, suggesting that there may be local-scale differences in ground water chemistry (or potentially,
impacted wells are in these databases), suggesting water quality should be evaluated on a local scale,
not using the countywide data.
Table 17 summarizes the potential ground water impacts identified during this study. It should be noted
that there were limitations to the source delineation analysis that was conducted: for several of the
potential sources of contamination, literature data were used for the composition of the source fluids,
and the exclusion of potential sources in Table 17 is not definitive.
Table 17. Summary of the potential ground water impacts identified during this study.
Parameter
Study
Location
Sample
Type
Impacted
/ Total
Description1
Potential Sources
Chloride
B
Ground
water
2/102
Detections ranged from
34.6 to 1970 mg/L;
Secondary MCL
exceedances; Elevated
concentrations compared
to site-specific background
Brines
Specific
Conductivity
B
Ground
water
2/10
Detections ranged from
712 to 6614 |aS/cm;
Elevated concentrations
compared to site-specific
background
Brines
159
-------
Retrospective Case Study in Wise County, Texas
May 2015
Table 17. Summary of the potential ground water impacts identified during this study.
Parameter
Study
Location
Sample
Type
Impacted
/ Total
Description1
Potential Sources
Calcium
B
Ground
water
3/103
Detections ranged from
2.10 to 135 mg/L; Elevated
concentrations compared
to site-specific background
Brines; Landfill Leachate
(WISETXGW05 only)
Potassium
B
Ground
water
2/10
Detections ranged from
0.93 to 10.1 mg/L;
Elevated concentrations
compared to site-specific
background
Brines
Magnesium
B
Ground
water
2/103
Detections ranged from
0.75 to 61.4 mg/L;
Elevated concentrations
compared to site-specific
background
Brines; Landfill Leachate
(WISETXGW05 only)
Sodium
B
Ground
water
2/10
Detections ranged from
140 to 1200 mg/L;
Elevated concentrations
compared to site-specific
background
Brines
Bromide
B
Ground
water
2/102
Detections ranged from
0.10 to 13.7 mg/L;
Elevated concentrations
compared to site-specific
background
Brines
Iodide
B
Ground
water
2/10
Detections ranged from
15.1 to 368 ng/L; Elevated
concentrations compared
to site-specific background
Brines
Strontium
B
Ground
water
3/103
Detections ranged from
223 to 13900 ng/L;
Elevated concentrations
compared to site-specific
background
Brines; Landfill Leachate
(WISETXGW05 only)
Barium
B
Ground
water
2/104
Detections ranged from 7
to 132 ng/L; Elevated
concentrations compared
to site-specific background
Brines; Landfill Leachate
(WISETXGW05 only)
2
Based on data presented in the Site-Specific Focus Area- Location B section of the report. Detection ranges are actual ranges
found in the study data for Location B.
2	Sampling Locations: WISETXGW01 and WISETXGW08.
3	Sampling Locations: WISETXGW01, WISETXGW05, and WISETXGW08.
4	Sampling Locations: WISETXGW01 and WISETXGW05.
Water quality data (major anions and cations, SpC, barium, boron, bromide, and iodide) were evaluated
to understand brine impacts on drinking water resources. Limited differences were seen at Location A
when comparing current data with historical data on countywide and 3-mile radius scales. In general,
Location C results were similar to those at Location A. Differences in parameters could be explained by
local variations in ground water and do not suggest any specific source. However, at Location B,
160
-------
Retrospective Case Study in Wise County, Texas
May 2015
differences in several parameters (chloride, SpC, calcium, potassium, magnesium, sodium, bromide,
iodide, and strontium) were observed, most notably chloride and SpC in comparative and time-trend
analyses. Water quality data for wells WISETXGW01 and WISETXGW08 always exceeded the chloride
SMCL. This information prompted the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality to notify local
homeowners in the vicinity of Location B of chloride SMCL exceedances (Appendix D).
Dissolved gases were detected at study Locations A, B, and C, and most of the detections (64%) were of
methane. The methane concentrations in ground water ranged from 0.0007 to 0.0242 mg/L, with a
median concentration of 0.0016 mg/L. These low-level concentrations of methane could not be linked
to any particular source, because the concentrations were generally too low for isotopic analysis.
Methane concentrations are likely background methane concentrations that exist in the aquifer, based
on a published report by Zhang et al. (1998). Zhang et al. (1998) reported that methane concentrations
in the Trinity Aquifer south of Wise County ranged from 0.0144 to 0.0347 mg/L.
The extensive analysis of organic chemicals was conducted to evaluate the potential occurrence of
chemicals generally documented as components of hydraulic fracturing fluids in ground water and
surface water. Low-level detections of VOCs, SVOCs, and DROs in surface water were observed at some
locations during some of the sampling rounds. When detected, concentrations of organic compounds
did not exceed EPA's drinking water standards, and there were no repeat detections of organic
chemicals known to be associated with the hydraulic fracturing at any sampling location. Glycol ethers
and GROs were not detected in any ground water or surface water samples.
Most of the trace elements (with exception of arsenic, iron, and manganese) were not detectable or
were detected at very low concentrations. Similar results were seen in historical databases. Arsenic,
iron, and manganese concentrations were similar to concentrations expected in the ground water,
based on the historical information. SMCL exceedances for iron and manganese are likely due to local
conditions in the aquifer, which again is supported by historical data.
The elevated concentrations of brine components in WISETXGW01 and WISETXGW08 compared with
historical data indicates that a potential impact may have occurred at study Location B. This prompted a
more detailed site-specific evaluation of Location B. Based on data from this study and site-specific
background information, it was determined that two wells at Location B (WISETXGW01 and
WISETXGW08) were potentially impacted by a brine source. Additionally, water quality results for
samples from well WISETXGW05 were significantly different than the site-specific background data for a
limited set of parameters. This too suggests that the well may have been impacted. Identifying the
source(s) of contamination was problematic because of limited site-specific information on the
composition of source fluids and by the very limited understanding of the local hydrology at study
Location B. However, several sources of potential contamination were identified. These sources are
formation brines, such as water from the Barnett Shale, water from the Boonesville Bend Conglomerate,
and water from other formations based on USGS Produced Water database (WISETXGW01,
WISETXGW05, and WISETXGW08); landfill leachate (WISETXGW05), based on limited literature data
from the United States; and halite/road salt (WISETXGW01, WISETXGW05, and WISETXGW08), based on
limited literature data from the United States. Landfill leachate was not indicated as a potential source
for WISETXGW01 and WISETXGW08; and halite/road salt is a very unlikely source for the observed
impacts at study Location B. The source of the brine contamination in WISETXGW01 and WISETXGW08
is not known; however, there are several potential pathways by which brine impacts could occur (no
161
-------
Retrospective Case Study in Wise County, Texas
May 2015
implied order of importance): brine migrating from underlying formations along current and historical
well bores; brine migrating from underlying formations along natural fractures; leaks from the reserve
pits and/or impoundments; and brine migrating from a nearby brine injection well.
Key observations or findings from this study are listed below.
•	Comparisons of study data with historical data showed no apparent impacts on groundwater at
two of the three study locations.
•	In the third study location, three study wells were identified as impacted. Comparison of study
data with historical data revealed two wells were impacted based on differences in several
parameters, most notably chloride and specific conductivity. There were also differences noted
in calcium, potassium, magnesium, sodium, bromide, iodide, and strontium. A more detailed
investigation using site-specific background data indicated that a third well was also impacted.
•	VOCs were detected in up to 6% of the study samples at concentrations below EPA drinking
water standards. There were no detections of glycol ethers and no repeated detections in any
sample of organic chemicals known to be associated with hydraulic fracturing. Consequently,
the potential source(s) of the observed organic compounds could not be identified.
•	Dissolved methane was detected in 64% of the study wells at concentrations ranging from
0.0007 to 0.0242 mg/L. Methane concentrations observed during the study were consistent
with background methane concentrations in the Trinity aquifer south of Wise County (0.0144 to
0.0347 mg/L).
•	Iron and manganese were detected at concentrations above the EPA's secondary maximum
contamination level (SMCL). The iron, manganese, and arsenic levels detected in the study
samples were consistent with naturally occurring sources and the historical ground water data.
•	Chloride was detected in two study wells at concentrations that exceeded the chloride SMCL by
a factor of 2.2 to 7.9 times.
•	Based on the screening of potential sources of impacts, formation brines were the only source
that was consistent with the observed impacts on two of the study wells. In the third impacted
well, the screening indicated two potential sources exist for the impact observed, brines and
landfill leachate. However, the evaluation of the potential source or sources of the impact was
limited based on a lack of available site-specific data. Site-specific data were available only for
formation brines, while literature data were used for other potential sources of impacts. This
limited the capability of geochemical fingerprinting and determining a definitive source of the
impacts.
162
-------
Retrospective Case Study in Wise County, Texas
May 2015
References
Alpha Environmental Consultants, Inc. (2009). Technical consulting reports prepared in support of the
draft supplemental generic environmental impact statement for natural gas production in New York
State. Report for: New York State Energy Research and Development Authority, 352 pp.
Baker, B., Duffin, G., Flores, R., and Lynch, T. (1990). Evaluation of Water Resources in Part of North-
Central Texas. Texas Water Development Board, Report 318, 67 pp.
Ball, M.M. and Perry, W.J. (1996). Bend Arch-Fort Worth Basin Province (045). In National Assessment of
United States Oil and Gas Resources - Results, Methodology, and Supporting Data, edited by D.L.
Gautier, G.L. Dolton, K.I. Takahashi, and K.L. Varnes.
Battelle (2013). Wise and Denton County Retrospective Case Study Characterization Report. Submitted
to American Petroleum Institute and America's Natural Gas Alliance (Battelle Contract No.
CON00011206), 124 pp.
Beak, D.G. (2013). Hydraulic Fracturing Retrospective Case Study, Wise Co., TX, Rev. 5. GWERD Quality
Assurance Project Plan, (dated October 21, 2013), 113 pp. Available at:
http://www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/documents/barnett-qapp.pdf.
Bisidas, L. (2011). Personal communication to Mike Overbay and Doug Beak. July 1, 2011.
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.
Bruner, K.R. and Smosna, R. (2011). A Comparative Study of the Mississippian Barnett Shale, Fort Worth
Basin, and Devonian Marcellus Shale, Appalachian Basin. Report submitted to the U.S. Department of
Energy, National Energy Technology Laboratory. DOE/NETL-2011-1478, 118 pp.
Cai, C., Franks, S.G., and Aagaard, P. (2001). Origin and migration of brines from Paleozoic strata in
Central Tarim, China: Constraints from 87Sr/86Sr, 6D, 6lsO and water chemistry. Applied Geochemistry, v.
16, p. 1269-1284.
Carnegie, D. and Ramsay, J.A. (2009). Anaerobic ethylene glycol degradation by microorganisms in
poplar and willow rhizospheres. Biodegradation, v. 20, p. 551-558.
Chapman, E.C., Capo, R.C., Stewart, B.W., Kirby, C.S., Hammack, R.W., Schroeder, K.T., 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.
Chaudhuri, S., and Clauer, N. (1993). Strontium isotopic compositions and potassium and rubidium
contents of formation waters in sedimentary basins: Clues to the origin of the solutes. Geochimica et
Cosmochimica Acta, v. 157, p. 429-437.
Chaudhuri, S., and Ale, S. (2013). Characterization of groundwater resources in the Trinity and
Woodbine aquifers in Texas. Science of the Total Environment, v. 452-453, p. 333-348.
163
-------
Retrospective Case Study in Wise County, Texas
May 2015
Craig, H. (1961). Standard for reporting concentrations of deuterium and oxygen-18 in natural water.
Science, v. 133, p. 1833-1834.
Da Silva, M.L., Gomez, D.E., and Alvarez, P.J. (2013). Analytical model for BTEX natural attenuation in the
presence of fuel ethanol and its anaerobic metabolite acetate. Journal of Contaminant Hydrology, v.
146, p. 1-7.
Davis, S.N., Whittemore, D.O., and Fabryka-Martin, J. (1998). Uses of CI/Br ratios in studies of potable
water. Ground Water, v. 36, p. 338-350.
Douglas, J.G. (2012). Volatile organic compound contamination in groundwater samples and field
blanks. Prepared by CH2MHill for the U.S. Department of Energy, SGW-52194, 53 pp.
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.
Dwyer, D.F. and Tiedje, J.M. (1986). Metabolism of polyethylene glycol by two anaerobic bacteria,
Desulfovibrio desulfuricans and a Bacteroides sp. Applied and Environmental Microbiology, v. 52, p. 852-
856.
Eby, G.N. (2004). Principles of Environmental Geochemistry. Thomson-Brooks/Cole, Cengage Learning,
Belmont.
England, B.J. (2013). Wise County in the Handbook of Texas. Available at:
(http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/hcwl4). Accessed on November 6, 2013.
Faure, G. and Mensing, T.M. (2005). Isotopes: Principles and Applications, 3rd Edition. John Wiley & Sons
Inc., Hoboken.
Faye, S., Maloszewski, P., Stichler, W., Trimbron, P., Faye, S.C., and Gaye, C.B. (2005). Groundwater
salinization in the Saloum (Senegal) delta aquifer: minor elements and isotopic indicators. Science of the
Total Environment, v. 343, p. 243-259.
Fontenot, B.E., Hunt, L.R., Hildenbrand, Z.L., Carlton Jr., D.D., Oka, H., Walton, J.L., Hopkins, D., Osorio,
A., Bjorndal, B., Hu, Q.H., and Schug, K.A. (2013). An evaluation of water quality in private drinking water
wells near natural gas extraction sites in the Barnett Shale Formation. Environmental Science and
Technology, v. 47, p. 10032-10040.
Freeman, J.T. (2007). The use of bromide and chloride mass ratios to differentiate salt-dissolution and
formation brines in shallow groundwaters of the Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin. Hydrogeology
Journal, v. 15, p. 1377-1385.
Griffiths, W.C., Camara, P., and Lerner, K.S. (1985). Bis-(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate, an ubiquitous
environmental contaminant. Annals of Clinical and Laboratory Science, v. 15, p. 140-151.
Guerrero, J.S., Skaggs, T.H., and van Genuchten, M.T. (2010). Analytical solution for multi-species
contaminant transport in finite media with time-varying boundary conditions. Transport in Porous
Media, v. 85, p. 171-188.
164
-------
Retrospective Case Study in Wise County, Texas
May 2015
GWPC and ALL Consulting. (2009). Modern shale gas development in the United States: A primer.
Prepared for U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Fossil Energy and National Energy Technology
Laboratory, 161 pp.
Harkness, J.S., Dwyer, G.S., Warner, N.R., Parker, K.M., Mitch, W.A., and Vehgosh, A. (2015). Iodide,
bromide, and ammonium in hydraulic fracturing and oil and gas wastewaters: Environmental impacts.
Environmental Science and Technology, v. 49, p. 1955-1963.
Hounslow, A. (1995). Water Quality Data: Analysis and Interpretation. Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton.
Howard, K.W. and Beck, P.J. (1993). Hydrogeochemical implications of groundwater contamination by
road de-icing chemicals. Journal of Contaminant Hydrology, v. 12, p. 245-268.
Hudak, P.F,. and Blanchard, S. (1997). Land use and groundwater quality in the Trinity Group outcrop of
North-central Texas, USA. Environment International, v. 23, p. 507-517.
Hudak, P.F., and Wachal, D.J. (2001). Effects of brine injection wells, dry holes, and plugged oil/gas wells
on chloride, bromide, and barium concentrations in the Gulf Coast Aquifer, southeast Texas,
USA. Environment international, v. 26, p. 497-503.
Hudak, P.F. (2003). Oil production and groundwater quality in the Edwards-Trinity Plateau Aquifer,
Texas. The Scientific World Journal, v. 3, p. 1147-1153.
Hudak, P.F. (2012). Nitrate and chloride concentrations in groundwater beneath a portion of the Trinity
Group Outcrop Zone, Texas. International Journal of Environmental Research, v. 6, p. 663-668.
J0rgensen, N.O., Andersen, M.S., and Engesgaard, P. (2008). Investigation of a dynamic seawater
intrusion event using strontium isotopes (87Sr/86Sr). Journal of Hydrology, v. 348, p. 257-269.
Katz, B.G., Eberts, S.M., and Kauffman, L.J. (2011). Using CI/Br ratios and other indicators to assess
potential impacts on groundwater quality from septic systems: A review and examples from principal
aquifers in the United States. Journal of Hydrology, v. 397, p. 151-166.
Kell, S. (2011). State Oil and Gas Agency Groundwater Investigations And Their Role in Advancing
Regulatory Reforms A Two-State Review: Ohio and Texas. Submitted to the Ground Water Protection
Council. 165p.
Leonard, A.R. and Ward, P.E. (1962). Use of Na/CI ratios to distinguish oil-field from salt-spring brines in
Western Oklahoma. U.S. Geological Survey Professional Papers, v. 450, p. B126-B127.
Lloyd, J.W., Howard, K.W.F., Pacey, N.R., and Tellam, J.H. (1982). The value of iodide as a parameter in
the chemical characterization of groundwaters. Journal of Hydrology, v. 57, p. 247-265.
Ma, F., Yang, Y.S., Yaun, R., Cai, Z., and Pan, S. (2007). Study of shallow groundwater quality evolution
under saline intrusion with environmental isotopes and geochemistry. Environmental Geology, v. 51, p.
1009-1017.
Matschullat, J., Ottenstein, R., and Reimann, C. (2000). Geochemical background-can we calculate it?
Environmental Geology, v. 39, p. 990-1000.
165
-------
Retrospective Case Study in Wise County, Texas
May 2015
Miller, D.M. (2015). Frequency of positive results in laboratory method blanks. In PA Brownfields
Conference, May 13-15, 2015, Erie, PA.
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_lc.php. Accessed on October 25, 2013
NETL (2013). Modern Shale Gas Development in the United States: An Update. Prepared by: National
Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL) Strategic Center for Natural Gas and Oil, 79 pp.
Nordstrom, P.L. (1982). Occurrence, Availability, and Chemical Quality of Ground Water in the
Cretaceous Aquifers of North-Central Texas, Volume 1. Texas Department of Water Resources, Report
269, 61 pp.
Olayiwola, R.O., Jimoh, R.O., Yusuf, A., and Abubakar, S. (2013). A mathematical study of contaminant
transport with first-order decay and time-dependent source concentration in an aquifer. Universal
Journal of Applied Mathematics, v. 1, p. 112-119.
Osborn, S.G., Mcintosh, J.C., Hanor, J.S., and Biddulph, D. (2012). lodine-129, 87Sr/86Sr, and Trace
Elemental Geochemistry of Northern Appalachian Basin Brines: Evidence For Basinal-Scale Fluid
Migration and Clay Mineral Diagenesis. American Journal of Science, v. 312, p. 263-287.
Panno, S.V., Hackley, K.C., Hwang, H.H., Greenberg, S., Krapac, I.G., Landsberger, S., and O'Kelly, D. J.
(2005).	Database for the characterization and identification of the sources of sodium and chloride in
natural waters of Illinois, Illinois State Geological Survey. Open File Series 2005-1. Available at:
http://www.isgs.uiuc.edu/
Panno, S.V., Hackley, K.C., Hwang, H.H., Greenberg, S.E., Krapac, I.G., Landsberger, S., and O'Kelly, D.J.
(2006).	Characterization and identification of Na-CI sources in ground water. Groundwater, v. 44, p. 176-
187.
Perez Guerrero, J.S., Pontedeiro, E.M., van Genuchten, M.T., and Skaggs, T.H. (2013). Analytical solutions
of the one-dimensional advection-dispersion solute transport equation subject to time-dependent
boundary conditions. Chemical Engineering Journal, v. 221, p. 487-491.
Peterman, I.E., Thamke, J.N., Futa, K., and Oliver, T.A. (2010). Strontium isotope detection of brine
contamination in the East Poplar Oil Field, Montana. U.S. Geological Survey. Open-File Report 2010-
1326, 20 pp.
Peterman, I.E., 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.
Railroad Commission of Texas (TRRC) (2013). Gas Well Counts by County as of February 2013. Available
at: http://www.rrc.state.tx.us/data/wells/wellcount/gaswellct022013.pdf. Last accessed on November
8, 2013.
166
-------
Retrospective Case Study in Wise County, Texas
May 2015
Rasa, E., Bekins, S3.A., Mackay, D.M., Sieyes, N.R., Wilson, J.T., Feris, K.P., Wood, I.A., and Scow, K.M.
(2013). Impacts of an ethanol-blended fuel release on groundwater and fate of produced methane:
Simulation of field observations. Water Resources Research, v. 49, p. 4907-4926.
Reimann, C., Filzmoser, P., Garrett, R., and Dutter, R. (2008). Statistical Data Analysis Explained. John
Wiley & Sons, West Sussex, UK.
Renken, R.A. (1998). Ground water atlas of the United States: Oklahoma, Texas, Edwards Trinity Aquifer
System. U.S. Geologic Survey Hydrologic Atlas HA 730-E.
Reutter, D.C. and Dunn, D.D. (2000). Water-Quality Assessment of the Trinity River Basin, Texas-
Ground-Water Quality of the Trinity, Carrizo-Wilcox and Gulf Coast Aquifers, February-August 1994. U.S.
Geological Survey, Water-Resources Investigations Report 99-4233, 64 pp.
RSKSOP-211v3 (2009a). Field Analytical QA/QC, 4 pp.
RSKSOP-213v4 (2009b). Standard Operating Procedure for Operation of Perkin Elmer Optima 3300 DV
ICP-OES, 22 pp.
RSKSOP-223v2 (2009c). Determination of Iodide in Water Samples Using 0.2 M Potassium Hydroxide
Carrier with Lachat Flow Injection Analysis, 11 pp.
RSKSOP-175v5 (2010a). Sample Preparation and Calculations for Dissolved Gas Analysis in Water
Samples Using a GC Headspace Equilibration Technique, 33 pp.
RSKSOP-194v4 (2010b). Gas Analysis by Micro Gas Chromatograph (Agilent Micro 3000), 13 pp.
RSKSOP-214v5 (2010c). Quality Control Procedures for General Parameters Analyses using the Lachat
Flow Injection Analyses (FIA), 10 pp.
RSKSOP-112v6 (2011a). Standard Operating Procedure for Quantitative Analysis of Low Molecular
Weight Acids in Aqueous Samples by HPLC, 22 pp.
RSKSOP-330vO (2011b). Determination of Various Fractions of Carbon in Aqueous Samples Using the
Shimadzu TOC-VCPH Analyzer, 15 pp.
RSKSOP-334vO (2011c). Determination of Stable Hydrogen and Oxygen Isotope Ratios in Water Samples
using a Picarro L2120i Cavity Ring-Down Spectrometer (CRDS), 30 pp.
RSKSOP-276v4 (2012a). Determination of Major Anions in Aqueous Samples Using Capillary Ion
Electrophoresis with Indirect UV Detection and Empower 2 Software, 11 pp.
RSKSOP-288v3 (2012b). Determination of Major Anions in the Presence of High Levels of Chloride and/or
Sulfate in Aqueous Samples using Capillary Ion Electrophoresis, 13 pp.
Standard Method 3500-Fe B Fe Iron (Colorimetric). Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and
Wastewater.
Standard Method 4500-S2~D for Wastewater. Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and
Wastewater.
167
-------
Retrospective Case Study in Wise County, Texas
May 2015
Sanchez-Martos, F., Pulido-Bosch, A., Molina-Sanchez, L., and Vallejos-lzquierdo, A. (2002). Identification
of the origin of salinization in groundwater using minor ions (Lower Andarax, Southeast Spain). Science
of the Total Environment, v. 297, p. 43-58.
Schumacher, B.A. and Zintek, L. (2014). The inter laboratory verification of diethylene glycol, triethylene
glycol, trietheylene glycol, tetraethylene glycol, 2-butoxyethanol and 2-methoxyethanol in ground and
surface waters by liquid chromatography/tandem mass spectrometry, EPA Report, EPA/600/R-14.
January 2014.
Scott, G. and Armstrong, J.M. (1932). The Stratigraphy of the Trinity Division as Exhibited in Parker
County, Texas. The University Of Texas Bulletin, v. 3001, p. 37-52.
Stoessell, R.K. (1997). Delineating the chemical composition of the salinity source for saline ground
waters: An example from East-Central Concordia Parish, Louisiana. Ground Water, v. 35, p. 409-417.
Szynkiewicz, A., Medina, M.R., Modelska, M., Monreal, R., and Pratt, L.M. (2008). Sulfur isotopic study of
sulfate in the aquifer of Costa de Hermosillo (Sonora, Mexico) in relation to upward intrusion of saline
groundwater, irrigation pumping and land cultivation. Applied Geochemistry, v. 23, p. 2539-2558.
Texas Water Development Board (TXWDB) (2013a). Ground Water Database Reports. Available at:
http://www.twdb.state.tx.us/groundwater/data/index.asp
Texas Water Development Board (2013b). Ground Water Database Reports. Available at:
http://www.twdb.state.tx.us/groundwater/data/gwdbrpt.asp#W
U.S. Census Bureau (2013). Table 1. Residence County to Workplace County Flows for the United States
and Puerto Rico Sorted by Residence Geography: 2006-2010. Available at:
http://www.census.gov/population/metro/data/other.html. Last accessed on November 6, 2013.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) Method 360.1 (1971). Oxygen, Dissolved (Membrane
Electrode), 2 pp.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Method 170.1 (1974). Temperature, 1 pp.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Method 310.1 (1978a). Alkalinity (Titrimetric, pH 4.5), 3 pp.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Method 353.1 (1978b). Nitrogen, Nitrate-Nitrite (Colorimetric,
Automated, Hydrazine Reduction), 5 pp.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Method 120.1 (1982a). Conductance (Specific Conductance,
umhos at 25°C), 3 pp.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Method 150.2 (1982b). pH, Continuous Monitoring
(Electrometric), 3 pp.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1988). Guidance for Conducting Remedial Investigations and
Feasibility Studies under CERCLA. EPA/540/G-89/004. OSWER Directive 93555.3-01.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1989). RCRA Facility Investigation (RFI) Guidance, Development
of an RFI work plan and general considerations for RCRA Facility Investigations, Volume 1. EPA 530/SW-
89-031.
168
-------
Retrospective Case Study in Wise County, Texas
May 2015
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (1992). Guidance for data usability in risk assessment (Part A).
Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, 9285.7-09A.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Method 180.1 (1993a). Determination of Turbidity by
Nephelometry, 10 pp.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Method 350.1 (1993b). Determination of Ammonia Nitrogen by
Semi-Automated Colorimetry, 15 pp.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Method 200.7 (1994a). Determination of Metals and Trace
Elements in Water and Wastes by Inductively Coupled Plasma-Atomic Emission Spectrometry, 58 pp.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Method 7470A (1994b). Mercury in Liquid Waste (Manual Cold-
Vapor Technique), 6 pp.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1995). Establishing Background Levels. EPA/540/F-94/030.
OSWER 9285.7-19FS.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Method 8015B (1996a). Nonhalogenated Organics Using GC/FID,
28 pp.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Method 8260B (1996b). Volatile Organic Compounds by Gas
Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry (GC/MS), 86 pp.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2000a). Stressor Identification Guidance Document. Office of
Water. Office of Research and Development. National Exposure Research Laboratory.
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.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Method 5021A (2003). Volatile Organic Compounds in Various
Sample Matrices Using Equilibrium Headspace Analysis, 25 pp.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Method 9060a (2004). Total Organic Carbon, 5 pp.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Method 6020A (2007a). Inductively Coupled Plasma-Mass
Spectrometry, 30 pp.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Method 6500 (2007b). Dissolved Inorganic Anions in Aqueous
Matrices by Capillary Ion Electrophoresis, 37 pp.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Method 8270D (2007c). Semivolatile Organic Compounds by Gas
Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry (GC/MS), 72 pp.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2009). National Drinking Water Contaminants. Available at:
http://water.epa.gov/drink/contaminants/.
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
169
-------
Retrospective Case Study in Wise County, Texas
May 2015
Relationships Between Hydraulic Fracturing and Drinking Water Resources. In: Federal Register 75, No.
052, p. 13125. March 28, 2010.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2010b). Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology
Innovation, USEPA Contract Laboratory Program: National Functional Guidelines for Inorganic Superfund
Data Review. EPA/540/R-10/11
(http://www.epa.eov/superfund/programs/clp/download/ism/ismlnfg.pdf).
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2010c). ProUCL version 4.1 user guide: Statistical software for
environmental applications for data sets with and without non-detect 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.
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.
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.
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) (2002). National Produced Waters Geochemical Database. U.S
Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey. Available at:
http://energy.cr.usgs.gov/prov/prodwat/. Last accessed on July 2013.
U.S. Geological Survey (2004). Assessment of Undiscovered Oil and Gas Resources of the Bend Arch-Fort
Worth Basin Province of North-Central Texas and Southwestern Oklahoma. U.S. Department of the
Interior, U.S. Geological Survey Fact Sheet 2004-3022.
U.S. Geological Survey (2011). What is the USGS National Water Data for the Nation Site, http://
help.waterdata.usgs.gov/faq/about-the-usgs-water-data-for-the-nation-site
U.S. Geological Survey (2012a). The National Land Cover Database. Available online at:
http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2012/3020/fs2012-302Q.pdf. Last accessed on October 25, 2013.
U.S. Geological Survey (2012b). Geochemistry of water samples in the US from the NURE-HSSR
database. Available at: http://mrdata.usgs.gov/nure/water/
U.S. Geological Survey (2013a). National Water Information System. Available at:
http://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis. Last accessed on July 11, 2013.
U.S. Geological Survey (2013b). National Uranium Resource Evaluation. Available at:
http://mrdata.usgs.gov/nure/water/. Last accessed July 24, 2013.
U.S. House of Representatives (2011). Chemicals Used in Hydraulic Fracturing. Prepared for: United
States House of Representative Committee on Energy and Commerce Minority Staff. Washington D.C.
Veil et al., J.A., Puder, M.G., Elcock, D., and Redweik Jr, R.J. (2004). A white paper describing produced
water from production of crude oil, natural gas, and coal bed methane. Prepared by Argonne National
Laboratory for the U.S. Department of Energy, National Energy Technology Laboratory. Contract W-31-
109-Eng-38.
170
-------
Retrospective Case Study in Wise County, Texas
May 2015
Vengosh, A. and Pankratov, I. (1998). Chloride/bromide and chloride/fluoride ratios of domestic sewage
effluents and associated contaminated ground water. Groundwater, v. 36, p. 815-824.
Warner, N.R., R.B. Jackson, T.H. Darrah, S.G. Osborn, A. Down, K. Zhao, A. White, and A. Vengosh.
(2012). Geochemical evidence for possible natural migration of Marcellus Formation brine to shallow
aquifers in Pennsylvania. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, v. 109, p. 11961-11966.
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. USEPA, Office of Research and
Development, National Risk Management Research Laboratory. EPA/600/R-04/1790.
Wilson, J.T. and Adair, C. (2007). Monitored natural attenuation of tertiary butyl alcohol (TBA) in ground
water at gasoline spill sites. USEPA, Office of Research and Development, National Risk Management
Research Laboratory. EPA/600/R-07/100.
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR). (2002). Problems associated with bis(2-
ethylhexyl)phthalate detections in groundwater monitoring wells. Publication WA 1011, Rev. 2002, 5 pp.
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-02/001.
Zhang, C., Grossman, E.L., Ammerman, J.W. (1998). Factors influencing methane distribution in Texas
Ground water. Ground Water, v.36, p. 58-66.
171
-------
Appendix A QA/QC Summary, Retrospective Case Study in Wise County, Texas
May 2015
Appendix A
QA/QC Summary
Retrospective Case Study in Wise County, Texas
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Research and Development
Washington, DC
May 2015
EPA/600/R-14/090
-------
Appendix A QA/QC Summary, Retrospective Case Study in Wise County, Texas
May 2015
Table of Contents
Table of Contents	A-2
List of Tables	A-4
A.l. Introduction	A-6
A.1.1. September 2011 Sampling Event	A-6
A.l.2. March 2012 Sampling Event	A-6
A.l.3. September 2012 Sampling Event	A-7
A.l.4. December 2012 Sampling Event	A-7
A.l.5. May 2013 Sampling Event	A-7
A.2. Chain of Custody	A-8
A.2.1. September 2011 Sampling	A-8
A.2.2. March 2012 Sampling	A-8
A.2.3. September 2012 Sampling	A-8
A.2.4. December 2012 Sampling	A-8
A.2.5. May 2013 Sampling	A-8
A.3. Holding Times	A-8
A.3.1. September 2011 Sampling	A-9
A.3.2. March 2012 Sampling	A-9
A.3.3. September 2012 Sampling	A-9
A.3.4. December 2012 Sampling	A-9
A.3.5. May 2013 Sampling	A-9
A.4. Blank Samples Collected During Sampling	A-9
A.4.1. September 2011 sampling	A-10
A.4.2. March 2012 sampling	A-ll
A.4.3. September 2012 Sampling	A-12
A.4.4. December 2012 Sampling	A-12
A.4.5. May 2013 sampling event	A-13
A.5. Field Duplicate Samples	A-14
A.5.1. September 2011 sampling event	A-14
A.5.2. March 2012 Sampling Event	A-14
A.5.3. September 2012 Sampling Event	A-14
A-2
-------
Appendix A QA/QC Summary, Retrospective Case Study in Wise County, Texas
May 2015
A.5.4. December 2012 Sampling Event	A-15
A.5.5. May 2013 Sampling Event	A-15
A.6. Laboratory QA/QC Results and Data Usability Summary	A-15
A.7. Double-lab Comparisons	A-15
A.8. Performance Evaluation Samples	A-15
A.9. QAPP Additions and Deviations	A-16
A.9.1. September 2011 Sampling Event	A-16
A.9.2. March 2012 Sampling Event	A-17
A.9.3. September 2012 Sampling Event	A-17
A.9.4. December 2012 Sampling Event	A-18
A.9.5. May 2013 Sampling Event	A-18
A. 10. Field QA/QC	A-18
A.11. Data Qualifers	A-19
A.12. Tentatively Identified Compounds (TICs)	A-20
A.13. Audits of Data Quality (ADQ)	A-20
A.M. Laboratory Technical Systems Audits (TSA)	A-21
A. 14.1. EPA Region 8 Laboratory	A-22
A.14.2. EPA Robert S. Kerr Environmental Research Center (RSKERC) Laboratories	A-23
A.14.3. Southwest Research Institute Laboratories	A-23
A. 15. Field TSAs	A-23
A-3
-------
Appendix A QA/QC Summary, Retrospective Case Study in Wise County, Texas
May 2015
List of	Tables
Table Al.	Sample containers, preservation, and holding times for groundwater samples form
Wise County, TX	A-26
Table A2. Field QC samples for groundwater analysis	A-30
Table A3. DOC, DIC, ammonia and anion blanks	A-31
Table A4. Dissolved Metal Blanks	A-34
Table A5. Total Metal Blanks	A-43
Table A6. VOC Blanks	A-52
Table A7. Low Molecular Weight Acid Blanks	A-76
Table A8. Dissolved Gas Blanks	A-79
Table A9. Glycol Blanks	A-81
Table A10. Semi-Volatile Organic Compound (sVOC) Blanks	A-83
Table All.	Diesel Range Organic Compounds (DRO) and Gasoline Range Organic Compounds
(GRO) Blanks	A-124
Table A12. Anion and DOC Duplicates	A-126
Table A13. Dissolved Metal Duplicates	A-128
Table A14. Total Metal Duplicates	A-134
Table A15. Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) Duplicates	A-140
Table A16. Low Molecular Weight Acids Duplicates	A-155
Table A17. Dissolved Gas Duplicates	A-157
Table A18. Glycol Duplicates	A-159
Table A19. Semi-Volatile Organic Compounds (sVOC) Duplicates	A-161
Table A20.	Diesel Range Organic Compounds (DRO) and Gasoline Range Organic Compounds
(GRO) Duplicates	A-183
Table A21. Stable Water Isotope Duplicates	A-185
Table A22. 87Sr and 86 Sr Stable Isotopes of Water Duplicates	A-186
Table A23. Data Usability Summary	A-187
Table A24. Data qualifiers and data descriptors	A-204
A-4
-------
Appendix A QA/QC Summary, Retrospective Case Study in Wise County, Texas
May 2015
Table A25. Performance Evaluation sample results returned by EPA ORD/NRMRL (Ada)
Laboratory for anions, ammonia, DOC, and DIC	A-205
Table A26. Performance Evaluation sample results returned by Shaw Environmental Laboratory
(Ada) for ICP-OES metals, ICP-MS metals, and VOCs	A-208
Table A27. Performance Evaluation sample results returned by EPA Region 8 Laboratory for
semi-volatile organic compounds, diesel range organic compounds, and gasoline
range organic compounds	A-231
Table A28.	Field QC Data for YSI Electrode Measurements	A-244
Table A29.	Tentatively Identified Compounds (TICs) for sVOCs	A-249
Table A30.	QA/QC Narrative Associated with the EPA Region 8 Laboratories TSA	A-252
Table A31.	QA/QC Narrative Associated with the RSKERC Laboratories TSA	A-253
Table A32. QA/QC Narrative Associated with the Southwest Research Institute (SwRI) Analytical
Laboratory TSA	A-255
Table A33. QA/QC Narrative Associated with the Wise Field TSA	A-257
A-5
-------
Appendix A QA/QC Summary, Retrospective Case Study in Wise County, Texas
May 2015
A.l. Introduction
This section describes general quality assurance (QA) and the results of quality control (QC)
samples, including discussion of chain of custody, holding times, blank samples, field duplicate
samples, laboratory QA/QC results, data usability, double lab comparisons, Performance
Evaluation (PE) samples, Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) additions and deviations, field
QA/quality control (QC), application of data qualifiers, tentatively identified compounds (TICs),
Audits of Data Quality (ADQ), and laboratory and field Technical System Audits (TSA).
All reported data met project requirements unless otherwise indicated by the application of
data qualifiers. In some cases, data are rejected as unusable and not reported.
A.l.l. September 2011 Sampling Event
The September 2011 sampling event sampling and analytical activities were conducted under
an approved QAPP titled "Hydraulic Fracturing Retrospective Case Study, Wise and Denton Co.,
TX" revision 0 approved on August 22, 2011. Deviations from this QAPP are described in
Section A9. Three surface water (pond) samples and twelve domestic wells were sampled at
three locations during this event. In Location A, four domestic wells and the three surface
water samples were collected. In Location B, six domestic wells were sampled and in Location
C, two domestic wells were sampled. A total of 305 samples were collected and delivered to 4
laboratories for analysis: Shaw Environmental, Ada, OK; EPA Office of Research and
Development/National Risk Management Research Laboratory (ORD/NRMRL), Ada OK; EPA
Region 8, Golden, CO; and EPA Region 3, Fort Meade, MD. Measurements were made for over
207 analytes per sample location. Of the 305 samples, 110 samples (36%) were Quality Control
(QC) samples including blanks, field duplicates, matrix spikes and matrix spike duplicates.
A.l.2. March 2012 Sampling Event
The March 2012 sampling event sampling and analytical activities were conducted under an
approved QAPP titled "Hydraulic Fracturing Retrospective Case Study, Wise and Denton Co.,
TX" revision 1 approved on February 27, 2012. Deviations from this QAPP are described in
Section A9. Three surface water (pond) samples and fifteen domestic wells were sampled at
three locations during this event. In Location A, three domestic wells and the three surface
water samples were collected. In Location B, ten domestic wells were sampled and in Location
C, two domestic wells were sampled. A total of 402 samples were collected and delivered to 5
laboratories for analysis: Shaw Environmental, Ada, OK; EPA ORD/NRMRL, Ada OK; EPA Region
8, Golden, CO; U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), Denver, Co; and EPA Region 3, Fort Meade, MD.
Measurements were made for over 212 analytes per sample location. Of the 402 samples, 132
samples (33%) were QC samples including blanks, field duplicates, matrix spikes and matrix
spike duplicates.
A-6
-------
Appendix A QA/QC Summary, Retrospective Case Study in Wise County, Texas
May 2015
A.1.3. September 2012 Sampling Event
The September 2012 sampling event sampling and analytical activities were conducted under
an approved QAPP titled "Hydraulic Fracturing Retrospective Case Study, Wise, TX: September
2012 Produced Water Sampling" revision 3 approved on September 10, 2012. Deviations from
this QAPP are described in Section A9. Two domestic wells and one production well were
sampled at Location B. A total of 105 samples were collected and delivered to 4 laboratories
for analysis: Shaw Environmental, Ada, OK; EPA ORD/NRMRL, Ada OK; USGS, Denver, CO; and
EPA Superfund Analytical Services Contract Laboratory Program (CLP). Measurements were
made for over 105 analytes per sample location. Of the 105 samples, 72 samples (69%) were
QC samples including blanks, field duplicates, matrix spikes and matrix spike duplicates.
A.1.4. December 2012 Sampling Event
The December 2012 sampling event sampling and analytical activities were conducted under an
approved QAPP titled "Hydraulic Fracturing Retrospective Case Study, Wise, TX: Analysis of
Samples by the EPA Region VII Contract Laboratory for the September and December 2012
Sampling Events" revision 3 addendum 2 approved on February 25, 2013. Deviations from this
QAPP are described in Section A9. One surface water (pond) samples and nine domestic wells
were sampled at Location B. A total of 307 samples were collected and delivered to 6
laboratories for analysis: Shaw Environmental, Ada, OK; EPA ORD/NRMRL, Ada OK; EPA Region
8, Golden, CO; USGS, Denver, Co; Southwest Research Institute (SWRI), San Antonio, TX; and
EPA Region 3, Fort Meade, MD. Measurements were made for over 216 analytes per sample
location. Of the 307 samples, 147 samples (48%) were QC samples including blanks, field
duplicates, matrix spikes and matrix spike duplicates.
A.1.5. May 2013 Sampling Event
The May 2013 sampling event sampling and analytical activities were conducted under an
approved Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) titled "Hydraulic Fracturing Retrospective Case
Study, Wise Co., TX" revision 4 approved on May 6, 2013. Deviations from this QAPP are
described in Section A9. One surface water (pond) sample, two production wells and eight
domestic wells were sampled at Location B. A total of 198 samples were collected and
delivered to 4 laboratories for analysis: CB&I, Ada, OK; EPA ORD/NRMRL, Ada OK; USGS,
Denver, Co; and SWRI, San Antonio, TX. Note that the Shaw Environmental laboratory name
changed to CB&I for the final round of sampling (same laboratory equipment, procedures, and
staff). Measurements were made for over 115 analytes per sample location. Of the 198
samples, 88 samples (44%) 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, Wise Co., TX"
revision 5 approved on September 13, 2013.
A-7
-------
Appendix A QA/QC Summary, Retrospective Case Study in Wise County, Texas
May 2015
A.2. Chain of Custody
Sample types, bottle types, sample preservation methods analyte holding times, and
laboratories receiving samples are listed in Table Al. Samples collected in the field were
packed on ice into ice chests for shipment by overnight delivery with completed chain of
custody (COC) documents and temperature blank containers. With few exceptions noted
below, samples were received by the laboratories in good condition and all temperature blanks
were less than 6 °C.
A.2.1. September 2011 Sampling
No problems noted.
A.2.2. March 2012 Sampling
For samples collected on March 5, 2012 and March 6, 2012, COCs were not signed by the
Relinquisher. Also, COC seals were not placed on one cooler received from the field. The
cooler without the custody seal was hand delivered to Shaw upon returning to the lab. This
cooler was in the possession of EPA until delivery to the lab. There was no impact on data
quality.
The COC associated with the samples that were sent to EPA Region 8 Laboratory incorrectly
identifies the date of sampling for Field Blank 4 as 3/7/2012. The correct date for Field Blank 4
was 3/8/2012. The laboratory was notified and there was no impact on data quality.
A.2.3. September 2012 Sampling
No problems noted.
A.2.4. December 2012 Sampling
No problems noted.
A.2.5. May 2013 Sampling
No problems noted.
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 various
analyses conducted in this investigation are listed in Table Al and range from 7 days to 6
months. Generally, estimated analyte concentration for samples with holding time
exceedances are considered as biased low.
A-8
-------
Appendix A QA/QC Summary, Retrospective Case Study in Wise County, Texas
May 2015
A.3.1. September 2011 Sampling.
All samples analyzed for 2-butoxyethanol were beyond the 14 day limit by 1-3 days. In addition,
the samples collected on September 21 and September 20 were analyzed for the three glycol
analytes 1-2 days past the 14 day limit. All samples and analytes exceeding the holding times
were qualified with an H qualifier.
The re-analysis of Br with RSKSOP-214v5 (FIA) was performed past the 28 day holding time for
the samples. Samples were analyzed from 34 to 41 days after collection. The samples were
qualified as exceeding the holding time (H qualifier).
A.3.2. March 2012 Sampling.
All samples met holding times. The original inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry
(ICP-MS) analysis of mercury (Hg) was within holding time, but the subsequent rejection of this
data did not allow for Hg re-analysis using the CLP laboratory, so Hg was not re-analyzed by
CLP. Therefore, no Hg data is available.
A.3.3. September 2012 Sampling.
All samples met holding times.
A.3.4. December 2012 Sampling.
All samples met holding times.
A.3.5. May 2013 Sampling.
All samples met holding times.
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 (Table A2). 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 source water 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 if cleaning procedures or sample equipment (filters, fittings, tubing)
potentially contributed to analyte detections. Trip blanks consisted of serum bottles or volatile
organic compound (VOC) vials filled with NANOpure water and sealed in the laboratory. Trip
blanks were used to evaluate whether VOC and dissolved gas serum bottles were contaminated
during sample storage, sampling, or shipment to and from the field. All other analysis have
associated field and equipment blanks (when needed), except for isotope ratio analyses for
which no blank sampling schemes are appropriate. Sample bottle types, preservation, and
A-9
-------
Appendix A QA/QC Summary, Retrospective Case Study in Wise County, Texas
May 2015
holding times were applied to blank samples in the same way as they were applied to field
samples (Table Al).
The following criteria are used for qualifying samples with potential blank contamination.
Sample contamination is considered significant if analyte concentrations in blanks are above
the method Quantitation Limit (Q.L) and if the analyte is 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 are between the MDL and the QL, the sample data are
reported as less than QL with a U qualifier. Blank samples are associated to field samples by
dates of collection; for example, most sample shipments include both field samples and blank
samples that are used for blank contamination assessments. See section of QAPP Additions and
Deviations for additional information. Results of blanks analyses are reported in Tables A3-A11.
The following sections describe instances where blank detections were noted and potential
impacts on data quality and usability. As previously stated, the majority of these blanks were
free from detections or were less than QL and in these cases the sample data are not affected
and are not presented in the following sections.
A.4.1. September 2011 sampling.
Dissolved Organic Carbon in the equipment blanks on 9/20/2011 and 9/22/2011 had
concentrations greater than QL. There was a potential impact to the data for one sample,
WISETXGW05-092011, which was qualified with a "B" qualifier. All other samples on this date
were either less than QL or 10x greater than the blank concentration so there was no impact on
data quality. Nitrate + nitrite had an equipment blank that was rejected because of nitric acid
being added as a preservative instead of sulfuric acid. Since all other blanks for nitrate + nitrite
were less than QL it is not likely that contamination was present. Therefore no addition
qualification was necessary and there was no impact to data quality.
In the case of acetate two field blanks and all equipment blanks contained concentrations of
acetate greater than QL and the samples with detectable concentrations were approximately at
the same concentration. Therefore the following samples were qualified with a "B" qualifier:
WISETXGW03-092011, WISETXGW04-092011, WISETXGW05-092011, WISETXGW06-092011,
WISETXGW07-092011, WISETXGW08-092011, WISETXGW09-092011, WISETXGW10-092011,
WISETXSW01-092011, WISETXSW02-092011, WISETXSW02-092011 DUP, and WISETXSW03-
092011. All other samples were less than QL and no addition qualification was necessary. The
likely source of contamination was the preservative. The acetate data is not usable.
There was no blank contamination detected in the field blanks, equipment blanks and trip
blanks for dissolved gases. It should be noted that the trip blank collected on 9/22/2011 was
found to be contaminated by carry over during analysis from a previously ran standard and the
data for this blank was rejected.
A-10
-------
Appendix A QA/QC Summary, Retrospective Case Study in Wise County, Texas
May 2015
The field and equipment blanks for semi-volatile organic compounds (sVOC) analytes were less
than QL with the exception of the following blank: Bis-(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate field blank
collected on 9/19/2011. Samples had concentrations less than QL with the exception of
WISETXGW06-092011 which was qualified with a "B" qualifier. The source of the
contamination of this blank is unknown.
The following field and equipment blanks for gasoline range organics (GRO) were greater than
QL: Field Blanks collected on 9/19/2011, 9/20/2011, and 9/21/2011; and Equipment Blanks
collected on 9/19/2011 and 9/21/2011. All samples however, were less than QL and no
qualifiers were needed. Diesel Range Organic (DRO) compounds had detectable concentrations
above the QL for equipment blanks collected on 9/19/2011, 9/20/2011, and 9/22/2011. All
groundwater samples were less than QL so no qualification was needed. In the case of surface
waters, the data were greater than QL; however, the samples collected on 9/21/2011 did not
need qualification because the blanks for this date were less than QL. The surface water
sample collected for WISETXSW03-092011 on 9/22/2011 did not need qualification because the
sample was greater than 10x the concentration in the equipment blank.
A.4.2. March 2012 sampling.
Equipment blanks collected on 3/5/2012, 3/6/2012, and 3/7/2012 all had detections for DOC
greater than QL. All DOC samples less than 10 times the concentration in the respective blanks
were qualified with a "B" qualifier. Affected samples are WISETXGW01-302012, WISETXGW02-
302012, WISETXGW02-302012 DUP, WISETXGW03-302012, WISETXGW04-302012,
WISETXGW05-302012, WISETXGW06-302012, WISETXGW08-302012, WISETXGW09-302012,
WISETXGW10-302012, WISETXGW11-302012, WISETXGW13-302012, WISETXGW14-302012,
WISETXGW15-302012, WISETXGW16-302012, WISETXSW01-302012, WISETXSW02-302012,
WISETXSW02-302012 DUP, and WISETXSW03-302012.
The field blanks collected for formate on 3/5/2012, 3/7/2012, and 3/8/2012 all had detectable
concentrations of formate greater than QL. The data associated with these blanks were
qualified with a "B" qualifier if the sample data was detectable and less than 10 times the
concentration in the blanks. The effected samples were the following: WISETXGW01-032012,
WISETXGW02-032012, WISETXGW02-032012 DUP, WISETXGW03-032012, WISETXGW06-
032012, WISETXGW07-032012, WISETXGW08-032012, WISETXGW09-032012, WISETXGW10-
032012, WISETXGW11-032012, WISETXGW12-032012, WISETXGW13-032012, WISETXGW14-
032012, and WISETXSW03-032012. A potential source of this contamination was the sample
containers.
Glycols, sVOCs, DRO, and GRO had no detectable concentrations of the respective analytes in
the field blanks greater than QL. Therefore, no qualification was needed.
A-ll
-------
Appendix A QA/QC Summary, Retrospective Case Study in Wise County, Texas
May 2015
A.4.3. September 2012 Sampling.
Field and equipment blanks had concentration greater than the QL for total Ni on 9/20/12. All
samples less than 10 times the concentration in the blanks were qualified with a "B" qualifier.
The effected samples were the following: WISETXGW01-092012, WISETXGW01-092012 DUP,
and WISETXGW08-092012.
A.4.4. December 2012 Sampling.
Field Blankl-122012 and Equipment Blankl-122012 had concentrations of DOC greater than
the QL. All other blanks were less than QL. The samples associated with Field Blankl-122012
were qualified with a "B" qualifier if the sample data was less than 10 times the concentration
of the blank. The effected samples were WISETXGW13-122012 and WISETXGW13-122012 DUP.
Dissolved metals blank data indicated that with the exception of dissolved Ni all reported
concentrations were less than QL. In the case of dissolved Ni only Equipment Blank 2-122012
had a Ni concentrations at the QL. The samples associated with this blank were qualified with a
"B" qualifier if the concentrations in the samples were less than 10 times concentration in the
blank. The effected samples were WISETXGW02-122012, WISETXGW03-122012, WISETXGW04-
122012, and WISETXGW08-122012. The source of this contamination is not known.
Similarly the blank data for total metals were less than QL with the exceptions of Al, Ca, Ni, V,
and Zn. Field Blank3-122012 for total Al had a concentration greater than QL. All associated
samples less than 10 times the concentration in this blank were qualified with "B" qualifier. The
only sample affected was WISETXGW15-122012. All field blanks and the pump equipment
blank were greater than QL for total Ni. The likely source was lab contamination during
analysis. All samples with the exception of WISETXGW01-122012 were qualified with a "B"
qualifier because the reported concentrations were less than 10 times the concentration
reported in the blank. It should be noted that the pump equipment blank is only associated
with the sample, WISETXGW08-122012. The reason is that this was the only well that used a
portable pump to sample. Similarly, all the blanks for total V with the exception of Field Blankl-
122012 had concentrations greater than QL. All samples with the exception of WISETXGW13
Dup-122012 were qualified with a "B" qualifier. WISETXGW13-Dupl22012 did not need
qualification because the reported concentration was less than QL. Finally, for total Zn, Field
Blank 1-122012 had a concentration at the QL. The associated samples were qualified with a
"B" qualifier. The effected samples were WISETXGW01-122012, WISETXGW02-122012,
WISETXGW03-122012, and WISETXGW16-122012. The likely source of contamination of the
total metal samples is not known and could be from the sample containers, laboratory, or
environmental sources.
All analytes in the VOC analysis, with the exception of acetone, had field, pump equipment, and
trip blanks less than QL. Therefore, with the exception of acetone, no qualification was needed.
A-12
-------
Appendix A QA/QC Summary, Retrospective Case Study in Wise County, Texas
May 2015
For acetone the field blanks, Field Blank 2-122012 and Field Blank 3-122012; Pump Equipment
Blank 1-122012; and Trip Blank 3-122012 had acetone concentrations greater than QL. The
pump equipment blank is only associated with the sample WISETXGW08-122012 and since this
sample was less than 10 times the concentration in the blank sample it was qualified with a "B"
qualifier. The samples associated with the field and trip blanks were qualified with a "B"
qualifier if the sample was greater than the QL and less than 10 times the concentration in the
blanks sample. The effected samples are as follows: WISETXGW08-122012, WISETXGW14-
122012, WISETXGW16-122012, WISETXSW04-122012, and WISETXSW04-122012 DUP. The
source of this contamination is not known. There was no known source of acetone at the
sampling locations, but acetone is a common lab chemical.
A.4.5. May 2013 sampling event.
Dissolved metals field and equipment blanks were less than QL for all metals with the
exceptions of Cu, Mo, Na, Ni, P, Pb, Sr, and Zn. Equipment Blank 1-052013 had dissolved Cu
concentrations greater than QL. All samples associated with Equipment Blank 1-052013 that
had concentrations <10x the concentration in the blank were qualified with a "B" qualifier. The
affected samples were WISETXGW01-052013, WISETXGW02-052013, WISETXGW13-052013,
WISETXGW14-052013. Dissolved Na Equipment blank 3-052013 and the Field Blank 3-052013
had concentrations greater than QL. However, all associated samples for these blanks were
greater than 10 times the concentration found in the blanks and no qualification was needed.
Field Blank 1-052013, had reported concentrations greater than QL for dissolved Ni. The
associated samples that were less than 10 times the blank concentration were qualified with a
"B" qualifier. WISETXGW02-052013, WISETXGW13-052013, and WISETXGW14-052013 were
affected. In addition, Pump Equipment Blank 1-052013, also had a concentration of dissolved
Ni greater than QL. The affected sample WISETXGW08-052013 was qualified with a "B"
qualifier. For dissolved P, Equipment Blank 3-052013, had reported concentrations greater
than QL. The only effected sample was WISETXGW15-052013, which was qualified with a "B"
qualifier. Samples WISETXGW02-052013 and WISETXGW14-052013 were qualified with a "B"
qualifier because of blank contamination in Equipment Blank 1-052013 for dissolved Pb.
Equipment Blank 3-052013 for dissolved Sr had reported concentration greater than QL. No
samples were affected since all samples were greater than 10 times concentration reported in
this blank. Finally, the pump equipment blank, Pump Equipment Blank 1-052013 had reported
concentration greater than QL for dissolved Mo and Zn. However, the lab blank associated with
this blank also had detectable concentrations greater than QL so the Pump Equipment Blank 1-
052013 and its associated sample WISETXGW08-052013 were qualified with a "B" qualifier.
All total metals had equipment, field and pump equipment blanks less than QL for all elements,
except for the following: Mo, Ni, Th, V, and Zn. For total Mo, total Ni and total Zn, Pump
Equipment Blank 1-052013,concentration was greater than QL. The affected sample
A-13
-------
Appendix A QA/QC Summary, Retrospective Case Study in Wise County, Texas
May 2015
WISETXGW08-052013 was qualified with a "B" qualifier for each of these analytes. For total Th,
Equipment Blank 1-052013, reported a concentration equal to the QL. All associated samples
with this blank were less than QL so no qualification was needed. Total V had detectable
concentrations greater than QL in all the blanks and samples with the exception of
WISETXPW03-052013. The laboratory blanks also had detectable concentrations of total V.
Therefore all blanks and samples with the one noted exception were qualified with a "B"
qualifier.
All VOCs blanks with the exception of acetone were less than QL and needed no further
qualification. For acetone all field blanks and the Pump Equipment Blank 1-122012 had
detectable acetone concentrations greater than QL. The samples that were less than 10 times
the concentration in the respective blanks were qualified with a "B" qualifier. The only
samples that did not require this additional qualifier were WISETXPW02-052013 and
WISETXPW03-052013. The source of this contamination is not known. There was no known
source of acetone at the sampling locations, but acetone is a common laboratory chemical.
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:
, f 2 x (sample 1 - sample 2)^
RPD % = v K	K '
(sample 1 + sample 2)
100.
RPD were calculated when the constituents in both the primary sample and duplicate sample
were greater than 5 times the method QLs. Constituents are qualified if RPDs are >30%. Tables
A12- A22 provide duplicate data.
A.5.1. September 2011 sampling event.
All duplicates meet the requirements of RPD <30%.
A.5.2. March 2012 Sampling Event.
All duplicates meet the requirements of RPD <30%.
A.5.3. September 2012 Sampling Event.
All duplicates meet the requirements of RPD <30%.
A-14
-------
Appendix A QA/QC Summary, Retrospective Case Study in Wise County, Texas
May 2015
A.5.4. December 2012 Sampling Event.
In the case of dissolved Al, Fe, Pb and V the duplicates were greater than 30% and the data was
qualified with a qualifier.
The total Al RPD was greater than 30% and the data for WISETXSW04 was qualified with a
qualifier.
A.5.5. May 2013 Sampling Event.
Dissolved Al and dissolved Si for WISETXSW04-052013 had duplicates with RPD greater than
30%, so data for this sample was qualified with a qualifier.
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 A23 summarizes laboratory QA/QC results identified during
sample analysis, such as laboratory duplicate analysis, laboratory blank analysis, matrix spike
results, calibration and continuing calibration checks, as well as field QC. Impacts on data
quality of any issues noted in the QA/QC results are also presented in Table A23. Data
qualifiers are listed in Table A24. Many of the specific QA/QC observations noted in the Audit
of Data Quality are summarized in Table A23.
The majority of the reported data met project requirements. Data that did not meet QA/QC
requirements specified in the QAPP are indicated by application of data qualifiers in the final
data summaries. 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 is
usable with the understanding that it is an approximate concentration, 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.
A 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 A23).
A.7. Double-lab Comparisons.
Double laboratory comparisons were not performed for Wise County samples.
A.8. Performance Evaluation Samples.
A series of PE samples were analyzed by the laboratories conducting critical analyses to support
the effort at the Wise County Retrospective Case Study. 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
A-15
-------
Appendix A QA/QC Summary, Retrospective Case Study in Wise County, Texas
May 2015
the certification process and to maintain certification for that laboratory. Results of the PE
tests are presented in Tables A25 to A27. These tables show the results of 1354 tests; 98.6% of
the reported values fell within the acceptance range. For the ORD/NRML Laboratory a total of
95 tests were performed with 96.9% of the reported values fell within acceptable range.
Similarly, at 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 help demonstrate the high quality of analytical data
reported here. Analytes not falling within the acceptable range were checked and corrective
action was undertaken to ensure data quality in future analysis.
A.9. QAPP Additions and Deviations.
A.9.1. September 2011 Sampling Event.
The September 2011 sampling was conducted under an approved QAPP titled "Hydraulic
Fracturing Retrospective Case Study, Wise and Denton Co., TX" revision 0 approved on August
22, 2011. One deviation in the QAPP was that water levels could not be obtained in any of the
wells and therefore, water level measurements could not be taken. The reason for this was
that the well construction did not allow access for these measurements to be taken. No
impacts to data quality would be expected. Subsequent revisions to the QAPP addressed this
issue. For WISETXGW01, the flow of the water coming from the well could not be controlled
since most of the plumbing had been removed and the homeowner did not want any
modification to the existing plumbing. Therefore this well was sampled at the flow rate of the
well pump and not at the flow rate stated in the QAPP. Impact to data quality is unknown.
Another deviation involved the reanalysis of Br using Flow Injection Analysis (FIA) by RSKSOP-
214v5, a modified version of Standard Methods 4500-Br. This was necessary due to the high
chloride interference using the method in the QAPP, RSKSOP-276v3. No impacts to data quality
since removing the chloride interference would allow for better detection of bromide. An
additional deviation from planned analyses described in the QAPP was that all of the ICP-MS
metals data were not reported from the July 2011 sampling event. These data were not
reported because of concerns about the data quality. 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 March 2012
and May 2013 sampling events. In general, the ICP-OES trace metal data 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, respectively; therefore, trace metal evaluations only consider data
collected during the later sampling events if ICP-MS data is available. Information about the
concentrations of As, Cd, Cr, Cu, Ni, Pb, and Se from the ICP-OES is considered to be for
screening level evaluation.
A-16
-------
Appendix A QA/QC Summary, Retrospective Case Study in Wise County, Texas
May 2015
A.9.2. March 2012 Sampling Event.
The March 2012 sampling was conducted under an approved QAPP titled "Hydraulic Fracturing
Retrospective Case Study, Wise and Denton Co., TX" revision 1 approved on February 27, 2012.
Dissolved and total metal analysis was originally conducted by Shaw Environmental however;
the data reported for dissolved and total metals was from the CLP lab. The reason for the
reanalysis of the dissolved and total metals samples follows. Audits of Data Quality on the
original ICP-MS results found 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 ICS is used to verify that the interference levels
are corrected by the data system within quality control limits. Because of the importance of this
missing quality control check, it was necessary to reject the ICP-MS data from the original
analysis. Audits of Data Quality on the original inductively coupled plasma optical emission
spectrometry (ICP-OES) data found that the laboratory did not analyze matrix spikes for a
number of metals and cations as well as the frequency of calibration checks was less than
required. Since samples were already being submitted for ICP-MS analysis, it was determined
that re-analysis for the metals was ICP-OES was desirable to in an attempt to eliminate or
reduce the number of qualified data. The samples were analyzed through the EPA Superfund
Analytical Services EPA CLP). Samples were sent for analysis under the EPA CLP Inorganic
Statement of Work ISM01.3, Exhibit D - Part B, "Analytical Methods for Inductively Coupled
Plasma - Mass Spectrometry" with some minor requested modifications. This QAPP deviation
was subsequently covered in an addendum to the original QAPP entitled "Hydraulic Fracturing
Retrospective Case Study, Wise, TX: Reanalysis of Samples for Metals by the EPA Superfund
Analytical Services CLP for the March 2012 Sampling Event", revision 3, addendum approved on
December 20, 2012. It should also be noted that the reanalysis did not include Hg analysis for
either dissolved or total metals since the 28 day holding time had expired prior to samples
being received by the CLP laboratory. In addition, for many of the metals the CLP did not have
the desired MDLs or QLs which also was a limitation to this data set.
A.9.3. September 2012 Sampling Event.
The September 2012 sampling was conducted under an approved QAPP titled "Hydraulic
Fracturing Retrospective Case Study, Wise, TX: September 2012 Produced Water Sampling"
revision 3 approved on September 10, 2012. This was an opportunistic sampling event in which
production water from a Barnett Shale gas well adjacent to Location B study site was sampled.
In addition, a limited sampling of select domestic wells of interest was sampled at this location.
In all, two domestic wells and a production well were sampled. A deviation to the QAPP was
how the production well was sampled. The actual sampling method used by the consultant was
A-17
-------
Appendix A QA/QC Summary, Retrospective Case Study in Wise County, Texas
May 2015
slightly different than what was described prior to the actual sampling. An accurate description
of the sampling method was provided in subsequent revisions of this QAPP.
An additional deviation to this QAPP was that the dissolved and total metal samples were
analyzed by SWRI. This was through the Region 7 contract with ARDL, Inc. SwRI is a
subcontractor to ARDL, Inc. It was decided that due to improved QLs provided by this
laboratory that samples would be sent to this laboratory for analysis. However, at the time of
the sampling the contract was not yet in place. Since metals have a 6 month holding time with
the exception of Hg (28 days) that the samples would be held and then shipped to SWRI.
Mercury analysis was not performed on these samples because the holding time was already
exceeded at the time of shipment. This deviation to the QAPP was documented in the
subsequent addendum to the QAPP titled "Hydraulic Fracturing Retrospective Case Study, Wise,
TX: Analysis of Samples by the EPA Region VII Contract Laboratory for the September and
December 2012 Sampling Events" revision 3 addendum 2 approved on February 25, 2013.
A.9.4. December 2012 Sampling Event.
The December 2012 sampling was conducted under approved QAPPs titled "Hydraulic
Fracturing Retrospective Case Study, Wise, TX: Analysis of Samples by the EPA Region VII
Contract Laboratory for the September and December 2012 Sampling Events" revision 3
addendum 2 approved on February 25, 2013 and "Hydraulic Fracturing Retrospective Case
Study, Wise, TX: September 2012 Produced Water Sampling" revision 3 approved on
September 10, 2012. The sampling method for the well WISETXGW08 was different than what
was in the QAPP. This deviation occurred because the pump in this domestic well failed just
prior to sampling. The pump was pulled from the well prior to sampling by the homeowner.
The contractor for the Texas Railroad Commission obtained a portable pump which was
lowered in to the well so the water could be sampled. No impact to data quality was expected.
A.9.5. May 2013 Sampling Event.
The May 2013 sampling was conducted under an approved QAPP titled "Hydraulic Fracturing
Retrospective Case Study, Wise Co., TX" revision 4 approved on May 6, 2013. There were no
deviations from the QAPP for this event.
A.10. Field QA/QC.
A YSI Model 556 flow-cell was used to measure temperature, specific conductance, pH,
oxidation-reduction potential, and dissolved oxygen. YSI electrodes were calibrated in the
morning of each sampling day. Performance checks were conducted after initial calibration,
mid-day and at the end of each day. The YSI 5580 Confidence Solution was used to conduct the
performance checks for specific conductance, oxidation/reduction potential (ORP) and pH.
NIST-traceable buffer solutions (4.00, 7.00 and 10.01) were used for pH calibration. YSI ORP
A-18
-------
Appendix A QA/QC Summary, Retrospective Case Study in Wise County, Texas
May 2015
standard was used for calibration of redox potential measurements. YSI conductivity standard
was used for calibration of specific conductance measurements. Dissolved oxygen sensors
were calibrated with air. Table A28 provides the results of initial, mid-day and end-of-the-day
performance checks. Prior to field deployment, the electrode assembly and meter had checked
to ensure that it was in good working order. In all cases performance checks were within
acceptance limits (Table A28) checks.
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 because all sample preparations and
measurements were made in an uncontrolled environment (i.e., the field), concentration data
for these parameters are qualified in all cases as estimated. The turbidity was measured using a
HACH 2100Q Portable Turbimeter and was calibrated using HACH 2100Q StablCal Calibration
Set. The HACH 2100Q StablCal Calibration Set consists of the 20 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 species and ferrous iron
measurements were collected using a HACH DR890 Portable Colorimeter. The equipment for
measuring alkalinity, total dissolved sulfide species and ferrous iron measurements accuracy
was verified in the lab prior to field deployment using known standards. In the field a blank
sample was measured to ensure no cross contamination occurred. This was also the case for
turbidity, however a 10 NTU standard was also used to verify the calibration. These checks
were performed after initial calibration, mid-day and end-of-day.
A.11. Data Qualifers.
Data qualifiers and their definitions are listed in Table A24. 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 various
laboratories. The list of qualifiers in Table A24 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 is 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 (Table A23). Conditions regarding the application
of qualifiers include:
•	If the analyte was not detected, it was reported as 
-------
Appendix A QA/QC Summary, Retrospective Case Study in Wise County, Texas
May 2015
•	If the analyte concentration was less than the Quantitation Limit ( QL).
A.12. Tentatively Identified Compounds (TICs).
The Region 8 laboratory reported tentatively identified compounds (TICs) from sVOC analyses.
Several sVOC TICs were identified in samples and blanks (Tables 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 is calculated based on a response
factor of 1.00 and the area of the nearest internal standard. The search for TICs includes 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 is reported for each peak.
A.13. Audits of Data Quality (ADQ).
An ADQ was performed for each sampling event per EPA's NRMRL standard operating
procedure (SOP), Performing Audits of Data Quality (ADQs), to verify that 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 ADQ was 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 Investigators (Pis) 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 ORD) Quality Assurance Projects, which this study has
operated under for all aspects of groundwater collection and analysis.
Complete data packages were provided to the auditors for all sampling events. A complete
data package consists 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
A-20
-------
Appendix A QA/QC Summary, Retrospective Case Study in Wise County, Texas
May 2015
through data transcription or transference through data manipulation (either manually or
electronically by commercial or customized software) 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. Auditors also reviewed the data summary spreadsheet prepared by
the PI to determine if data had been accurately transcribed from lab summary reports and
appropriately qualified based on laboratory and field QC results.
The critical analytes (September 2011, March 2012, September 2012, and December 2012
sampling events), as identified in the QAPP, are GRO; DRO; sVOCs; VOCs ( also known as VOAs)
including naphthalene and alcohols isopropyl alcohol, tert butyl alcohol; Dissolved Gases
(Methane, ethane, propane, and butane); trace elements (As, Se, Sr, Ba, and B); major cations
(Ca, Mg, Na, K); and major anions chloride , nitrate + nitrite, sulfate ). Also included in the ADQ
were glycols and all other metals analyzed. For the May 2013 sampling event, DRO, GRO, and
sVOCs are no longer considered critical because these were not detected in wells during
previous samplings. The non-conformances identified in an ADQ can 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 for the September 2011 sampling event noted a series of 2
findings and 14 observations; the March 2012 sampling event had 5 findings and 21
observations; the March 2012 CLP metals analysis ADQ had 2 findings and 5 observations; the
September 2012 sampling event had no findings and 10 observations; the December 2012
sampling event had no findings and 19 observations; and the May 2013 sampling event had no
findings and 12 observations. The ADQ findings and observations that had an impact on data
quality and usability are included to Table A23 along with the corrective actions taken and data
qualifications. All findings and observations were resolved through corrective actions.
A.14. Laboratory Technical Systems Audits (TSA).
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. Detailed checklists, based on the procedures and
requirements specified in this QAPP, related SOPs, and EPA Methods were prepared and used
during these TSAs. These audits were conducted with contract support from Neptune and Co.,
with oversight by NRMRL QA Staff.
For assessments that identify deficiencies requiring corrective action, the audited party
provided a written response to each finding and observation to the PI and QA Manager, which
included a plan for corrective action and a schedule. The PI is responsible for ensuring that
audit findings are resolved. The QA Manager reviewed the written response to determine their
A-21
-------
Appendix A QA/QC Summary, Retrospective Case Study in Wise County, Texas
May 2015
appropriateness. If the audited party was other than the PI, then the PI also reviewed and
concurred with the corrective actions. The QA Manager tracked implementation and
completion of corrective actions. After all corrective actions were implemented and confirmed
to be completed; the QA Manager sent documentation to the PI and his supervisor that the
audit was closed. Audit reports and responses shall be maintained by the PI in the project file
and the QA Manager in the QA files, including QLOG.
Laboratory TSAs focused on the critical target analytes and were conducted on-site at
ORD/NRMRL Laboratory and Shaw Environmental [both laboratories are located at the Robert
S. Kerr Research Center (RSKERC), Ada, OK] and at the EPA Region 8 Laboratory (Golden, CO)
which analyzed for sVOC, DRO and GRO analyses. These TSAs took place immediately following
the first sampling event in July, 2011 at the Killdeer Case Study.
At the conclusion of a TSA, a debriefing took place between the auditor and the PI as well as the
audited party to discuss the assessment results. Assessment results were documented in
reports to the PI, the Pis first-line manager, and the Technical Research Lead for Case Studies.
If any serious problems were identified that require immediate action, the QAM would verbally
convey these problems at the time of the audit to the PI.
The PI was responsible for responding to the reports as well ensuring that corrective actions
were implemented in a timely manner to ensure that quality impacts to project results are
minimal.
All final audit reports were sent to the Technical Research Lead for Case Studies, first-line
manager of the PI and copied to the PI. Audit reports were prepared by the QA Manager or the
QA support contractor, Neptune and Co. Those prepared by Neptune and Co. were reviewed
and approved by the QAM prior to release. Specific actions were identified in the reports. A
summary of the audits and corrective actions are given in Tables A30- A33.
A. 14.1. EPA Region 8 Laboratory.
A TSA audit was conducted on July 26, 2011 for the EPA Region 8 Laboratory. The TSA was
conducted at the laboratory's facility in Golden, CO. This audit was conducted on the DRO, GRO
and sVOC methods. In general the TSA found that the EPA Region 8 laboratory was following
good QA practices. The QAPP and SOP specifications were followed in the majority of the
cases, with some relatively minor differences. Two observations were noted and there were no
findings identified. The observations recommended documenting changes in the approved
QAPP. The observations were resolved. There was not impact to data quality. A summary of
the audits and corrective actions are given in Tables A30.
A-22
-------
Appendix A QA/QC Summary, Retrospective Case Study in Wise County, Texas
May 2015
A.14.2. EPA Robert S. Kerr Environmental Research Center (RSKERC) Laboratories.
A TSA audit was conducted on July 28, 2011 for the RSKERC laboratories in Ada, OK. The TSA
was conducted on the ORD/NRMRL laboratory and the Shaw Environmental laboratory. This
audit was conducted on the ORDNRMRL laboratory methods for the anions. For the Shaw
Environmental laboratory the TSA audit was conducted on the following methods: VOCs (target
compounds isopropyl alcohol, t-butyl alcohol and naphthalene), dissolved gases (methane,
ethane, propane, and butane), major cations (Ca, Mg, Na, and K) and metals (As, Se, Sr, Ba and
B). In general, this TSA found that the EPA RSKERC laboratories are following good QA
practices. The QAPP and SOP specifications were followed in the majority of the cases, with
some relatively minor differences. Two observations were noted and there were no findings.
Observations were resolved through corrective actions. There was no impact to data quality. A
summary of the audits and corrective actions are given in Tables A31.
A.14.3. Southwest Research Institute Laboratories.
A TSA audit was conducted on November 27, 2012 for the Southwest Research Institute
Laboratories. This audit was for data collected for the ICP-OES and ICP-MS analysis for
dissolved and total metals as well as for the volatile organic compound analysis and mercury
using cold vapor method. In general the TSA found that the SwRI laboratory was following
good QA practices. The QAPP and SOP specifications were followed in the majority of the
cases, with some relatively minor differences. Two observations were noted and there were no
findings. Observations were resolved through corrective actions. There was no impact to data
quality. A summary of the audits and corrective actions are given in Tables A32.
A.15. Field TSAs.
TSAs were 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 these TSAs. One field TSA was done. This field TSA took place during the first
sampling event in September 2011. The review and reporting requirements are the same as
was discussed in the previous section. The results of the audit and the corrective actions are
included in Table A33.
The sample collection, documentation, field measurements (and calibration), and sample
handling including sample custody (and COC) operations were generally performed according
to the QAPP. EPA was first to collect their samples, followed but the collection of Texas
Railroad Commission samples. The field parameters were measured using a calibrated YSI 556
MSP and Hach kits depending upon the parameter, as described in the QAPP. Filtered samples
also required first collecting an unfiltered sample as described in the QAPP. New filter and new
piece of tubing were used for each sample each sample location. Field QC samples were also
collected.
A-23
-------
Appendix A QA/QC Summary, Retrospective Case Study in Wise County, Texas
May 2015
Documentation that was reviewed during the TSA for sampling conducted on the monitoring
wells the day prior indicates the QAPP procedures were also followed. Field parameters were
measured while purging, the purge rate and time documented. The monitoring wells were
sampled after purging the wells, while monitoring for field parameters (e.g., pH, ORP, specific
conductance, dissolved oxygen, and temperature).
Two observations were noted and there were no findings. Observations were resolved through
corrective actions. A summary of the audits and corrective actions are given in Tables A33. All
observations were resolved through corrective actions. There was no impact to the sample
data quality.
A-24
-------
Appendix A QA/QC Summary, Retrospective Case Study in Wise County, Texas	May 2015
Appendix A Tables
A-25
-------
A-26
Table Al. Sample containers, preservation, and holding times for groundwater samples from Wise County,
TX.
Sample Type
Analysis Method (Lab Method)
Sample Bottles/ # of bottles1
Preservation/ Storage
Holding
Time(s)
Sampling
Rounds2
Dissolved gases
Shaw Environmental: No EPA
Method (RSKSOP-194v4 &-175v5)
60 mL serum bottles/2
No headspace TSP3, pH
>10; refrigerate <6 -C4
14 days
1, 2,4
Dissolved Metals (Filtered)
Shaw Environmental: EPA
Methods 200.7 & 6020A
(RSKSOP-213v4 & -257v2 or -
332v0)
125 mL plastic bottle/1
HN03, pH <2
6 months (Hg
28 days)
1, 2
Dissolved Metals (Filtered)
CLP; EPA CLP Inorganic Statement
of Work (SOW) ISM01.3, Exhibit D
- Part B
125 mL plastic bottle/1
HN03, pH <2
6 months (No
Hg)
2
Dissolved Metals (Filtered)
EPA Region 7 RASP Contract
Southwest Research Institute:
EPA Methods 200.7 & 6020A
1 L plastic bottle/1
HN03, pH <2
6 months
3, 4,5
Dissolved Hg (Filtered)
EPA Region 7 RASP Contract
Southwest Research Institute:
EPA Method 7470A
1 L plastic bottle/1
HN03, pH <2
28 days
3, 4,5
Total Metals (Unfiltered)
Shaw Environmental: Analysis-
EPA Methods 200.7 & 6020A
(RSKSOP-213v4 & -257v2 or -
332v0); and Digestion- EPA
Method 3015A (RSKSOP-179v3)
125 mL plastic bottle/1
HN03, pH <2
6 months
1, 2
Total Metals (Unfiltered)
CLP; EPA CLP Inorganic Statement
of Work (SOW) ISM01.3, Exhibit D
- Part B
125 mL plastic bottle/1
HN03, pH <2
6 months (No
Hg)
2
Total Metals (Unfiltered)
EPA Region 7 RASP Contract
Southwest Research Institute:
EPA Methods 200.7 & 6020A
1 L plastic bottle/1
HN03, pH <2
6 months
3, 4,5
-------
A-27
Table Al. Sample containers, preservation, and holding times for groundwater samples from Wise County,
TX.
Sample Type
Analysis Method (Lab Method)
Sample Bottles/ # of bottles1
Preservation/ Storage
Holding
Time(s)
Sampling
Rounds2
Total Metals (Unfiltered)
EPA Region 7 RASP Contract
Southwest Research Institute:
EPA Method 7470A
1 L plastic bottle/1
HNO3, pH <2
6 months
3, 4,5
Sulfate (S04), Chloride (CI),
Fluoride (F), Bromide (Br)
ORD/NRMRL (Ada): EPA Method
6500 (RSKSOP-276v3)
60 mL plastic bottle/1
Refrigerate <6-C
28 days
1, 2, 3, 4, 5
Br
ORD/NRMRL (Ada): No EPA
Method (RSKSOP-214v5)
60 mL plastic bottle/1
Refrigerate <6-C
28 days
1, 3
Br
ORD/NRMRL (Ada): EPA Method
6500 (RSKSOP-288v3)
60 mL plastic bottle/1
Refrigerate <6-C
28 days
2, 3, 4, 5
Iodide (1)
ORD/NRMRL (Ada): No EPA
Method (RSKSOP-223v2)
60 mL plastic bottle/1
Refrigerate <6-C
28 days
3, 4,5
Nitrate+Nitrite (N03+N02)
ORD/NRMRL (Ada): EPA Method
353.1 (RSKSOP-214v5)
60 mL plastic bottle/1
H2S04, pH <2;
refrigerate <6-C
28 days
1, 2, 3, 4, 5
-------
A-28
Table Al. Sample containers, preservation, and holding times for groundwater samples from Wise County,
TX.
Sample Type
Analysis Method (Lab Method)
Sample Bottles/ # of bottles1
Preservation/ Storage
Holding
Time(s)
Sampling
Rounds2
Ammonia (NH3)
ORD/NRMRL (Ada): EPA Method
350.1 (RSKSOP-214v5)
60 mL plastic bottle/1
H2S04, pH <2;
refrigerate <6-C
28 days
1, 2, 3, 4, 5
Dissolved Inorganic Carbon
(DIC)
ORD/NRMRL (Ada): EPA Method
9060A (RSKSOP-330v0)
40 mL clear glass VOA vial/2
Refrigerate <6-C
14 days
1, 2, 3, 4, 5
Dissolved Organic Carbon
(DOC)
ORD/NRMRL (Ada): EPA Method
9060A (RSKSOP-330v0)
40 mL clear glass VOA vial/2
Refrigerate <6-C
28 days
1, 2,3
Volatile Organic Compounds
(VOC)
Shaw Environmental: EPA
Method 5021A+ 8260C (RSKSOP-
299vl)
40 mL amber glass VOA vial/2
No headspace TSP3, pH
>10; refrigerate <6-C
14 days
1, 2
Volatile Organic Compounds
(VOC)
EPA Region 7 RASP Contract
Southwest Research Institute:
EPA Method 8260B
40 mL amber glass VOA vial/4
No headspace; HCI, pH
<2; refrigerate <6-C
14 days
4, 5
Low Molecular Weight Acids
Shaw Environmental: No EPA
Method (RSKSOP-112v6)
40 mL amber glass VOA vial/2
TSP3, pH >10;
refrigerate <6-C
30 days
1, 2,4
-------
A-29
Table Al. Sample containers, preservation, and holding times for groundwater samples from Wise County,
TX.
Sample Type
Analysis Method (Lab Method)
Sample Bottles/ # of bottles1
Preservation/ Storage
Holding
Time(s)
Sampling
Rounds2
Semi-volatile organic
compounds (sVOC)
EPA Region 8: EPA Method
8270D (ORGM-515 rl.l)
1 L amber glass bottle/2
Refrigerate <6-C
7 days
extraction, 30
days after
extraction
1, 2,4
Diesel Range Organics (DRO)
EPA Region 8: EPA Method
8015D (ORGM-508 rl.0)
1L amber glass bottle/2
HCL, pH <2; refrigerate
<6-C
7 days
extraction, 40
days after
extraction
1, 2,4
Gasoline Range Organics
(GRO)
EPA Region 8: EPA Method
8015D (ORGM-506 rl.0)
40 mL amber VOA vial/2
No headspace HCL, pH
<2; refrigerate <6-C
14 days
1, 2,4
Glycols
EPA Region 3: No EPA Method
(R3 Method5)
40 mL amber VOA vial/2
Refrigerate <6-C
14 days
1, 2,4
87Sr/86Sr Isotope Analysis
USGS: No EPA Method (Thermal
ionization mass spectrometry)
500 mL plastic bottle/2
Refrigerate <6-C
6 months
2, 3, 4, 5
O, H stable isotopes of water
Shaw Environmental: No EPA
Method (RSKSOP-334vO)
20 ml glass VOA vial/1
Refrigerate <6-C
Stable
2, 3, 4, 5
1 Spare bottles made available for laboratory QC samples and for replacement of compromised samples (broken bottle, QC failures, etc.). 2 Sampling rounds
occurred in September 2011, March 2012, and September 2012, December 2012, and May 2013. 3 Trisodium phosphate. 4 Above freezing point of water.
-------
A-30
Table A2. Field QC samples for groundwater analysis.
QC Sample
Purpose
Method
Frequency
Acceptance Criteria1/
Corrective Actions
Trip Blanks (VOCs and
Dissolved Gases only
Assess Contamination during
transportation.
Fill bottles with reagent
water and preserve, take to
field and return without
opening.
One in an ice chest with VOA
and dissolved gas samples.
QL, but <10X the
concentration found in the
blank.
Equipment Blanks
Assess contamination from
field equipment, sampling
procedures, decontamination
procedures, sample
container, preservative, and
shipping.
Apply only to samples
collected via equipment,
such as filtered samples:
Reagent water is filtered and
collected into bottles and
preserved same as filtered
samples.
One per day of sampling.
Field Blanks1
Assess contamination
introduced from sample
container with applicable
preservation.
In the field, reagent water is
collected into sample
containers with
preservatives.
One per day of sampling.
Temperature Blanks
Measure temperature of
samples in the cooler.
Water sample that is
transported in cooler to lab.
One per cooler.
The temperature was
recorded by the receiving lab
upon receipt.2
Field Duplicates
Represent precision of field
sampling, analysis, and site
heterogeneity.
One or more samples
collected immediately after
original sample.
One in every 10 samples, or if
<10 samples collected for a
water typed (ground or
surface), collect a duplicate
for one sample.
RPD<30% for results > 5X the
QL.
Affected data were flagged
as needed.
1	18 16 2	13 12 2
Blank samples were not required for isotope ratio measurements, including 0/ O, H /H, and C/ C. 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-31
Table A3. DOC, DIC, ammonia and anion blanks.
Sample ID
Date
Collected
DOC
DIC
no3 +
no2
nh3
Br
CI
S042
F
1
Units

mg/L
mg/L
mg N/L
mg N/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
	1
=L
September 2011
Field Blank
9/19/2011
0.07
<0.50
<0.10
<0.10
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<0.20
NA
Field Blank
9/20/2011
0.15
<0.50
<0.10
<0.10
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<0.20
NA
Field Blank
9/21/2011
<0.50
<0.50
<0.10
<0.10
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<0.20
NA
Field Blank
9/22/2011
0.19
<0.50
<0.10
<0.10
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<0.20
NA
Equipment Blank
9/19/2011
0.08
<0.50
<0.10
<0.10
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<0.20
NA
Equipment Blank
9/20/3011
0.51
<0.50
<0.10
<0.10
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<0.20
NA
Equipment Blank
9/21/2011
0.09
<0.50
<0.10
<0.10
0.10
<1.00
<1.00
<0.20
NA
Equipment Blank
9/22/2011
0.61
<0.50
R
<0.10
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<0.20
NA











MDL

0.07
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.06
0.11
0.05
0.03
NA
QL

0.50
0.50
0.10
0.10
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.20
NA
Detections in Samples

7/17
17/17
13/17
12/17
9/17
17/17
17/17
13/17
NA
Concentration min

0.77
17.3
0.02
0.10
0.17
4.62
11.5
0.09
NA
Concentration max

7.05
111
0.20
1.79
6.98
1480
214
0.27
NA
March 2012
Field Blank
3/5/2012
<0.25
<0.10
<0.10
<0.10
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<0.20
NA
Field Blank
3/6/2012
<0.25
<0.10
<0.10
<0.10
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<0.20
NA
Field Blank
3/7/2012
<0.25
<0.10
<0.10
<0.10
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<0.20
NA
Field Blank
3/8/2012
<0.25
<0.10
<0.10
<0.10
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<0.20
NA
Equipment Blank
3/5/2012
0.92
<0.10
<0.10
<0.10
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<0.20
NA
Equipment Blank
3/6/2012
0.86
<0.10
<0.10
<0.10
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<0.20
NA
Equipment Blank
3/7/2012
0.62
<0.10
<0.10
<0.10
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<0.20
NA
Equipment Blank
3/8/2012
<0.25
<0.10
<0.10
<0.10
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<0.20
NA
MDL

0.07
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.16
0.11
0.05
0.03
NA
-------
A-32
Table A3. DOC, DIC, ammonia and anion blanks.
Sample ID
Date
Collected
DOC
DIC
N03 +
no2
nh3
Br
CI
S042
F
1
Units

mg/L
mg/L
mg N/L
mg N/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
	1
zL
QL

0.25
0.50
0.10
0.10
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.20
NA
Detections in Samples

20/20
20/20
3/20
16/20
11/20
20/20
20/20
18/20
NA
Concentration min

0.26
22.1
0.28
0.03
0.13
4.56
13.7
0.06
NA
Concentration max

6.33
105
0.28
3.62
10.1
1950
224
0.38
NA
September 2012
Field Blank
9/20/2012
<0.50
<1
<0.10
<0.10
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<0.20
<10.0
Equipment Blank
9/20/2012
<0.50
<1
<0.10
<0.10
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<0.20
<10.0











MDL

0.01
0.04
0.01
0.01
0.17
0.13
0.16
0.04
2.22
QL

0.50
1.00
0.10
0.10
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.20
10.0
Detections in Samples

4/4
4/4
1/4
4/4
4/4
4/4
4/4
3/4
4/4
Concentration min

0.77
27.2
0.47
0.51
2.43
553
58.7
0.14
95.8
Concentration max

45.7
64.8
0.47
286
886
143400
285
0.34
57800
December 2012
Equipment Blank 1-122012
12/3/2012
0.69
<1.00
<0.10
<0.10
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<0.20
<10.0
Equipment Blank 2-122012
12/4/2012
<0.50
<1.00
<0.10
<0.10
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<0.20
<10.0
Equipment Blank 3-122012
12/5/2012
<0.50
<1.00
<0.10
<0.10
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<0.20
<10.0
Field Blank 1-122012
12/3/2012
0.69
<1.00
<0.10
<0.10
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<0.20
<10.0
Field Blank 2-122012
12/4/2012
<0.50
<1.00
<0.10
<0.10
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<0.20
<10.0
Field Blank 3-122012
12/5/2012
<0.50
<1.00
<0.10
<0.10
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<0.20
<10.0
Pump Equipment Blank 1-122012
12/4/2012
<0.50
<1.00
<0.10
<0.10
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<0.20
<10.0











MDL

0.01
0.04
0.01
0.01
0.17
0.13
0.16
0.05
2.22
QL

0.50
1.00
0.10
0.10
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.20
10.0
Detections in Samples

5/12
12/12
7/12
12/12
3/12
12/12
12/12
7/12
12/12
Concentration min

0.57
29.5
0.01
0. 07
0.65
7.34
6.86
0.05
15.1
-------
A-33
Table A3. DOC, DIC, ammonia and anion blanks.
Sample ID
Date
Collected
DOC
DIC
N03 +
no2
nh3
Br
CI
S042
F
1
Units

mg/L
mg/L
mg N/L
mg N/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
	1
zL
Concentration max

22.5
70.5
0.30
3.51
7.73
1910
157
0.15
343
May 2013
Equipment Blank 1-052013
5/28/2013
0.31
<1.00
<0.10
<0.10
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<0.20
<10
Equipment Blank 2-052013
5/29/2013
0.63
<1.00
<0.10
<0.10
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<0.20
<10
Equipment Blank 3-052013
5/30/2013
0.22
<1.00
<0.10
<0.10
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<0.20
<10
Field Blank 1-052013
5/28/2013
0.09
<1.00
<0.10
<0.10
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<0.20
<10
Field Blank 2-052013
5/29/2013
0.11
<1.00
<0.10
<0.10
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<0.20
<10
Field Blank 3-052013
5/30/2013
<0.50
<1.00
<0.10
<0.10
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<0.20
<10
Pump Equipment Blank 1-052013
5/29/2013
0.43
<1.00
0.01
<0.10
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<0.20
<10











MDL

0.05
0.09
0.01
0.02
0.17
0.13
0.16
0.05
2.22
QL

0.50
1.00
0.10
0.10
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.20
10.0
Detections in Samples

13/13
13/13
10/13
13/13
5/13
13/13
13/13
9/13
13/13
Concentration min

0.29
17.8
0.01
0.56
0.42
3.14
0.18
0.05
11.0
Concentration max

236
70.4
0.11
314
903
110100
358
0.14
126000
NA= Not analyzed
-------
A-34
Table A4. Dissolved Metal Blanks.
Sample ID
Date
Collected
Ag
Al
As
B
Ba
Be
Ca
Cd
Co
Cr
Cu
Fe
Units

	1
"b5
zL
	1
zL
	1
"b5
zL
	1
zL
	1
zL
	1
zL
mg/L
	1
"b5
zL
	1
"b5
zL
	1
"b5
zL
	1
"b5
zL
	1
zL
September 2011
Field Blank
9/19/2011
<14
<494
<20
<333
<4
<10
<0.29
<4
<4
-------
A-35
Table A4. Dissolved Metal Blanks.
Sample ID
Date
Collected
Ag
Al
As
B
Ba
Be
Ca
Cd
Co
Cr
Cu
Fe
Units

M-g/L
	1
zL
	1
"b5
zL
	1
zL
	1
zL
	1
zL
mg/L
	1
"b5
zL
	1
"b5
zL
	1
"b5
zL
	1
"b5
zL
	1
zL
MDL

2
44
0.44
41
47
i
1.50
0.22
12
0.43
0.46
25
QL

10
200
1.0
100
200
5
5.00
1.0
50
2.0
2.0
100
Detections in Samples

0/20
8/20
14/20
16/20
6/20
0/20
20/20
0/20
0/20
0/20
5/20
6/20
Concentration min

<10
46
1.0
78
48
<5
1.18
<1.0
<50
<2.0
0.66
29
Concentration max

<10
123
5.1
642
141
<5
152
<1.0
<50
<2.0
8.5
403
September 2012
Field Blank
9/20/2012
<10
<20
<0.2
<40
<5
<5
<0.10
<0.20
<5
<2.0
<0.5
<100
Equipment Blank
9/20/2012
<10
<20
<0.2
<40
0.5
<5
<0.10
<0.20
<5
<2.0
<0.5
<100














MDL

3
5
0.2
5
0.4
0.1
0.004
0.20
2
0.3
0.1
40
QL

10
20
0.2
40
5
5
0.10
0.20
5
2
0.5
100
Detections in Samples

0/4
0/4
3/4
4/4
4/4
0/4
4/4
0/4
1/4
3/4
4/4
3/4
Concentration min

<10
<20
0.5
222
7.6
<5
25.7
<0.20
37
0.5
0.4
108
Concentration max

<50
<20000
0.7
27100
12300
<25
21200
<40
37
91
70
46600
December 2012
Equipment Blank 1-122012
12/3/2012
<10
<20
<0.2
<40
<5
<5
<0.1
<0.20
<5
<2.0
0.26
<100
Equipment Blank 2-122012
12/4/2012
<10
<20
<0.2
<40
<5
<5
<0.1
<0.20
<5
<2.0
0.26
<100
Equipment Blank 3-122012
12/5/2012
<10
<20
<0.2
<40
<5
<5
0.02
<0.20
<5
<2.0
0.13
<100
Field Blank 1-122012
12/3/2012
3
<20
<0.2
<40
<5
<5
0.02
<0.20
2
<2.0
<0.5
<100
Field Blank 2-122012
12/4/2012
<10
<20
<0.2
<40
<5
<5
<0.1
<0.20
<5
<2.0
<0.5
<100
Field Blank 3-122012
12/5/2012
<10
<20
<0.2
<40
<5
<5
<0.1
<0.20
<5
<2.0
<0.5
<100
Pump Equipment Blank 1-
122012
12/4/2012
<10
<20
<0.2
<40
<5
<5
<0.1
<0.20
<5
<2.0
<0.5
<100














MDL

3
3
0.2
13
0.4
0.2
0.02
0.20
2
0.3
0.1
40
QL

10
20
0.2
40
5
5
0.1
0.20
5
2.0
0.5
100
-------
A-36
Table A4. Dissolved Metal Blanks.
Sample ID
Date
Collected
Ag
Al
As
B
Ba
Be
Ca
Cd
Co
Cr
Cu
Fe
Units

M-g/L
	1
zL
	1
"b5
zL
	1
zL
	1
zL
	1
zL
mg/L
	1
"b5
zL
	1
"b5
zL
	1
"b5
zL
	1
"b5
zL
	1
zL
Detections in Samples

0/12
2/12
12/12
12/12
12/12
0/12
12/12
0/12
2/12
6/12
7/12
3/12
Concentration min

<10
97
0.3
45
7.4
<5
2.0
<0.20
2
2.1
0.6
228
Concentration max

<10
172
3.0
479
474
<5
117
<0.20
3
3.1
2.2
1500
May 2013
Equipment Blank 1-052013
5/28/2013
<10
<20
<0.2
<40
<5
<5
<0.1
<0.2
<5
<2
3.8
<100
Equipment Blank 2-052013
5/29/2013
<10
<20
<0.2
<40
<5
<5
<0.1
<0.2
<5
<2
<0.5
<100
Equipment Blank 3-052013
5/30/2013
<10
<20
<0.2
<40
<5
<5
<0.1
<0.2
<5
<2
<0.5
<100
Field Blank 1-052013
5/28/2013
<10
<20
<0.2
<40
<5
<5
<0.1
<0.2
<5
<2
<0.5
<100
Field Blank 2-052013
5/29/2013
<10
<20
<0.2
<40
<5
<5
<0.1
<0.2
<5
<2
<0.5
<100
Field Blank 3-052013
5/30/2013
<10
<20
<0.2
<40
<5
<5
<0.1
<0.2
<5
<2
<0.5
<100
Pump Equipment Blank 1-
052013
5/29/2013
<10
<20
<0.2
<40
<5
<5
<0.1
<0.2
<5
<2
0.4
<100














MDL

0.6
4
0.04
4
0.1
0.1
0.01
0.1
1
0.3
0.2
13
QL

10
20
0.2
40
5
5
0.1
0.2
5
2
0.5
100
Detections in Samples

0/13
3/13
13/13
12/13
13/13
0/13
13/13
0/13
0/13
0/13
13/13
6/13
Concentration min

<10
21
0.4
49
12
<5
1.7
<0.2
<5
<2
0.3
135
Concentration max

<100
All
3.8
25800
8510
<50
16200
<20
<50
<200
54
93200
-------
A-37
Table A4. Dissolved Metal Blanks.
Sample ID
Date
Collected
Hg
K
Li
Mg
Mn
Mo
Na
Ni
P
Pb
S
Sb
Units

	1
zL
mg/L
	1
"b5
zL
mg/L
	1
zL
	1
zL
mg/L
	1
"b5
zL
mg/L
	1
"b5
zL
mg/L
	1
"b5
zL
September 2011
Field Blank
9/19/2011
NA
<0.35
NA
<0.10
<14
<17
<1.71
<84
<0.06
<17
<0.46
R
Field Blank
9/20/2011
NA
<0.35
NA
<0.10
<14
<17
<1.71
<84
<0.06
<17
<0.46
R
Field Blank
9/21/2011
NA
<0.35
NA
<0.10
<14
<17
<1.71
<84
<0.06
<17
<0.46
R
Field Blank
9/22/2011
NA
<0.35
NA
<0.10
<14
<17
<1.71
<84
<0.06
<17
<0.46
R
Equipment Blank
9/19/2011
NA
<0.35
NA
<0.10
<14
<17
<1.71
<84
<0.06
<17
<0.46
R
Equipment Blank
9/20/3011
NA
<0.35
NA
<0.10
<14
<17
<1.71
<84
<0.06
<17
<0.46
R
Equipment Blank
9/21/3011
NA
<0.35
NA
<0.10
<14
<17
<1.71
<84
<0.06
<17
<0.46
R
Equipment Blank
9/22/2011
NA
<0.35
NA
<0.10
<14
<17
<1.71
<84
<0.06
<17
<0.46
R














MDL


0.11

0.03
4
5
0.51
25
0.02
5
0.14

QL


0.35

0.10
14
17
1.71
84
0.06
17
0.46

Detections in Samples


17/17

17/17
15/17
0/17
17/17
0/17
2/17
0/17
17/17

Concentration min


0.50

0.32
5
<17
10.5
<84
0.03
<17
4.15

Concentration max


6.51

60.6
63
<17
990
<84
0.03
<17
71.2

March 2012
Field Blank
3/5/2012
NA
<5.00
NA
<5.00
<15
<20
<5.00
<1.0
NA
<1.0
<0.50
<60
Field Blank
3/6/2012
NA
<5.00
NA
<5.00
<15
<20
<5.00
<1.0
NA
<1.0
<0.50
<60
Field Blank
3/7/2012
NA
<5.00
NA
<5.00
<15
<20
<5.00
0.42
NA
<1.0
<0.50
<60
Field Blank
3/8/2012
NA
<5.00
NA
<5.00
<15
<20
<5.00
0.27
NA
<1.0
<0.50
<60
Equipment Blank
3/5/2012
NA
<5.00
NA
<5.00
<15
<20
<5.00
<1.0
NA
<1.0
<0.50
<60
Equipment Blank
3/6/2012
NA
<5.00
NA
<5.00
<15
<20
<5.00
<1.0
NA
<1.0
<0.50
<60
Equipment Blank
3/7/2012
NA
<5.00
NA
<5.00
<15
<20
<5.00
<1.0
NA
<1.0
<0.50
<60
Equipment Blank
3/8/2012
NA
<5.00
NA
<5.00
<15
<20
<5.00
<1.0
NA
<1.0
<0.50
<60
-------
A-38
Table A4. Dissolved Metal Blanks.
Sample ID
Date
Collected
Hg
K
Li
Mg
Mn
Mo
Na
Ni
P
Pb
S
Sb
Units

	1
zL
mg/L
	1
"b5
zL
mg/L
	1
zL
	1
zL
mg/L
	1
"b5
zL
mg/L
	1
"b5
zL
mg/L
	1
"b5
zL














MDL


1.01

1.01
4
9
1.04
0.22

0.20
0.22
15
QL


5.00

5.00
15
20
5.00
1.0

1.0
0.50
60
Detections in Samples


19/20

16/20
18/20
0/20
20/20
9/20

4/20
20/20
0/20
Concentration min


1.09

1.01
4
<20
6.39
0.24

0.22
5.31
<60
Concentration max


10.1

64.8
93
<20
1200
0.90

0.64
80.6
<60
September 2012
Field Blank
9/20/2012
NA
<0.5
<10
<0.05
<5
<0.5
<0.25
<0.20
<0.05
<0.20
NA
<0.20
Equipment Blank
9/20/2012
NA
<0.5
<10
<0.05
0.2
<0.5
<0.25
<0.20
<0.05
<0.20
NA
<0.20














MDL


0.1
1
0.01
0.2
0.1
0.01
0.1
0.01
0.1

0.1
QL


0.5
10
0.05
5
0.5
0.25
0.2
0.05
0.2

0.2
Detections in Samples


4/4
4/4
4/4
4/4
4/4
4/4
4/4
4/4
0/4

1/4
Concentration min


1.8
56
11.7
13
0.6
428
1.2
0.04
<0.20

0.12
Concentration max


1780
30100
2410
3400
43
60100
771
87
<40

0.12
December 2012
Equipment Blank 1-122012
12/3/2012
<0.2
<0.5
<10
<0.05
<5
<0.5
<0.25
<0.20
<0.05
<0.20
NA
<0.20
Equipment Blank 2-122012
12/4/2012
<0.2
<0.5
<10
<0.05
<5
<0.5
<0.25
0.20
<0.05
<0.20
NA
<0.20
Equipment Blank 3-122012
12/5/2012
<0.2
<0.5
<10
<0.05
<5
<0.5
<0.25
<0.20
<0.05
<0.20
NA
<0.20
Field Blank 1-122012
12/3/2012
<0.2
<0.5
<10
0.01
<5
<0.5
<0.25
0.14
<0.05
<0.20
NA
<0.20
Field Blank 2-122012
12/4/2012
<0.2
<0.5
<10
<0.05
<5
<0.5
<0.25
<0.20
<0.05
<0.20
NA
<0.20
Field Blank 3-122012
12/5/2012
<0.2
<0.5
<10
<0.05
<5
<0.5
<0.25
<0.20
<0.05
<0.20
NA
<0.20
Pump Equipment Blank 1-122012
12/4/2012
<0.2
<0.5
<10
<0.05
<5
<0.5
<0.25
<0.20
<0.05
<0.20
NA
<0.20














MDL

0.01
0.1
1
0.01
0.3
0.05
0.01
0.10
0.01
0.05

0.10
-------
A-39
Table A4. Dissolved Metal Blanks.
Sample ID
Date
Collected
Hg
K
Li
Mg
Mn
Mo
Na
Ni
P
Pb
S
Sb
Units

	1
zL
mg/L
	1
"b5
zL
mg/L
	1
zL
	1
zL
mg/L
	1
"b5
zL
mg/L
	1
"b5
zL
mg/L
	1
"b5
zL
QL

0.2
0.5
10
0.05
5
0.5
0.25
0.20
0.05
0.20

0.20
Detections in Samples

0/12
12/12
10/12
12/12
12/12
11/12
12/12
10/12
4/12
9/12

3/12
Concentration min

<0.2
1.0
29
0.75
4.0
0.50
4.35
0.11
0.04
0.07

0.11
Concentration max

<0.2
18.6
152
55.7
280
0.85
1130
5.60
0.97
1.0

0.14
May 2013
Equipment Blank 1-052013
5/28/2013
<0.2
<0.5
<10
<0.05
<5
<0.5
<0.25
<0.2
<0.05
0.46
NA
<0.2
Equipment Blank 2-052013
5/29/2013
<0.2
<0.5
<10
<0.05
<5
<0.5
<0.25
<0.2
<0.05
<0.20
NA
<0.2
Equipment Blank 3-052013
5/30/2013
<0.2
<0.5
<10
<0.05
<5
<0.5
4.18
<0.2
0.06
<0.20
NA
<0.2
Field Blank 1-052013
5/28/2013
<0.2
<0.5
<10
<0.05
<5
<0.5
<0.25
0.3
<0.05
<0.20
NA
<0.2
Field Blank 2-052013
5/29/2013
<0.2
<0.5
<10
<0.05
<5
<0.5
<0.25
<0.2
<0.05
<0.20
NA
<0.2
Field Blank 3-052013
5/30/2013
<0.2
<0.5
<10
<0.05
<5
<0.5
1.33
<0.2
<0.05
<0.20
NA
<0.2
Pump Equipment Blank 1-052013
5/29/2013
<0.2
<0.5
<10
<0.05
<5
8.4
<0.25
0.2
<0.05
<0.20
NA
<0.2














MDL

0.01
0.05
0.4
0.01
0.2
0.15
0.01
0.2
0.01
0.05

0.1
QL

0.2
0.5
10
0.05
5
0.5
0.25
0.2
0.05
0.20

0.2
Detections in Samples

0/13
12/13
10/13
13/13
9/13
13/13
13/13
10/13
8/13
9/13

0/13
Concentration min

<0.2
1.0
31
0.12
5
0.5
1.15
0.2
0.05
0.10

<0.2
Concentration max

<0.2
928
25900
1860
2560
102
96400
682
145
353

<20
NA. Not Analyzed
R. Data Rejected
-------
A-40
Table A4. Dissolved Metal Blanks.
Sample ID
Date
Collected
Se
Si
Sr
Th
Ti
TI
U
V
Zn
Units

	1
zL
mg/L
	1
zL
	1
zL
	1
zL
	1
zL
	1
zL
	1
zL
	1
zL
September 2011
Field Blank
9/19/2011
<30
<0.43
<4
NA
-------
A-41
Table A4. Dissolved Metal Blanks.
Sample ID
Date
Collected
Se
Si
Sr
Th
Ti
TI
U
V
Zn
Units

	1
zL
mg/L
	1
zL
	1
zL
	1
zL
	1
zL
	1
zL
	1
zL
	1
zL
MDL


0.04
5

4
0.20
0.19
1.10

QL


0.10
10

10
1.0
1.0
5.0

Detections in Samples


20/20
20/20

10/20
0/20
5/20
1/20

Concentration min


0.13
52

5
<1.0
0.55
1.4

Concentration max


10.7
13900

12
<1.0
2
1.4

September 2012
Field Blank
9/20/2012
<2
<0.1
<5
<0.20
<5
<0.20
<0.20
<0.20
<5
Equipment Blank
9/20/2012
<2
<0.1
<5
<0.20
<5
<0.20
<0.20
<0.20
<5











MDL

0.6
0.01
0.1
0.1
1
0.1
0.2
0.02
1
QL

2
0.1
5
0.2
5
0.2
0.2
0.20
5
Detections in Samples

0/4
4/4
4/4
0/4
0/4
0/4
0/4
4/4
4/4
Concentration min

<2
5.1
3020
<0.20
<5
<0.20
<0.20
0.05
1
Concentration max

<400
15
752000
<40
<25
<40
<40
14
291
December 2012
Equipment Blank 1-122012
12/3/2012
<2
<0.1
<2.0
<0.20
<5
<0.20
<0.20
<0.2
4
Equipment Blank 2-122012
12/4/2012
<2
<0.1
<2.0
<0.20
<5
<0.20
<0.20
<0.2
<5
Equipment Blank 3-122012
12/5/2012
<2
<0.1
<2.0
<0.20
<5
<0.20
<0.20
<0.2
<5
Field Blank 1-122012
12/3/2012
<2
0.01
<2.0
<0.20
<5
<0.20
<0.20
<0.2
<5
Field Blank 2-122012
12/4/2012
<2
<0.1
<2.0
<0.20
<5
<0.20
<0.20
<0.2
<5
Field Blank 3-122012
12/5/2012
<2
<0.1
<2.0
<0.20
<5
<0.20
<0.20
<0.2
<5
Pump Equipment Blank 1-122012
12/4/2012
<2
<0.1
<2.0
<0.20
<5
<0.20
<0.20
<0.2
<5











MDL

0.6
0.01
0.2
0.05
1
0.05
0.15
0.02
3
QL

2
0.1
2.0
0.20
5
0.20
0.20
0.2
5
-------
A-42
Table A4. Dissolved Metal Blanks.
Sample ID
Date
Collected
Se
Si
Sr
Th
Ti
TI
U
V
Zn
Units

	1
"1
mg/L
	1
zL
	1
zL
	1
zL
	1
zL
	1
zL
	1
zL
	1
zL
Detections in Samples

1/12
12/12
12/12
1/12
2/12
0/12
3/12
12/12
7/12
Concentration min

0.6
2.6
233
0.24
11
<0.20
0.18
0.02
3
Concentration max

0.6
7.1
12100
0.24
15
<0.20
1.1
2.30
13
May 2013
Equipment Blank 1-052013
5/28/2013
<2
<0.1
<2
<0.2
<5
<0.20
<0.20
<0.2
<5
Equipment Blank 2-052013
5/29/2013
<2
<0.1
<2
<0.2
0.5
<0.20
<0.20
<0.2
<5
Equipment Blank 3-052013
5/30/2013
0.5
<0.1
2.3
<0.2
<5
<0.20
<0.20
<0.2
<5
Field Blank 1-052013
5/28/2013
<2
<0.1
0.1
<0.2
<5
<0.20
<0.20
<0.2
<5
Field Blank 2-052013
5/29/2013
<2
<0.1
<2
<0.2
<5
<0.20
<0.20
<0.2
<5
Field Blank 3-052013
5/30/2013
<2
<0.1
0.2
<0.2
<5
<0.20
<0.20
<0.2
<5
Pump Equipment Blank 1-052013
5/29/2013
<2
<0.1
0.2
<0.2
<5
<0.20
<0.20
0.07
8











MDL

0.4
0.01
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.05
0.05
0.02
0.5
QL

2
0.1
2
0.2
5
0.20
0.20
0.2
5
Detections in Samples

5/13
13/13
13/13
0/13
0/13
0/13
5/13
9/13
5/13
Concentration min

0.4
0.34
26
<0.2
<5
<0.20
0.06
0.02
6
Concentration max

1.1
38
584000
<20
<50
<20
0.53
2.3
119
NA. Not Analyzed
R. Data Rejected
-------
A-43
Table A5. Total Metal Blanks.
Sample ID
Date
Collected
Ag
Al
As
B
Ba
Be
Ca
Cd
Co
Cr
Cu
Fe
Units

*
1—
	1
zL
	1
"b5
zL
	1
zL
	1
"b5
zL
	1
"b5
zL
mg/L
	1
"b5
zL
	1
"b5
zL
	1
"b5
zL
	1
"b5
zL
	1
zL
September 2011
Field Blank
9/19/2011
<16
<548
<22
<370
<4
<11
<0.32
<4
<4
<8
<22
<74
Field Blank
9/20/2011
<16
<548
<22
<370
<4
<11
<0.32
<4
<4
<8
8
<74
Field Blank
9/21/2011
<16
<548
<22
<370
<4
<11
<0.32
<4
<4
<8
<22
23
Field Blank
9/22/2011
<16
<548
<22
<370
<4
<11
<0.32
<4
<4
<8
<22
<74
Equipment Blank
9/19/2011
<16
<548
<22
<370
<4
<11
<0.32
<4
<4
<8
<22
<74
Equipment Blank
9/20/3011
<16
<548
<22
<370
<4
<11
<0.32
<4
<4
<8
<22
<74
Equipment Blank
9/21/3011
<16
<548
<22
<370
<4
<11
<0.32
<4
<4
<8
<22
<74
Equipment Blank
9/22/2011
<16
<548
<22
<370
<4
<11
<0.32
<4
<4
<8
<22
<74














MDL

4
164
1
111
1
3
0.10
1
1
2
7
22
QL

16
548
22
370
4
11
0.32
4
4
8
22
74
Detections in Samples

0/17
1/17
0/11
9/17
17/17
0/17
17/17
0/17
0/17
0/17
2/17
7/17
Concentration min

<16
1360
<22
112
9
<11
1.13
<4
<4
<8
10
48
Concentration max

<16
1360
<22
596
133
<11
138
<4
<4
<8
10
589
March 2012
Field Blank
3/5/2012
<10
<200
0.84
<100
<200
<5
<5.00
<1.0
<50
<2.0
<2.0
<100
Field Blank
3/6/2012
<10
<200
0.70
<100
<200
<5
<5.00
<1.0
<50
<2.0
<2.0
<100
Field Blank
3/7/2012
<10
<200
0.71
<100
<200
<5
<5.00
<1.0
<50
<2.0
<2.0
<100
Field Blank
3/8/2012
<10
<200
0.54
<100
<200
<5
<5.00
<1.0
<50
<2.0
<2.0
<100
MDL

2
44
0.44
41
47
1
1.50
0.22
12
0.43
0.46
25
QL

10
200
1.0
100
200
5
5.00
1.0
50
2.0
2.0
100
Detections in Samples

0/20
10/20
15/20
16/20
7/20
0/20
20/20
0/20
0/20
1/20
6/20
10/20
Concentration min

<10
46
1.0
75
48
<5
1.2
<1.0
<50
0.54
2.3
34
Concentration max

<10
400
4.8
644
144
<5
143
<1.0
<50
0.54
9
1380
-------
A-44
Table A5. Total Metal Blanks.
Sample ID
Date
Collected
Ag
Al
As
B
Ba
Be
Ca
Cd
Co
Cr
Cu
Fe
Units

*
1—
	1
zL
	1
"b5
zL
	1
zL
	1
"b5
zL
	1
"b5
zL
mg/L
	1
"b5
zL
	1
"b5
zL
	1
"b5
zL
	1
"b5
zL
	1
zL
September 2012
Field Blank
9/20/2012
<10
<20
<0.2
<20
0.3
<3
0.04
<0.20
2
<2.0
<0.5
<50
Equipment Blank
9/20/2012
<10
<20
<0.2
<20
<3
<3
0.01
<0.20
3
<2.0
<0.5
<50














MDL

2
5
0.2
3
0.1
0.1
0.010
0.2
1
0.3
0.1
20
QL

10
20
0.2
20
3
3
0.05
0.2
3
2
0.5
50
Detections in Samples

0/4
0/4
3/4
4/4
4/4
0/4
4/4
0/4
1/4
0/4
1/4
4/4
Concentration min

<10
<20
0.7
249
8.7
<3
28.6
<0.20
22
<2.0
0.68
66
Concentration max

<100
<20000
0.9
27500
11800
<15
20400
<40
22
<400
0.68
41800
December 2012
Field Blank 1-122012
12/3/2012
<10
<20
<0.2
<20
<3
<3
0.02
<0.20
<3
<2.0
<0.5
<50
Field Blank 2-122012
12/4/2012
<10
<20
<0.2
<20
<3
<3
<0.05
<0.20
<3
<2.0
0.15
<50
Field Blank 3-122012
12/5/2012
<10
22
<0.2
<20
<3
<3
0.21
<0.20
<3
<2.0
0.20
<50
Pump Equipment Blank 1-122012
12/4/2012
<10
<20
<0.2
<20
<3
<3
0.01
<0.20
<3
<2.0
<0.5
<50














MDL

2
3
0.2
7
0.2
0.1
0.01
0.20
1
0.3
0.1
20
QL

10
20
0.2
20
3
3
0.05
0.20
3
2.0
0.5
50
Detections in Samples

0/12
4/12
12/12
12/12
12/12
0/12
12/12
0/12
2/12
0/12
11/12
6/12
Concentration min

<10
32
0.4
68
7.7
<3
2.0
<0.20
2
<2.0
0.52
31
Concentration max

<10
976
3.5
490
481
<3
116
<0.20
2
<2.0
3.7
1950
May 2013
Equipment Blank 1-052013
5/28/2013
<10
<20
<0.2
<20
<3
<3
<0.05
<0.2
<3
<2
<0.5
<50
Equipment Blank 2-052013
5/29/2013
0.6
<20
<0.2
<20
<3
<3
<0.05
<0.2
<3
<2
<0.5
<50
Equipment Blank 3-052013
5/30/2013
<10
<20
<0.2
<20
<3
<3
<0.05
<0.2
<3
<2
<0.5
<50
Field Blank 1-052013
5/28/2013
<10
<20
<0.2
<20
<3
<3
<0.05
<0.2
<3
<2
<0.5
<50
Field Blank 2-052013
5/29/2013
<10
<20
<0.2
<20
<3
<3
<0.05
<0.2
<3
<2
<0.5
<50
-------
A-45
Table A5. Total Metal Blanks.
Sample ID
Date
Collected
Ag
Al
As
B
Ba
Be
Ca
Cd
Co
Cr
Cu
Fe
Units

*
1—
	1
zL
	1
"b5
zL
	1
zL
	1
"b5
zL
	1
"b5
zL
mg/L
	1
"b5
zL
	1
"b5
zL
	1
"b5
zL
	1
"b5
zL
	1
zL
Field Blank 3-052013
5/30/2013
<10
<20
<0.2
<20
<3
<3
<0.05
<0.2
<3
<2
<0.5
<50
Pump Equipment Blank 1-052013
5/29/2013
<10
<20
<0.2
<20
<3
<3
<0.05
<0.2
<3
<2
0.5
<50














MDL

0.6
4
0.04
2
0.2
0.1
0.01
0.1
0.4
0.3
0.2
7
QL

10
20
0.2
20
3
3
0.05
0.2
3
2
0.5
50
Detections in Samples

0/13
6/13
13/13
13/13
13/13
0/13
13/13
2/13
0/13
1/13
13/13
8/13
Concentration min

<10
97
0.5
60.6
12
<3
1.8
0.3
<3
9
0.3
114
Concentration max

<50
1170
13
25300
9430
<50
15900
0.5
<50
9
47
60900
-------
A-46
Table A5. Total Metal Blanks.
Sample ID
Date
Collected
Hg
K
Li
Mg
Mn
Mo
Na
Ni
P
Pb
S
Sb
Units

*
1—
mg/L
	1
"b5
zL
mg/L
	1
"b5
zL
	1
"b5
zL
mg/L
	1
"b5
zL
mg/L
	1
"b5
zL
mg/L
	1
"b5
zL
September 2011
Field Blank
9/19/2011
NA
<0.39
NA
<0.11
<16
<19
<1.90
<93
<0.07
<19
<0.51
R
Field Blank
9/20/2011
NA
<0.39
NA
<0.11
<16
<19
<1.90
<93
<0.07
<19
<0.51
R
Field Blank
9/21/2011
NA
<0.39
NA
<0.11
<16
<19
<1.90
<93
<0.07
<19
<0.51
R
Field Blank
9/22/2011
NA
<0.39
NA
<0.11
<16
<19
<1.90
<93
<0.07
<19
<0.51
R
Equipment Blank
9/19/2011
NA
<0.39
NA
<0.11
<16
<19
<1.90
<93
<0.07
<19
<0.51
R
Equipment Blank
9/20/3011
NA
<0.39
NA
<0.11
<16
<19
<1.90
<93
<0.07
<19
<0.51
R
Equipment Blank
9/21/3011
NA
<0.39
NA
<0.11
<16
<19
<1.90
<93
<0.07
<19
<0.51
R
Equipment Blank
9/22/2011
NA
<0.39
NA
<0.11
<16
<19
<1.90
<93
<0.07
<19
<0.51
R














MDL


0.12

0.03
4
6
0.57
28
0.02
6
0.15

QL


0.39

0.11
16
19
1.90
93
0.07
19
0.51

Detections in Samples


17/17

17/17
15/17
0/17
17/17
0/17
2/17
0/17
17/17

Concentration min


0.54

0.34
7
<19
11.1
<93
0.04
<19
3.57

Concentration max


7.01

61
63
<19
1040
<93
0.04
<19
68.3

March 2012
Field Blank
3/5/2012
NA
<5.00
NA
<5.00
<15
<20
<5.00
<1.0
NA
<1.0
<0.50
<60
Field Blank
3/6/2012
NA
<5.00
NA
<5.00
<15
<20
<5.00
<1.0
NA
<1.0
<0.50
<60
Field Blank
3/7/2012
NA
<5.00
NA
<5.00
<15
<20
<5.00
<1.0
NA
<1.0
<0.50
<60
Field Blank
3/8/2012
NA
<5.00
NA
<5.00
<15
<20
<5.00
<1.0
NA
<1.0
<0.50
<60
MDL


1.01
NA
1.01
4
9
1.04
0.22

0.20
0.22
15
QL


5.00
NA
5.00
15
20
5.00
1.0

1.0
0.50
60
Detections in Samples


19/20
NA
15/20
18/20
0/20
20/20
8/20

0/20
20/20
0/20
Concentration min


1.07
NA
1.02
4
<20
5.93
0.28

<1.0
5.06
<60
Concentration max


9.25
NA
61
88
<20
1190
0.89

<1.0
83.9
<60
-------
A-47
Table A5. Total Metal Blanks.
Sample ID
Date
Collected
Hg
K
Li
Mg
Mn
Mo
Na
Ni
P
Pb
S
Sb
Units

M-g/L
mg/L
	1
"b5
zL
mg/L
	1
"b5
zL
	1
"b5
zL
mg/L
	1
"b5
zL
mg/L
	1
"b5
zL
mg/L
	1
"b5
zL
September 2012
Field Blank
9/20/2012
NA
<0.3
<5
<0.03
0.2
<0.5
<0.13
0.30
<0.03
<0.20
NA
<0.20
Equipment Blank
9/20/2012
NA
<0.3
<5
<0.03
0.3
<0.5
<0.13
0.90
<0.03
<0.20
NA
<0.20














MDL


0.1
1
0.01
0.2
0.1
0.01
0.1
0.01
0.1

0.10
QL


0.3
5
0.03
3
0.5
0.13
0.2
0.03
0.2

0.2
Detections in Samples


4/4
4/4
4/4
4/4
3/4
4/4
4/4
4/4
1/4

1/4
Concentration min


2.1
64
13
20
0.7
458
1.3
0.02
0.3

0.12
Concentration max


1640
25000
2330
3430
1.2
59900
716
3.77
0.3

0.12
December 2012
Field Blank 1-122012
12/3/2012
<0.2
<0.3
<5
<0.03
<3
0.11
<0.13
0.36
<0.03
<0.20
NA
<0.20
Field Blank 2-122012
12/4/2012
<0.2
<0.3
<5
<0.03
<3
<0.5
<0.13
0.24
<0.03
<0.20
NA
<0.20
Field Blank 3-122012
12/5/2012
<0.2
<0.3
<5
<0.03
0.47
<0.5
<0.13
0.48
<0.03
0.08
NA
<0.20
Pump Equipment Blank 1-122012
12/4/2012
<0.2
<0.3
<5
<0.03
<3
<0.5
<0.13
0.20
<0.03
<0.20
NA
<0.20














MDL

0.01
0.1
1
0.01
0.2
0.05
0.01
0.10
0.01
0.05

0.10
QL

0.2
0.3
5
0.03
3
0.5
0.13
0.20
0.03
0.20

0.20
Detections in Samples

1/12
12/12
10/12
12/12
12/12
11/12
12/12
12/12
3/12
10/12

3/12
Concentration min

0.01
1.0
29
0.79
3.8
0.51
4.29
0.38
0.04
0.14

0.12
Concentration max

0.01
18.7
154
56.8
299
0.90
1160
6.3
0.22
1.7

0.14
May 2013
Equipment Blank 1-052013
5/28/2013
<0.2
<0.3
<5
<0.03
<3
<0.5
<0.13
<0.2
<0.03
<0.20
NA
<0.2
Equipment Blank 2-052013
5/29/2013
<0.2
<0.3
<5
<0.03
<3
<0.5
<0.13
<0.2
<0.03
<0.20
NA
<0.2
Equipment Blank 3-052013
5/30/2013
0.02
<0.3
<5
<0.03
<3
<0.5
<0.13
<0.2
<0.03
<0.20
NA
<0.2
Field Blank 1-052013
5/28/2013
<0.2
<0.3
<5
<0.03
<3
<0.5
<0.13
<0.2
<0.03
<0.20
NA
<0.2
Field Blank 2-052013
5/29/2013
<0.2
<0.3
<5
<0.03
<3
<0.5
<0.13
<0.2
<0.03
<0.20
NA
<0.2
-------
A-48
Table A5. Total Metal Blanks.
Sample ID
Date
Collected
Hg
K
Li
Mg
Mn
Mo
Na
Ni
P
Pb
S
Sb
Units

*
1—
mg/L
	1
"b5
zL
mg/L
	1
"b5
zL
	1
"b5
zL
mg/L
	1
"b5
zL
mg/L
	1
"b5
zL
mg/L
	1
"b5
zL
Field Blank 3-052013
5/30/2013
<0.2
<0.3
<5
<0.03
<3
<0.5
<0.13
<0.2
<0.03
<0.20
NA
<0.2
Pump Equipment Blank 1-052013
5/29/2013
<0.2
<0.3
<5
<0.03
<3
19
<0.13
0.4
<0.03
<0.20
NA
<0.2














MDL

0.01
0.02
0.2
0.01
0.1
0.15
0.01
0.2
0.01
0.05

0.4
QL

0.2
0.3
5
0.03
3
0.5
0.13
0.2
0.03
0.20

2
Detections in Samples

2/13
11/13
10/13
13/13
13/13
12/13
13/13
10/13
3/13
9/13

1/13
Concentration min

0.02
1.0
30
0.14
3.5
0.6
1.05
0.2
0.18
0.22

0.4
Concentration max

0.15
891
25000
1860
2650
1.6
48100
73.5
268
1960

0.4
NA. Not Analyzed
R. Data Rejected
-------
A-49
Table A5. Total Metal Blanks.
Sample ID
Date
Collected
Se
Si
Sr
Th
Ti
TI
U
V
Zn
Units

Hg/L
mg/L
	1
"b5
zL
	1
zL
	1
zL
	1
zL
	1
zL
	1
zL
	1
zL
September 2011
Field Blank
9/19/2011
<33
<0.48
<4
NA
<8
<19
<56
<11
<56
Field Blank
9/20/2011
<33
<0.48
<4
NA
<8
<19
<56
<11
<56
Field Blank
9/21/2011
<33
<0.48
<4
NA
<8
<19
<56
<11
<56
Field Blank
9/22/2011
<33
0.16
<4
NA
<8
<19
<56
<11
<56
Equipment Blank
9/19/2011
<33
<0.48
<4
NA
<8
<19
<56
<11
<56
Equipment Blank
9/20/3011
<33
<0.48
<4
NA
<8
<19
<56
<11
<56
Equipment Blank
9/21/3011
<33
<0.48
<4
NA
<8
<19
<56
<11
<56
Equipment Blank
9/22/2011
<33
<0.48
<4
NA
<8
<19
<56
<11
<56











MDL

10
0.14
1

2
6
17
3
17
QL

33
0.48
4

8
19
56
11
56
Detections in Samples

0/17
17/17
17/17

1/17
0/17
3/17
1/17
3/17
Concentration min

<33
3.97
51

52
<19
19
4
41
Concentration max

<33
17.0
6690

52
<19
24
4
356
March 2012
Field Blank
3/5/2012
R
<0.10
<10
NA
<10
<1.0
<1.0
<5.0
NA
Field Blank
3/6/2012
R
<0.10
<10
NA
<10
<1.0
<1.0
<5.0
NA
Field Blank
3/7/2012
R
<0.10
<10
NA
<10
<1.0
<1.0
<5.0
NA
Field Blank
3/8/2012
R
<0.10
<10
NA
<10
<1.0
<1.0
<5.0
NA
MDL


0.04
5

4
0.20
0.19
1.10

QL


0.10
10

10
1.0
1.0
5.0

Detections in Samples


20/20
20/20

10/20
0/20
5/20
1/20

Concentration min


0.2
54

5
<1.0
0.51
1.4

Concentration max


11.4
12900

12
<1.0
2
1.4

-------
A-50
Table A5. Total Metal Blanks.
Sample ID
Date
Collected
Se
Si
Sr
Th
Ti
TI
U
V
Zn
Units

Hg/L
mg/L
	1
"b5
zL
	1
zL
	1
zL
	1
zL
	1
zL
	1
zL
	1
zL
September 2012
Field Blank
9/20/2012
<2
<0.1
<3
<0.20
<3
<0.20
<0.20
<0.20
<3
Equipment Blank
9/20/2012
<2
<0.1
<3
0.065
<3
<0.20
<0.20
<0.20
<3











MDL

0.6
0.01
0.1
0.1
1
0.1
0.2
0.02
1
QL

2
0.1
3
0.2
3
0.2
0.2
0.20
3
Detections in Samples

0/4
4/4
4/4
0/4
0/4
1/4
0/4
3/4
4/4
Concentration min

<2
5.7
3250
<0.20
<3
17
<0.20
0.21
1
Concentration max

<400
14
689000
<40
<500
17
<40
17.2
312
December 2012
Field Blank 1-122012
12/3/2012
<2
0.02
<2.0
0.05
<3
<0.20
<0.20
<0.2
3
Field Blank 2-122012
12/4/2012
<2
0.01
<2.0
<0.20
<3
<0.20
<0.20
0.37
<3
Field Blank 3-122012
12/5/2012
<2
0.05
<2.0
<0.20
<3
<0.20
<0.20
0.42
2
Pump Equipment Blank 1-122012
12/4/2012
<2
0.02
<2.0
<0.20
<3
<0.20
<0.20
0.23
<3











MDL

0.6
0.01
0.2
0.05
1
0.05
0.15
0.02
1
QL

2
0.05
2.0
0.20
3
0.20
0.20
0.2
3
Detections in Samples

2/12
12/12
12/12
2/12
2/12
0/12
3/12
12/12
9/12
Concentration min

0.7
2.7
242
0.09
7
<0.20
0.16
0.21
2
Concentration max

0.8
7.3
13200
0.12
7
<0.20
1.2
3.0
21
May 2013
Equipment Blank 1-052013
5/28/2013
<2
<0.05
<2
0.2
<3
<0.20
<0.20
0.23
1
Equipment Blank 2-052013
5/29/2013
<2
<0.05
<2
<0.2
<3
<0.20
<0.20
0.23
<3
Equipment Blank 3-052013
5/30/2013
<2
<0.05
<2
<0.2
<3
<0.20
<0.20
0.48
0.4
Field Blank 1-052013
5/28/2013
<2
<0.05
<2
<0.2
<3
<0.20
<0.20
0.22
1
Field Blank 2-052013
5/29/2013
<2
<0.05
<2
<0.2
<3
<0.20
<0.20
0.24
<3
-------
A-51
Table A5. Total Metal Blanks.
Sample ID
Date
Collected
Se
Si
Sr
Th
Ti
TI
U
V
Zn
Units

Hg/L
mg/L
	1
"b5
zL
	1
zL
	1
zL
	1
zL
	1
zL
	1
zL
	1
zL
Field Blank 3-052013
5/30/2013
<2
<0.05
<2
<0.2
<3
<0.20
<0.20
0.50
<3
Pump Equipment Blank 1-052013
5/29/2013
<2
<0.05
<2
<0.2
<3
<0.20
<0.20
0.46
11











MDL

0.4
0.01
0.1
0.1
0.4
0.05
0.05
0.02
0.4
QL

2
0.05
2
0.2
3
0.20
0.20
0.2
3
Detections in Samples

0/13
13/13
13/13
4/13
4/13
1/13
5/13
12/13
12/13
Concentration min

<2
0.47
30.1
0.1
3
0.97
0.06
0.40
1
Concentration max

<100
19
60400
0.5
27
0.97
0.58
2.80
191
NA. Not Analyzed
-------
A-52
Table A6. VOC Blanks.
Sample ID
Date
Collected
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)
Units

M-g/L
	1
"b5
zL
	1
"b5
zL
	1
"b5
zL
	1
"b5
zL
	1
"b5
zL
	1
"b5
zL
	1
"b5
zL
September 2011
Field Blank
9/20/2011
<100
<25.0
NA
NA
<1.0
<5.0
<1.0
<1.0
Field Blank
9/19/2011
<100
<25.0
NA
NA
<1.0
<5.0
<1.0
<1.0
Field Blank
9/21/2011
<100
<25.0
NA
NA
<1.0
<5.0
<1.0
<1.0
Field Blank
9/22/2011
<100
<25.0
NA
NA
<1.0
<5.0
<1.0
<1.0
Equipment Blank
9/20/2011
<100
<25.0
NA
NA
<1.0
<5.0
<1.0
<1.0
Equipment Blank
9/19/2011
<100
<25.0
NA
NA
<1.0
<5.0
<1.0
<1.0
Equipment Blank
9/21/2011
<100
<25.0
NA
NA
<1.0
<5.0
<1.0
<1.0
Equipment Blank
9/22/2011
<100
<25.0
NA
NA
<1.0
<5.0
<1.0
<1.0
Trip Blank
9/20/2011
<100
<25.0
NA
NA
<1.0
<5.0
<1.0
<1.0
Trip Blank
9/19/2011
<100
<25.0
NA
NA
<1.0
<5.0
<1.0
<1.0
Trip Blank
9/21/2011
<100
<25.0
NA
NA
<1.0
<5.0
<1.0
<1.0
Trip Blank
9/22/2011
<100
<25.0
NA
NA
<1.0
<5.0
<1.0
<1.0
Trip Blank
9/22/2011
<100
<25.0
NA
NA
<1.0
<5.0
<1.0
<1.0










MDL

12.4
6.4
NA
NA
0.63
2.8
0.41
0.12
QL

100
25.0
NA
NA
1.0
5.0
1.0
1.0
-------
A-53
Table A6. VOC Blanks.
Sample ID
Date
Collected
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)
Units

M-g/L
	1
"b5
zL
	1
"b5
zL
	1
"b5
zL
	1
"b5
zL
	1
"b5
zL
	1
"b5
zL
	1
"b5
zL
Detections in Samples

0/17
0/17
NA
NA
0/17
0/17
0/17
0/17
Concentration min

<100
<25.0
NA
NA
<1.0
<5.0
<1.0
<1.0
Concentration max

<100
<25.0
NA
NA
<1.0
<5.0
<1.0
<1.0
March 2012
Field Blank
3/5/2012
<100
<25.0
<25.0
<0.5
<1.0
<5.0
<1.0
<1.0
Field Blank
3/6/2012
<100
<25.0
<25.0
<0.5
<1.0
<5.0
<1.0
<1.0
Field Blank
3/7/2012
<100
<25.0
<25.0
<0.5
<1.0
<5.0
<1.0
<1.0
Field Blank
3/8/2012
<100
<25.0
<25.0
<0.5
<1.0
<5.0
<1.0
<1.0
Trip Blank
3/5/2012
<100
<25.0
<25.0
<0.5
<1.0
<5.0
<1.0
<1.0
Trip Blank
3/6/2012
<100
<25.0
<25.0
<0.5
<1.0
<5.0
<1.0
<1.0
Trip Blank
3/7/2012
<100
<25.0
<25.0
<0.5
<1.0
<5.0
<1.0
<1.0










MDL

12.4
6.4
6.8
0.16
0.63
2.81
0.41
0.12
QL

100
25.0
25.0
0.5
1.0
5.0
1.0
1.0
Detections in Samples

0/20
0/20
0/20
0/20
0/20
0/20
0/20
0/20
Concentration min

<100
<25.0
<25.0
<0.5
<1.0
<5.0
<1.0
<1.0
Concentration max

<100
<25.0
<25.0
<0.5
<1.0
<5.0
<1.0
<1.0
-------
A-54
Table A6. VOC Blanks.
Sample ID
Date
Collected
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)
Units

Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
M-g/L
M-g/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
September 2012
Field Blank
9/20/12
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Trip Blank
9/20/12
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA










MDL









QL









Detections in Samples









Concentration min









Concentration max









December 2012
Field Blank 1-122012
12/3/12
<100
<10
<1
NA
<1
<10
<0.5
<0.5
Field Blank 2-122012
12/4/12
<100
<10
<1
NA
11
<10
<0.5
<0.5
Field Blank 3-122012
12/5/12
<100
<10
<1
NA
14
<10
<0.5
<0.5
Pump Equipment Blank 1-122012
12/4/12
<100
<10
<1
NA
12
<10
<0.5
<0.5
Trip Blank 1-122012
12/3/12
<100
<10
<1
NA
<1
<10
<0.5
<0.5
Trip Blank 2-122012
12/4/12
<100
<10
<1
NA
<1
<10
<0.5
<0.5
Trip Blank 3-122012
12/5/12
<100
<10
<1
NA
11
<10
<0.5
<0.5
-------
A-55
Table A6. VOC Blanks.
Sample ID
Date
Collected
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)
Units

M-g/L
	1
"b5
zL
	1
"b5
zL
	1
"b5
zL
	1
"b5
zL
	1
"b5
zL
	1
"b5
zL
	1
"b5
zL
MDL

63
i
0.07

0.28
5
0.07
0.11
QL

100
10
1

1
10
0.5
0.5
Detections in Samples

0/12
0/12
0/12

5/12
1/12
1/12
0/12
Concentration min

<100
<10
<1

8.7
38
0.56
<0.5
Concentration max

<100
<10
<1

23
38
0.56
<0.5
May 2013
Field Blank 1-052013
5/28/2013
<100
<10
<1
<0.5
1.7
<10
<0.5
<0.5
Field Blank 2-052013
5/29/2013
<100
<10
<1
<0.5
2.8
<10
<0.5
<0.5
Field Blank 3-052013
5/30/2013
<100
<10
<1
<0.5
2.5
<10
<0.5
<0.5
Pump Equipment Blank 1-052013
5/29/2013
<100
<10
<1
<0.5
2.8
<10
<0.5
<0.5
Trip Blank 1-052013
5/29/2013
<100
<10
<1
<0.5
0.89
<10
<0.5
<0.5
Trip Blank 2-052013
5/30/2013
<100
<10
<1
<0.5
0.8
<10
<0.5
<0.5










MDL

63
7
0.07
0.05
0.28
5
0.07
0.11
QL

100
10
1
0.5
1
10
0.5
0.5
Detections in Samples

1/13
2/13
0/13
0/13
13/13
0/13
0/13
0/13
Concentration min

2200
170
<1
<0.5
1.7
<10
<0.5
<0.5
-------
Concentration max
cz
D
r+
V)
Sample ID


Date
Collected
2200
T
gq^
1—
ethanol (64 17 5)
U>
crt
o
T
c*
1—
isopropanol (67 63 0)
<200
T
gq^
1—
acrylonitrile (107 13 1)
<100
T
gq^
1—
styrene (100 42 5)
00
00
o
T
gq^
1—
acetone (67 64 1)
<200
T
c*
i—
tert butyl Alcohol (75 65 0)
<100
T
C*
i—
methyl tert butyl ether (1634 04 4)
<100
T
c*
i—
diisopropyl ether (108 20 3)
H
as
ff
cT
>
<
o
n
ca
ST
3
>
U1
o
-------
A-57
Table A6. VOC Blanks
Sample ID
Date
Collected
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 1,2 dichloroethene (156 60 5)
1,1 dichloroethane (75 34 3)
Units

M-g/L
	1
"b5
zL
	1
"b5
zL
	1
"b5
zL
	1
"b5
zL
	1
"b5
zL
	1
"b5
zL
	1
"b5
zL
September 2011
Field Blank
9/20/2011
<1.0
<1.0
<0.5
R
<0.5
<1.0
<0.5
<0.5
Field Blank
9/19/2011
<1.0
<1.0
<0.5
R
<0.5
<1.0
<0.5
<0.5
Field Blank
9/21/2011
<1.0
<1.0
<0.5
R
<0.5
<1.0
<0.5
<0.5
Field Blank
9/22/2011
<1.0
<1.0
<0.5
R
<0.5
<1.0
<0.5
<0.5
Equipment Blank
9/20/2011
<1.0
<1.0
<0.5
R
<0.5
<1.0
<0.5
<0.5
Equipment Blank
9/19/2011
<1.0
<1.0
<0.5
R
<0.5
<1.0
<0.5
<0.5
Equipment Blank
9/21/2011
<1.0
<1.0
<0.5
R
<0.5
<1.0
<0.5
<0.5
Equipment Blank
9/22/2011
<1.0
<1.0
<0.5
R
<0.5
<1.0
<0.5
<0.5
Trip Blank
9/20/2011
<1.0
<1.0
<0.5
R
<0.5
<1.0
<0.5
<0.5
Trip Blank
9/19/2011
<1.0
<1.0
<0.5
R
<0.5
<1.0
<0.5
<0.5
Trip Blank
9/21/2011
<1.0
<1.0
<0.5
R
<0.5
<1.0
<0.5
<0.5
Trip Blank
9/22/2011
<1.0
<1.0
<0.5
R
<0.5
<1.0
<0.5
<0.5
Trip Blank
9/22/2011
<1.0
<1.0
<0.5
R
<0.5
<1.0
<0.5
<0.5










MDL

0.17
0.15
0.18

0.07
0.14
0.11
0.08
QL

1.0
1.0
0.5

0.5
1.0
0.5
0.5
-------
A-58
Table A6. VOC Blanks
Sample ID
Date
Collected
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 1,2 dichloroethene (156 60 5)
1,1 dichloroethane (75 34 3)
Units

M-g/L
	1
"b5
zL
	1
"b5
zL
	1
"b5
zL
	1
"b5
zL
	1
"b5
zL
	1
"b5
zL
	1
"b5
zL
Detections in Samples

0/17
0/17
0/17

0/17
0/17
0/17
0/17
Concentration min

<1.0
<1.0
<0.5

<0.5
<1.0
<0.5
<0.5
Concentration max

<1.0
<1.0
<0.5

<0.5
<1.0
<0.5
<0.5
March 2012
Field Blank
3/5/2012
<1.0
<1.0
<0.5
R
<0.5
<1.0
<0.5
<0.5
Field Blank
3/6/2012
<1.0
<1.0
<0.5
R
<0.5
<1.0
<0.5
<0.5
Field Blank
3/7/2012
<1.0
<1.0
<0.5
R
<0.5
<1.0
<0.5
<0.5
Field Blank
3/8/2012
<1.0
<1.0
<0.5
R
<0.5
<1.0
<0.5
<0.5
Trip Blank
3/5/2012
<1.0
<1.0
<0.5
R
<0.5
<1.0
<0.5
<0.5
Trip Blank
3/6/2012
<1.0
<1.0
<0.5
R
<0.5
<1.0
<0.5
<0.5
Trip Blank
3/7/2012
<1.0
<1.0
<0.5
R
<0.5
<1.0
<0.5
<0.5










MDL

0.17
0.15
0.18

0.07
0.14
0.11
0.08
QL

1.0
1.0
0.5

0.5
1.0
0.5
0.5
Detections in Samples

0/20
0/20
0/20
R
0/20
0/20
0/20
0/20
Concentration min

<1.0
<1.0
<0.5
R
<0.5
<1.0
<0.5
<0.5
Concentration max

<1.0
<1.0
<0.5
R
<0.5
<1.0
<0.5
<0.5
-------
A-59
Table A6. VOC Blanks
Sample ID
Date
Collected
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 1,2 dichloroethene (156 60 5)
1,1 dichloroethane (75 34 3)
Units

M-g/L
	1
"b5
zL
	1
"b5
zL
	1
"b5
zL
	1
"b5
zL
	1
"b5
zL
	1
"b5
zL
	1
"b5
zL
September 2012
Field Blank
9/20/12
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Trip Blank
9/20/12
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA










MDL









QL









Detections in Samples









Concentration min









Concentration max









December 2012
Field Blank 1-122012
12/3/12
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
Field Blank 2-122012
12/4/12
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
Field Blank 3-122012
12/5/12
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
Pump Equipment Blank 1-122012
12/4/12
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
Trip Blank 1-122012
12/3/12
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
Trip Blank 2-122012
12/4/12
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
Trip Blank 3-122012
12/5/12
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
-------
A-60
Table A6. VOC Blanks
Sample ID
Date
Collected
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 1,2 dichloroethene (156 60 5)
1,1 dichloroethane (75 34 3)
Units

M-g/L
	1
"b5
=L
	1
"b5
=L
	1
"b5
=L
	1
"b5
=L
	1
"b5
=L
	1
"b5
=L
	1
"b5
=L
MDL

0.09
0.11
0.14
0.09
0.1
0.1
0.07
0.06
QL

0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
Detections in Samples

1/12
1/12
0/12
0/12
0/12
0/12
0/12
0/12
Concentration min

1.9
0.076
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
Concentration max

1.9
0.076
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
May 2013
Field Blank 1-052013
5/28/2013
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
Field Blank 2-052013
5/29/2013
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
Field Blank 3-052013
5/30/2013
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
Pump Equipment Blank 1-052013
5/29/2013
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
Trip Blank 1-052013
5/29/2013
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
Trip Blank 2-052013
5/30/2013
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5










MDL

0.09
0.11
0.14
0.09
0.1
0.1
0.07
0.06
QL

0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
Detections in Samples

0/13
0/13
0/13
0/13
0/13
0/13
0/13
0/13
Concentration min

<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
-------
n
= o
fD CD
O r+
r+ fD
fD
CL
52.	ethyl tert butyl ether (637 92 3)
I—
53,	tert amyl methyl ether (994 05 8)
I—
S3, vinyl chloride (75 01 4)
I—
S3. 1,1 dichloroethene (75 35 4)
I—
S3, carbon disulfide (75 15 0)
I—
S3, methylene chloride (75 09 2)
I—
trans 1,2 dichloroethene (156 60 5)
S3. 1,1 dichloroethane (75 34 3)
-------
A-62
Table A6. VOC Blanks.
Sample ID
Date
Collected
cis 1,2 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)
Units

M-g/L
	1
"b5
zL
	1
"b5
zL
	1
"b5
zL
	1
"b5
zL
	1
"b5
zL
	1
"b5
zL
	1
"b5
zL
September 2011
Field Blank
9/20/2011
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
Field Blank
9/19/2011
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
Field Blank
9/21/2011
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
Field Blank
9/22/2011
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
Equipment Blank
9/20/2011
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
Equipment Blank
9/19/2011
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
Equipment Blank
9/21/2011
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
Equipment Blank
9/22/2011
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
Trip Blank
9/20/2011
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
Trip Blank
9/19/2011
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
Trip Blank
9/21/2011
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
Trip Blank
9/22/2011
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
Trip Blank
9/22/2011
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5










MDL

0.14
0.07
0.09
0.1
0.07
0.16
0.15
0.1
QL

0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
-------
A-63
Table A6. VOC Blanks.
Sample ID
Date
Collected
cis 1,2 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)
Units

M-g/L
	1
"b5
zL
	1
"b5
zL
	1
"b5
zL
	1
"b5
zL
	1
"b5
zL
	1
"b5
zL
	1
"b5
zL
Detections in Samples

0/17
0/17
0/17
0/17
0/17
0/17
0/17
0/17
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
March 2012
Field Blank
3/5/2012
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
Field Blank
3/6/2012
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
Field Blank
3/7/2012
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
Field Blank
3/8/2012
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
Trip Blank
3/5/2012
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
Trip Blank
3/6/2012
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
Trip Blank
3/7/2012
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5










MDL

0.14
0.07
0.09
0.10
0.07
0.16
0.15
0.10
QL

0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
Detections in Samples

0/20
0/20
0/20
0/20
1/20
0/20
0/20
0/20
Concentration min

<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
0.62
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
Concentration max

<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
0.62
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
-------
A-64
Table A6. VOC Blanks.
Sample ID
Date
Collected
cis 1,2 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)
Units

M-g/L
	1
"b5
zL
	1
"b5
zL
	1
"b5
zL
	1
"b5
zL
	1
"b5
zL
	1
"b5
zL
	1
"b5
zL
September 2012
Field Blank
9/20/12
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Trip Blank
9/20/12
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA










MDL









QL









Detections in Samples









Concentration min









Concentration max









December 2012
Field Blank 1-122012
12/3/12
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
Field Blank 2-122012
12/4/12
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
Field Blank 3-122012
12/5/12
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
Pump Equipment Blank 1-122012
12/4/12
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
Trip Blank 1-122012
12/3/12
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
Trip Blank 2-122012
12/4/12
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
Trip Blank 3-122012
12/5/12
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
-------
A-65
Table A6. VOC Blanks.
Sample ID
Date
Collected
cis 1,2 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)
Units

M-g/L
	1
"b5
zL
	1
"b5
zL
	1
"b5
zL
	1
"b5
zL
	1
"b5
zL
	1
"b5
zL
	1
"b5
zL
MDL

0.1
0.05
0.09
0.09
0.05
0.04
0.12
0.07
QL

0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
Detections in Samples

0/12
0/12
0/12
0/12
1/12
0/12
0/12
0/12
Concentration min

<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
0.08
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
Concentration max

<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
0.08
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
May 2013
Field Blank 1-052013
5/28/2013
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
Field Blank 2-052013
5/29/2013
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
Field Blank 3-052013
5/30/2013
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
Pump Equipment Blank 1-052013
5/29/2013
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
Trip Blank 1-052013
5/29/2013
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
Trip Blank 2-052013
5/30/2013
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5










MDL

0.1
0.05
0.09
0.09
0.05
0.04
0.12
0.07
QL

0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
Detections in Samples

0/13
0/13
0/13
0/13
3/13
0/13
0/13
0/13
Concentration min

<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
0.12
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
-------
n
cz
t/>
QJ

3
r+
3
fD
V)
~D_


fD
-5
CL>
r+

a
o'


3


X




n


= o


n 5+


n> ^


Q_
A
T

I—1
O
gq^
cis 1,2 dichoroethene (156 59 2)
o
1—
A
T

1—1
O
era
chloroform (67 66 3)
o
i—
A
T

1—1
o
era
1,1,1 trichloroethane (71 55 6)
o
i—
A
T

I—1
o
era
carbon tetrachloride (56 23 5)
o
i—
-P*
T

U>
o
era
benzene (71 43 2)
o
i—
A
T

1—1
o
era
1,2 dichloroethane (107 06 2)
o
i—
A
T

1—1
o
era
trichloroethene (79 01 6)
o
i—
A
T

1—1
o
era
toluene (108 88 3)
o
i—
H
as
ff
cT
>
<
o
n
ca
ST
3
>
Ch
o
-------
A-67
Table A6. VOC Blanks.
Sample ID
Date
Collected
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)
Units

M-g/L
M-g/L
M-g/L
	1
"b5
zL
	1
"b5
zL
M-g/L
	1
"b5
zL
	1
"b5
zL
September 2011
Field Blank
9/20/2011
R
<0.5
<0.5
<1.0
<2.0
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
Field Blank
9/19/2011
R
<0.5
<0.5
<1.0
<2.0
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
Field Blank
9/21/2011
R
<0.5
<0.5
<1.0
<2.0
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
Field Blank
9/22/2011
R
<0.5
<0.5
<1.0
<2.0
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
Equipment Blank
9/20/2011
R
<0.5
<0.5
<1.0
<2.0
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
Equipment Blank
9/19/2011
R
<0.5
<0.5
<1.0
<2.0
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
Equipment Blank
9/21/2011
R
<0.5
<0.5
<1.0
<2.0
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
Equipment Blank
9/22/2011
R
<0.5
<0.5
<1.0
<2.0
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
Trip Blank
9/20/2011
R
<0.5
<0.5
<1.0
<2.0
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
Trip Blank
9/19/2011
R
<0.5
<0.5
<1.0
<2.0
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
Trip Blank
9/21/2011
R
<0.5
<0.5
<1.0
<2.0
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
Trip Blank
9/22/2011
R
<0.5
<0.5
<1.0
<2.0
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
Trip Blank
9/22/2011
R
<0.5
<0.5
<1.0
<2.0
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5










MDL


0.1
0.09
0.07
0.17
0.06
0.06
0.06
QL


0.5
0.5
1.0
2.0
0.5
0.5
0.5
-------
A-68
Table A6. VOC Blanks.
Sample ID
Date
Collected
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)
Detections in Samples


0/17
0/17
0/17
0/17
0/17
0/17
0/17
Concentration min


<0.5
<0.5
<1.0
<2.0
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
Concentration max


<0.5
<0.5
<1.0
<2.0
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
March 2012
Field Blank
3/5/2012
R
<0.5
<0.5
<1.0
<2.0
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
Field Blank
3/6/2012
R
<0.5
<0.5
<1.0
<2.0
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
Field Blank
3/7/2012
R
<0.5
<0.5
<1.0
<2.0
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
Field Blank
3/8/2012
R
<0.5
<0.5
<1.0
<2.0
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
Trip Blank
3/5/2012
R
<0.5
<0.5
<1.0
<2.0
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
Trip Blank
3/6/2012
R
<0.5
<0.5
<1.0
<2.0
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
Trip Blank
3/7/2012
R
<0.5
<0.5
<1.0
<2.0
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5










MDL


0.10
0.09
0.07
0.17
0.06
0.06
0.06
QL


0.5
0.5
1.0
2.0
0.5
0.5
0.5
Detections in Samples


0/20
0/20
0/20
0/20
0/20
0/20
0/20
Concentration min


<0.5
<0.5
<1.0
<2.0
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
Concentration max


<0.5
<0.5
<1.0
<2.0
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
-------
A-69
Table A6. VOC Blanks.
Sample ID
Date
Collected
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)
September 2012
Field Blank
9/20/12
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Trip Blank
9/20/12
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA










MDL









QL









Detections in Samples









Concentration min









Concentration max









December 2012
Field Blank 1-122012
12/3/12
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<1
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
Field Blank 2-122012
12/4/12
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<1
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
Field Blank 3-122012
12/5/12
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<1
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
Pump Equipment Blank 1-122012
12/4/12
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<1
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
Trip Blank 1-122012
12/3/12
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<1
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
Trip Blank 2-122012
12/4/12
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<1
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
Trip Blank 3-122012
12/5/12
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<1
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
MDL

0.07
0.13
0.08
0.06
0.15
0.06
0.07
0.08
-------
A-70
Table A6. VOC Blanks.
Sample ID
Date
Collected
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)
QL

0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
1
0.5
0.5
0.5
Detections in Samples

0/12
0/12
0/12
0/12
0/12
0/12
0/12
0/12
Concentration min

<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<1
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
Concentration max

<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<1
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
May 2013
Field Blank 1-052013
5/28/2013
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<1.0
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
Field Blank 2-052013
5/29/2013
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<1.0
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
Field Blank 3-052013
5/30/2013
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<1.0
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
Pump Equipment Blank 1-052013
5/29/2013
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
0.07
0.4
0.22
<0.5
<0.5
Trip Blank 1-052013
5/29/2013
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<1.0
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
Trip Blank 2-052013
5/30/2013
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<1.0
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5










MDL

0.07
0.13
0.08
0.06
0.15
0.06
0.07
0.08
QL

0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
1
0.5
0.5
0.5
Detections in Samples

0/13
0/13
0/13
2/13
3/13
3/13
2/13
2/13
Concentration min

<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
350
0.25
0.09
46
230
Concentration max

<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
720
5600
1500
55
810
R. Data Rejected
-------
A-71
Table A6. VOC Blanks.
Sample ID
Date
Collected
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)
Units

M-g/L
	1
"b5
=L
	1
"b5
=L
	1
"b5
=L
	1
"b5
=L
	1
"b5
=L
September 2011
Field Blank
9/20/2011
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
Field Blank
9/19/2011
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
Field Blank
9/21/2011
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
Field Blank
9/22/2011
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
Equipment Blank
9/20/2011
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
Equipment Blank
9/19/2011
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
Equipment Blank
9/21/2011
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
Equipment Blank
9/22/2011
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
Trip Blank
9/20/2011
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
Trip Blank
9/19/2011
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
Trip Blank
9/21/2011
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
Trip Blank
9/22/2011
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
Trip Blank
9/22/2011
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5








MDL

0.06
0.1
0.08
0.12
0.13
0.12
QL

0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
-------
A-72
Table A6. VOC Blanks.
Sample ID
Date
Collected
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)
Units

M-g/L
	1
"b5
zL
	1
"b5
zL
	1
"b5
zL
	1
"b5
zL
	1
"b5
zL
Detections in Samples

0/17
0/17
0/17
0/17
0/17
0/17
Concentration min

<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
March 2012
Field Blank
3/5/2012
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
Field Blank
3/6/2012
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
Field Blank
3/7/2012
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
Field Blank
3/8/2012
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
Trip Blank
3/5/2012
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
Trip Blank
3/6/2012
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
Trip Blank
3/7/2012
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5








MDL

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
Detections in Samples

0/20
0/20
0/20
0/20
0/20
0/20
Concentration min

<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
-------
A-73
Table A6. VOC Blanks.
Sample ID
Date
Collected
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)
Units

M-g/L
M-g/L
M-g/L
M-g/L
M-g/L
Mg/L
September 2012
Field Blank
9/20/12
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Trip Blank
9/20/12
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA








MDL







QL







Detections in Samples







Concentration min







Concentration max







December 2012
Field Blank 1-122012
12/3/12
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
Field Blank 2-122012
12/4/12
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
Field Blank 3-122012
12/5/12
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
Pump Equipment Blank 1-122012
12/4/12
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
Trip Blank 1-122012
12/3/12
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
Trip Blank 2-122012
12/4/12
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
Trip Blank 3-122012
12/5/12
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
-------
A-74
Table A6. VOC Blanks.
Sample ID
Date
Collected
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)
Units

M-g/L
	1
"b5
zL
	1
"b5
zL
	1
"b5
zL
	1
"b5
zL
	1
"b5
zL
MDL

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
Detections in Samples

1/12
0/12
0/12
0/12
0/12
0/12
Concentration min

0.074
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
Concentration max

0.074
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
May 2013
Field Blank 1-052013
5/28/2013
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
Field Blank 2-052013
5/29/2013
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
Field Blank 3-052013
5/30/2013
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
Pump Equipment Blank 1-052013
5/29/2013
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
Trip Blank 1-052013
5/29/2013
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
Trip Blank 2-052013
5/30/2013
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5








MDL

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
Detections in Samples

2/13
0/13
0/13
2/13
0/13
2/13
Concentration min

360
<0.5
<0.5
99
<0.5
25
-------
H
as
ra
>
<
o
n
2
ST
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)
>
U1
-------
A-76
Table A7. Low Molecular Weight Acid Blanks.
Sample ID
Date
Collected
Lactate
(50 21 5)
Formate
(64 18 6)
Acetate
(64 19 7)
Propionate
(79 09 4)
Butyrate
(107 92 6)
Units

mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
September 2011
Field Blank
9/19/2011
<0.10
0.04
<0.10
<0.10
<0.10
Field Blank
9/20/2011
<0.10
0.04
<0.10
<0.10
<0.10
Field Blank
9/21/2011
<0.10
0.04
0.19
<0.10
<0.10
Field Blank
9/22/2011
<0.10
0.06
0.22
<0.10
<0.10
Equipment Blank
9/19/2011
<0.10
<0.10
0.22
<0.10
<0.10
Equipment Blank
9/20/2011
<0.10
0.04
0.18
<0.10
<0.10
Equipment Blank
9/21/2011
<0.10
0.05
0.21
<0.10
<0.10
Equipment Blank
9/22/2011
<0.10
0.04
0.13
<0.10
<0.10







MDL

0.01
0.01
0.01
0.02
0.01
QL

0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
Detections in Samples

0/17
2/17
12/17
0/17
0/17
Concentration min

<0.10
0.11
0.14
<0.10
<0.10
Concentration max

<0.10
0.29
0.35
<0.10
<0.10
March 2012
Field Blank
3/5/2012
<0.10
0.13
<0.10
<0.10
<0.10
Field Blank
3/6/2012
<0.10
0.09
<0.10
<0.10
<0.10
Field Blank
3/7/2012
<0.10
0.23
<0.10
<0.10
<0.10
Field Blank
3/8/2012
<0.10
0.13
<0.10
<0.10
<0.10







MDL

0.01
0.01
0.01
0.02
0.01
QL

0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
Detections in Samples

1/20
20/20
6/20
0/20
0/20
Concentration min

0.08
0.12
0.05
<0.10
<0.10
-------
A-77
Table A7. Low Molecular Weight Acid Blanks.
Sample ID
Date
Collected
Lactate
(50 21 5)
Formate
(64 18 6)
Acetate
(64 19 7)
Propionate
(79 09 4)
Butyrate
(107 92 6)
Units

mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
Concentration max

0.08
1.23
0.07
<0.10
<0.10
September 2012
Field Blank
9/20/12
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA







MDL






QL






Detections in Samples






Concentration min






Concentration max






December 2012
Field Blank 1-122012
12/3/12
<0.10
R
<0.10
<0.10
<0.10
Field Blank 2-122012
12/4/12
<0.10
R
<0.10
<0.10
<0.10
Field Blank 3-122012
12/5/12
<0.10
R
<0.10
<0.10
<0.10
Pump Equipment Blank 1-122012
12/4/12
<0.10
R
<0.10
<0.10
<0.10







MDL

0.02

0.01
0.02
0.02
QL

0.10

0.10
0.10
0.10
Detections in Samples

0/12

2/12
0/12
0/12
Concentration min

<0.10

0.26
<0.10
<0.10
Concentration max

<0.10

0.33
<0.10
<0.10
May 2013
Field Blank 1-052013
5/28/2013
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Field Blank 2-052013
5/29/2013
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Field Blank 3-052013
5/30/2013
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Pump Equipment Blank 1-052013
5/29/2013
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
-------
A-78
Table A7. Low Molecular Weight Acid Blanks.
Sample ID
Date
Collected
Lactate
(50 21 5)
Formate
(64 18 6)
Acetate
(64 19 7)
Propionate
(79 09 4)
Butyrate
(107 92 6)
Units

mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L







MDL






QL






Detections in Samples






Concentration min






Concentration max






NA. Not Analyzed
-------
A-79
Table A8. Dissolved Gas Blanks.
Sample ID
Date
Collected
Methane
(74 82 8)
Ethane
(74 84 0)
Propane
(74 98 6)
Butane
(106 97 8)
Units
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
September 2011
Field Blank
9/19/11
<0.0014
<0.0029
<0.0040
<0.0050
Field Blank
9/20/11
<0.0014
<0.0029
<0.0040
<0.0050
Field Blank
9/21/11
<0.0014
0.0013
<0.0040
<0.0050
Field Blank
9/22/11
<0.0014
<0.0029
<0.0040
<0.0050
Equipment Blank
9/19/11
<0.0014
<0.0029
<0.0040
<0.0050
Equipment Blank
9/20/11
<0.0014
<0.0029
<0.0040
<0.0050
Equipment Blank
9/21/11
<0.0014
<0.0029
<0.0040
<0.0050
Equipment Blank
9/22/11
<0.0014
<0.0029
<0.0040
<0.0050
Trip Blank
9/19/11
<0.0014
<0.0029
<0.0040
<0.0050
Trip Blank
9/20/11
<0.0014
<0.0029
<0.0040
<0.0050
Trip Blank
9/21/11
<0.0014
<0.0029
<0.0040
<0.0050
Trip Blank
9/22/11
<0.0014
<0.0029
<0.0040
<0.0050
Trip Blank
9/22/11
R
R
R
R






MDL

0.0002
0.0008
0.0008
0.0010
QL

0.0014
0.0029
0.0040
0.0050
Detections in Samples

9/17
1/17
1/17
1/17
Concentration min

0.0089
0.0017
0.0034
0.0015
Concentration max

0.0188
0.0017
0.0034
0.0015
March 2012
Field Blank
3/5/2012
<0.0014
<0.0027
<0.0038
<0.0048
Field Blank
3/6/2012
<0.0014
<0.0027
<0.0038
<0.0048
Field Blank
3/7/2012
<0.0014
<0.0027
<0.0038
<0.0048
Field Blank
3/8/2012
<0.0014
<0.0027
<0.0038
<0.0048
Trip Blank
3/5/2012
<0.0014
<0.0027
<0.0038
<0.0048
Trip Blank
3/6/2012
<0.0014
<0.0027
<0.0038
<0.0048
Trip Blank
3/7/2012
<0.0014
<0.0027
<0.0038
<0.0048
Trip Blank
3/8/2012
<0.0014
<0.0027
<0.0038
<0.0048






MDL

0.0003
0.0005
0.0007
0.0007
QL

0.0014
0.0027
0.0038
0.0048
Detections in Samples

18/20
0/20
0/20
0/20
Concentration min

0.0007
<0.0027
<0.0038
<0.0048
Concentration max

0.0242
<0.0027
<0.0038
<0.0048
September 2012
Field Blank
9/20/2012
NA
NA
NA
NA
Trip Blank
9/20/2012
NA
NA
NA
NA






MDL





QL





Detections in Samples





-------
A-80
Table A8. Dissolved Gas Blanks.
Sample ID
Date
Collected
Methane
(74 82 8)
Ethane
(74 84 0)
Propane
(74 98 6)
Butane
(106 97 8)
Units

mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
Concentration min





Concentration max





December 2012
Field Blank 1-122012
12/3/2012
<0.0014
<0.0028
<0.0038
<0.0048
Field Blank 2-122012
12/4/2012
<0.0014
<0.0028
<0.0038
<0.0048
Field Blank 3-122012
12/5/2012
<0.0014
<0.0028
<0.0038
<0.0048
Pump Equipment Blank 1-122012
12/4/2012
<0.0014
<0.0028
<0.0038
<0.0048
Trip Blank 1-122012
12/3/2012
<0.0014
<0.0028
<0.0038
<0.0048
Trip Blank2-122012
12/4/2012
<0.0014
<0.0028
<0.0038
<0.0048
Trip Blank3-122012
12/5/2012
<0.0014
<0.0028
<0.0038
<0.0048






MDL

0.0003
0.0005
0.0007
0.0007
QL

0.0014
0.0028
0.0038
0.0048
Detections in Samples

7/12
0/12
0/12
0/12
Concentration min

0.0011
<0.0028
<0.0038
<0.0048
Concentration max

0.1320
<0.0028
<0.0038
<0.0048
May 2013
Field Blank 1-052013
5/28/2013
NA
NA
NA
NA
Field Blank 2-052013
5/29/2013
NA
NA
NA
NA
Field Blank 3-052013
5/30/2013
NA
NA
NA
NA
Pump Equipment Blank 1-052013
5/29/2013
NA
NA
NA
NA
Trip Blank 1-052013
5/29/2013
NA
NA
NA
NA
Trip Blank 2-052013
5/30/2013
NA
NA
NA
NA






MDL





QL





Detections in Samples





Concentration min





Concentration max





R. Data Rejected
-------
A-81
Table A9. Glycol Blanks.
Sample ID
Date
Collected
2 butoxyethanol (111 76 2)
Diethylene glycol (111 46 6)
Triethylene glycol (112 27 6)
Tetraethylene glycol (112 60 7)
Units

	1
1
M-g/L
M-g/L
Mg/L
September 2011
Field Blank
9/19/11
<10
<50
<50
<25
Field Blank
9/20/11
<10
<50
<50
<25
Field Blank
9/21/11
<10
<50
<50
<25
Field Blank
9/22/11
<10
<50
<50
<25
Equipment Blank
9/19/11
<10
<50
<50
<25
Equipment Blank
9/20/11
<10
<50
<50
<25
Equipment Blank
9/21/11
<10
<50
<50
<25
Equipment Blank
9/22/11
<10
<50
<50
<25






QL

5
25
25
25
Detections in Samples

0/17
0/17
0/17
0/17
Concentration min

<10
<50
<50
<25
Concentration max

<10
<50
<50
<25
March 2012
Field Blank
3/5/2012
<10
<50
<50
<25
Field Blank
3/6/2012
<10
<50
<50
<25
Field Blank
3/7/2012
<10
<50
<50
<25
Field Blank
3/8/2012
<10
<50
<50
<25






QL

10
50
50
25
Detections in Samples

0/20
0/20
0/20
0/20
Concentration min

<10
<50
<50
<25
Concentration max

<10
<50
<50
<25
September 2012
Field Blank
9/20/2012
NA
NA
NA
NA






QL





Detections in Samples





Concentration min





-------
A-82
Table A9. Glycol Blanks.
Sample ID
Date
Collected
2 butoxyethanol (111 76 2)
Diethylene glycol (111 46 6)
Triethylene glycol (112 27 6)
Tetraethylene glycol (112 60 7)
Units

	1
1
M-g/L
M-g/L
M-g/L
Concentration max





December 2012
Field Blank 1-122012
12/3/2012
<25
<25
<25
<25
Field Blank 2-122012
12/4/2012
<25
<25
<25
<25
Field Blank 3-122012
12/5/2012
<25
<25
<25
<25
Pump Equipment Blank 1-122012
12/4/2012
<25
<25
<25
<25






QL

25
25
25
25
Detections in Samples

0/12
0/12
0/12
0/12
Concentration min

<25
<25
<25
<25
Concentration max

<25
<25
<25
<25
May 2013
Field Blank 1-052013
5/28/2013
NA
NA
NA
NA
Field Blank 2-052013
5/29/2013
NA
NA
NA
NA
Field Blank 3-052013
5/30/2013
NA
NA
NA
NA
Pump Equipment Blank 1-052013
5/29/2013
NA
NA
NA
NA






QL





Detections in Samples





Concentration min





Concentration max





NA. Not Analyzed
-------
A-83
Table A10. Semi-Volatile Organic Compound (sVOC) Blanks.
Sample ID
Date
Collected
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)
Units

	1
zL
	1
zL
	1
zL
	1
zL
	1
zL
	1
zL
	1
zL
	1
zL
September 2011
Field Blank
9/19/11
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
Field Blank
9/20/11
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
Field Blank
9/21/11
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
Field Blank
9/22/11
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
Equipment Blank
9/19/11
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
Equipment Blank
9/20/11
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
Equipment Blank
9/21/11
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
Equipment Blank
9/22/11
<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
Detections in Samples

0/17
0/17
0/17
0/17
0/17
0/17
0/17
0/17
Concentration min

<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
March 2012
Field Blank
3/5/2012
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
Field Blank
3/6/2012
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
-------
A-84
Table A10. Semi-Volatile Organic Compound (sVOC) Blanks.
Sample ID
Date
Collected
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)
Units

M-g/L
	1
zL
	1
zL
	1
zL
	1
zL
	1
zL
	1
zL
	1
zL
Field Blank
3/7/2012
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
Field Blank
3/8/2012
<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
Detections in Samples

0/20
0/20
0/20
0/20
0/20
0/20
0/20
0/20
Concentration min

<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
September 2012
Field Blank
9/20/12
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA










QL









Detections in Samples









Concentration min









Concentration max









December 2012
Field Blank 1-122012
12/3/12
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
Field Blank 2-122012
12/4/12
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
-------
A-85
Table A10. Semi-Volatile Organic Compound (sVOC) Blanks.
Sample ID
Date
Collected
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)
Units

M-g/L
	1
zL
	1
zL
	1
zL
	1
zL
	1
zL
	1
zL
	1
zL
Field Blank 3-122012
12/5/12
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
Pump Equipment Blank 1-122012
12/4/12
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00










QL

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Detections in Samples

0/12
0/12
0/12
0/12
0/12
0/12
0/12
0/12
Concentration min

<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
Concentration max

<4.00
<4.00
<4.00
<4.00
<4.00
<4.00
<4.00
<4.00
May 2013
Field Blank 1-052013
5/28/2013
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Field Blank 2-052013
5/29/2013
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Field Blank 3-052013
5/30/2013
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Pump Equipment Blank 1-052013
5/29/2013
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA










QL









Detections in Samples









Concentration min









Concentration max









-------
A-86
Table A10. Semi-Volatile Organic Compound (sVOC) Blanks.
Sample ID
Date
Collected
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)
Units

	1
zL
	1
zL
	1
zL
	1
zL
	1
zL
	1
zL
	1
zL
	1
zL
September 2011
Field Blank
9/19/11
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
Field Blank
9/20/11
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
Field Blank
9/21/11
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
Field Blank
9/22/11
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
Equipment Blank
9/19/11
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
Equipment Blank
9/20/11
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
Equipment Blank
9/21/11
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
Equipment Blank
9/22/11
<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
Detections in Samples

0/17
0/17
0/17
0/17
0/17
0/17
0/17
0/17
Concentration min

<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
March 2012
Field Blank
3/5/2012
<1.00
<1.00
<2.00
<2.00
<2.00
<2.00
<2.00
<2.00
-------
A-87
Table A10. Semi-Volatile Organic Compound (sVOC) Blanks.
Sample ID
Date
Collected
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)
Units

	1
zL
	1
zL
	1
zL
	1
zL
	1
zL
	1
zL
	1
zL
	1
zL
Field Blank
3/6/2012
<1.00
<1.00
<2.00
<2.00
<2.00
<2.00
<2.00
<2.00
Field Blank
3/7/2012
<1.00
<1.00
<2.00
<2.00
<2.00
<2.00
<2.00
<2.00
Field Blank
3/8/2012
<1.00
<1.00
<2.00
<2.00
<2.00
<2.00
<2.00
<2.00










QL

1.00
1.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
Detections in Samples

0/20
0/20
0/20
0/20
0/20
0/20
0/20
0/20
Concentration min

<1.00
<1.00
<2.00
<2.00
<2.00
<2.00
<2.00
<2.00
Concentration max

<1.00
<1.00
<2.00
<2.00
<2.00
<2.00
<2.00
<2.00
September 2012
Field Blank
9/20/12
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA










QL









Detections in Samples









Concentration min









Concentration max









December 2012
Field Blank 1-122012
12/3/12
<1.00
<1.00
<2.00
<2.00
<2.00
<2.00
<2.00
<2.00
-------
A-88
Table A10. Semi-Volatile Organic Compound (sVOC) Blanks.
Sample ID
Date
Collected
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)
Units

	1
zL
	1
zL
	1
zL
	1
zL
	1
zL
	1
zL
	1
zL
	1
zL
Field Blank 2-122012
12/4/12
<1.00
<1.00
<2.00
<2.00
<2.00
<2.00
<2.00
<2.00
Field Blank 3-122012
12/5/12
<1.00
<1.00
<2.00
<2.00
<2.00
<2.00
<2.00
<2.00
Pump Equipment Blank 1-122012
12/4/12
<1.00
<1.00
<2.00
<2.00
<2.00
<2.00
<2.00
<2.00










QL

1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
Detections in Samples

0/12
0/12
0/12
0/12
0/12
0/12
0/12
0/12
Concentration min

<1.00
<1.00
<2.00
<2.00
<2.00
<2.00
<2.00
<2.00
Concentration max

<4.00
<4.00
<8.00
<8.00
<8.00
<8.00
<8.00
<8.00
May 2013
Field Blank 1-052013
5/28/2013
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Field Blank 2-052013
5/29/2013
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Field Blank 3-052013
5/30/2013
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Pump Equipment Blank 1-052013
5/29/2013
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA










QL









Detections in Samples









Concentration min









-------
n
n
cz
t/>
QJ
3
r>
ro
3
r+
3
~D_
a>
-5
CL>
r+

a
o"


3


X




n
o
— i—i


CO QJ
O r+


r+ ro
ro
Q_




T
c*
i—
1,4 dinitrobenzene (100 25 4)

T
C*
i—
1 methylnaphthalene (90 12 0)

T
c*
i—
2,3,4,6 tetrachlorophenol (58 90 2)

T
c*
i—
2,3,5,6 tetrachlorophenol (935 95 5)

T
c*
i—
2,4,5 trichlorophenol (95 95 4)

T
c*
i—
2,4,6 trichlorophenol (88 06 2)

T
c*
i—
2,4 dichlorophenol (120 83 2)

T
c*
i—
2,4 dimethylphenol (105 67 9)
H
as
ra
>
on
CD
3
<
o_
ST
re
O
!~S
oro
oj
s
o"
n
o
3
T3
O
e
3
a
E/5
<
O
n
2
ST
3
K"
t/s
>
CO
*£>
-------
A-90
Table A10. Semi-Volatile Organic Compound (sVOC) Blanks.
Sample ID
Date
Collected
2,4 dinitrophenol (51 28 5)
2,4dinitrotoluene (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)
Units

M-g/L
	1
zL
	1
zL
	1
zL
	1
zL
	1
zL
	1
zL
	1
zL
September 2011
Field Blank
9/19/11
<5.00
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
Field Blank
9/20/11
<5.00
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
Field Blank
9/21/11
<5.00
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
Field Blank
9/22/11
<5.00
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
Equipment Blank
9/19/11
<5.00
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
Equipment Blank
9/20/11
<5.00
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
Equipment Blank
9/21/11
<5.00
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
Equipment Blank
9/22/11
<5.00
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50










QL

5.00
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
Detections in Samples

0/17
0/17
0/17
0/17
0/17
0/17
0/17
0/17
Concentration min

<5.00
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
Concentration max

<5.00
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
March 2012
Field Blank
3/5/2012
<3.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<2.00
<1.00
<2.00
Field Blank
3/6/2012
<3.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<2.00
<1.00
<2.00
-------
A-91
Table A10. Semi-Volatile Organic Compound (sVOC) Blanks.
Sample ID
Date
Collected
2,4 dinitrophenol (51 28 5)
2,4dinitrotoluene (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)
Units

	1
zL
	1
zL
	1
zL
	1
zL
	1
zL
	1
zL
	1
zL
	1
zL
Field Blank
3/7/2012
<3.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<2.00
<1.00
<2.00
Field Blank
3/8/2012
<3.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<2.00
<1.00
<2.00










QL

3.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
2.00
1.00
2.00
Detections in Samples

0/20
0/20
0/20
0/20
0/20
0/20
0/20
0/20
Concentration min

<3.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<2.00
<1.00
<2.00
Concentration max

<3.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<2.00
<1.00
<2.00
September 2012
Field Blank
9/20/12
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA










QL









Detections in Samples









Concentration min









Concentration max









December 2012
Field Blank 1-122012
12/3/12
<3.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<2.00
<1.00
<2.00
Field Blank 2-122012
12/4/12
<3.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<2.00
<1.00
<2.00
-------
A-92
Table A10. Semi-Volatile Organic Compound (sVOC) Blanks.
Sample ID
Date
Collected
2,4 dinitrophenol (51 28 5)
2,4dinitrotoluene (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)
Units

	1
zL
	1
zL
	1
zL
	1
zL
	1
zL
	1
zL
	1
zL
	1
zL
Field Blank 3-122012
12/5/12
<3.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<2.00
<1.00
<2.00
Pump Equipment Blank 1-122012
12/4/12
<3.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<2.00
<1.00
<2.00










QL

3
1
1
1
1
2
1
2
Detections in Samples

0/12
0/12
0/12
0/12
0/12
0/12
0/12
0/12
Concentration min

<3.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<2.00
<1.00
<2.00
Concentration max

<12.0
<4.00
<4.00
<4.00
<4.00
<8.00
<4.00
<8.00
May 2013
Field Blank 1-052013
5/28/2013
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Field Blank 2-052013
5/29/2013
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Field Blank 3-052013
5/30/2013
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Pump Equipment Blank 1-052013
5/29/2013
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA










QL









Detections in Samples









Concentration min









Concentration max









-------
A-93
Table A10. Semi-Volatile Organic Compound (sVOC) Blanks.
Sample ID
Date
Collected
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)
Units

	1
zL
	1
zL
	1
zL
	1
zL
	1
zL
	1
zL
	1
zL
	1
zL
September 2011
Field Blank
9/19/11
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
NA
NA
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
Field Blank
9/20/11
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
NA
NA
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
Field Blank
9/21/11
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
NA
NA
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
Field Blank
9/22/11
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
NA
NA
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
Equipment Blank
9/19/11
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
NA
NA
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
Equipment Blank
9/20/11
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
NA
NA
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
Equipment Blank
9/21/11
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
NA
NA
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
Equipment Blank
9/22/11
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
NA
NA
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50










QL

0.50
0.50
0.50


0.50
0.50
0.50
Detections in Samples

0/17
0/17
0/17


0/17
0/17
0/17
Concentration min

<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
March 2012
Field Blank
3/5/2012
<1.00
<2.00
<5.00
<1.00
<3.00
<2.00
<1.00
<2.00
-------
A-94
Table A10. Semi-Volatile Organic Compound (sVOC) Blanks.
Sample ID
Date
Collected
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)
Units

	1
zL
	1
zL
	1
zL
	1
zL
	1
zL
	1
zL
	1
zL
	1
zL
Field Blank
3/6/2012
<1.00
<2.00
<5.00
<1.00
<3.00
<2.00
<1.00
<2.00
Field Blank
3/7/2012
<1.00
<2.00
<5.00
<1.00
<3.00
<2.00
<1.00
<2.00
Field Blank
3/8/2012
<1.00
<2.00
<5.00
<1.00
<3.00
<2.00
<1.00
<2.00










QL

1.00
2.00
5.00
1.00
3.00
2.00
1.00
2.00
Detections in Samples

0/20
0/20
0/20
0/20
0/20
0/20
0/20
0/20
Concentration min

<1.00
<2.00
<5.00
<1.00
<3.00
<2.00
<1.00
<2.00
Concentration max

<1.00
<2.00
<5.00
<1.00
<3.00
<2.00
<1.00
<2.00
September 2012
Field Blank
9/20/12
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA










QL









Detections in Samples









Concentration min









Concentration max









December 2012
Field Blank 1-122012
12/3/12
<1.00
<2.00
<5.00
<1.00
<3.00
<2.00
<1.00
<2.00
-------
A-95
Table A10. Semi-Volatile Organic Compound (sVOC) Blanks.
Sample ID
Date
Collected
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)
Units

	1
zL
	1
zL
	1
zL
	1
zL
	1
zL
	1
zL
	1
zL
	1
zL
Field Blank 2-122012
12/4/12
<1.00
<2.00
<5.00
<1.00
<3.00
<2.00
<1.00
<2.00
Field Blank 3-122012
12/5/12
<1.00
<2.00
<5.00
<1.00
<3.00
<2.00
<1.00
<2.00
Pump Equipment Blank 1-122012
12/4/12
<1.00
<2.00
<5.00
<1.00
<3.00
<2.00
<1.00
<2.00










QL

1
2
5
1
3
2
1
2
Detections in Samples

0/12
0/12
0/12
0/12
0/12
0/12
0/12
0/12
Concentration min

<1.00
<2.00
<5.00
<1.00
<3.00
<2.00
<1.00
<2.00
Concentration max

<4.00
<8.00
<20.0
<4.00
<12.0
<8.00
<4.00
<8.00
May 2013
Field Blank 1-052013
5/28/2013
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Field Blank 2-052013
5/29/2013
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Field Blank 3-052013
5/30/2013
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Pump Equipment Blank 1-052013
5/29/2013
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA










QL









Detections in Samples









Concentration min









-------
>
3
fD
CL
Concentration max
cz
D
r+
IT)
Sample ID


Date
Collected

T
gq^
1—
2 nitroaniline (88 74 4)

T
gq^
1—
2 nitrophenol (88 75 5)

T
gq^
1—
3&4 methylphenol (108 39 4 & 106 44 5)

T
gq^
1—
3,3' dichlorobenzidine (91 94 1)

T
c*
1—
3 nitroaniline (99 09 2)

T
c*
i—
4,6 dinitro 2 methylphenol (534 52 1)

T
c*
i—
4 bromophenyl phenyl ether (101 55 3)

T
c*
i—
4 chloro 3 methylphenol (59 50 7)
H
ss
2
5T
>
in
»
3
<
o
£T
fD
o
CTQ
85
o"
n
o
3
¦a
o
c
s
Q.
<
O
n
2
ST
s
7T
>
vD
ON
-------
A-97
Table A10. Semi-Volatile Organic Compound (sVOC) Blanks.	
Sample ID
Date
Collected
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)
Units

	1
zL
	1
zL
	1
zL
	1
zL
	1
zL
	1
zL
	1
zL
	1
zL
September 2011
Field Blank
9/19/11
NA
<0.50
NA
<2.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
NA
Field Blank
9/20/11
NA
<0.50
NA
<2.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
NA
Field Blank
9/21/11
NA
<0.50
NA
<2.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
NA
Field Blank
9/22/11
NA
<0.50
NA
<2.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
NA
Equipment Blank
9/19/11
NA
<0.50
NA
<2.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
NA
Equipment Blank
9/20/11
NA
<0.50
NA
<2.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
NA
Equipment Blank
9/21/11
NA
<0.50
NA
<2.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
NA
Equipment Blank
9/22/11
NA
<0.50
NA
<2.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
NA










QL


0.50

2.50
0.50
0.50
0.50

Detections in Samples


0/17

0/17
0/17
0/17
0/17

Concentration min


<0.50

<2.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50

Concentration max


<0.50

<2.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50

March 2012
Field Blank
3/5/2012
<3.00
<1.00
<3.00
<3.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
Field Blank
3/6/2012
<3.00
<1.00
<3.00
<3.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
Field Blank
3/7/2012
<3.00
<1.00
<3.00
<3.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
-------
A-98
Table A10. Semi-Volatile Organic Compound (sVOC) Blanks.	
Sample ID
Date
Collected
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)
Units

	1
zL
	1
zL
	1
zL
	1
zL
	1
zL
	1
zL
	1
zL
	1
zL
Field Blank
3/8/2012
<3.00
<1.00
<3.00
<3.00
<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
Detections in Samples

0/20
0/20
0/20
0/20
0/20
0/20
0/20
0/20
Concentration min

<3.00
<1.00
<3.00
<3.00
<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
September 2012
Field Blank
9/20/12
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA










QL









Detections in Samples









Concentration min









Concentration max









December 2012
Field Blank 1-122012
12/3/12
<3.00
<1.00
<3.00
<3.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
Field Blank 2-122012
12/4/12
<3.00
<1.00
<3.00
<3.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
Field Blank 3-122012
12/5/12
<3.00
<1.00
<3.00
<3.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
Pump Equipment Blank 1-122012
12/4/12
<3.00
<1.00
<3.00
<3.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
-------
A-99
Table A10. Semi-Volatile Organic Compound (sVOC) Blanks.	
Sample ID
Date
Collected
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)
Units

	1
zL
	1
zL
	1
zL
	1
zL
	1
zL
	1
zL
	1
zL
	1
zL










QL

3
i
3
3
i
i
i
i
Detections in Samples

0/12
0/12
0/12
0/12
0/12
0/12
0/12
0/12
Concentration min

<3.00
<1.00
<3.00
<3.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
Concentration max

<12.0
<4.00
<12.0
<12.0
<4.00
<4.00
<4.00
<4.00
May 2013
Field Blank 1-052013
5/28/2013
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Field Blank 2-052013
5/29/2013
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Field Blank 3-052013
5/30/2013
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Pump Equipment Blank 1-052013
5/29/2013
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA










QL









Detections in Samples









Concentration min









Concentration max









NA. Not Analyzed
-------
A-100
Table A10. Semi-Volatile Organic Compound (sVOC) Blanks.
Sample ID
Date
Collected
Anthracene (120 12 7)
Azobenzene (103 33 3)
Benzo(a)anthracene (56 55 3)
Benzo(a)pyrene (50 32 3)
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)
Units

M-g/L
	1
zL
	1
zL
	1
zL
	1
zL
	1
zL
	1
zL
	1
zL
September 2011
Field Blank
9/19/11
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<5.00
Field Blank
9/20/11
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<5.00
Field Blank
9/21/11
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<5.00
Field Blank
9/22/11
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<5.00
Equipment Blank
9/19/11
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<5.00
Equipment Blank
9/20/11
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<5.00
Equipment Blank
9/21/11
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<5.00
Equipment Blank
9/22/11
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<5.00










QL

0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
5.00
Detections in Samples

0/17
0/17
0/17
0/17
0/17
0/17
0/17
0/17
Concentration min

<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<5.00
Concentration max

<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<5.00
-------
A-101
Table A10. Semi-Volatile Organic Compound (sVOC) Blanks.
Sample ID
Date
Collected
Anthracene (120 12 7)
Azobenzene (103 33 3)
Benzo(a)anthracene (56 55 3)
Benzo(a)pyrene (50 32 3)
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)
Units

M-g/L
	1
zL
	1
zL
	1
zL
	1
zL
	1
zL
	1
zL
	1
zL
March 2012
Field Blank
3/5/2012
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<3.00
Field Blank
3/6/2012
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<3.00
Field Blank
3/7/2012
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<3.00
Field Blank
3/8/2012
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<3.00










QL

1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
3.00
Detections in Samples

0/20
0/20
0/20
0/20
0/20
0/20
0/20
0/20
Concentration min

<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<3.00
Concentration max

<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<3.00
September 2012
Field Blank
9/20/12
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA










QL









Detections in Samples









-------
A-102
Table A10. Semi-Volatile Organic Compound (sVOC) Blanks.
Sample ID
Date
Collected
Anthracene (120 12 7)
Azobenzene (103 33 3)
Benzo(a)anthracene (56 55 3)
Benzo(a)pyrene (50 32 3)
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)
Units

M-g/L
	1
zL
	1
zL
	1
zL
	1
zL
	1
zL
	1
zL
	1
zL
Concentration min









Concentration max









December 2012
Field Blank 1-122012
12/3/12
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<3.00
Field Blank 2-122012
12/4/12
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<3.00
Field Blank 3-122012
12/5/12
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<3.00
Pump Equipment Blank 1-122012
12/4/12
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<3.00










QL

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
Detections in Samples

0/12
0/12
0/12
0/12
0/12
0/12
0/12
0/12
Concentration min

<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<3.00
Concentration max

<4.00
<4.00
<4.00
<4.00
<4.00
<4.00
<4.00
<12.0
May 2013
Field Blank 1-052013
5/28/2013
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Field Blank 2-052013
5/29/2013
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
-------
A-10 3
Table A10. Semi-Volatile Organic Compound (sVOC) Blanks.
Sample ID
Date
Collected
Anthracene (120 12 7)
Azobenzene (103 33 3)
Benzo(a)anthracene (56 55 3)
Benzo(a)pyrene (50 32 3)
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)
Units

Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
M-g/L
M-g/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Field Blank 3-052013
5/30/2013
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Pump Equipment Blank 1-052013
5/29/2013
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA










QL









Detections in Samples









Concentration min









Concentration max









-------
A-104
Table A10. Semi-Volatile Organic Compound (sVOC) Blanks.
Sample ID
Date
Collected
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)
Units

M-g/L
	1
zL
	1
zL
	1
zL
	1
zL
	1
zL
	1
zL
	1
zL
September 2011
Field Blank
9/19/11
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<1.00
l.n
<0.50
NA
Field Blank
9/20/11
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<1.00
<1.00
<0.50
NA
Field Blank
9/21/11
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<1.00
<1.00
<0.50
NA
Field Blank
9/22/11
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<1.00
<1.00
<0.50
NA
Equipment Blank
9/19/11
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<1.00
<1.00
<0.50
NA
Equipment Blank
9/20/11
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<1.00
<1.00
<0.50
NA
Equipment Blank
9/21/11
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<1.00
<1.00
<0.50
NA
Equipment Blank
9/22/11
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<1.00
<1.00
<0.50
NA










QL

0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
1.00
1.00
0.50

Detections in Samples

0/17
0/17
0/17
0/17
0/17
2/17
0/17

Concentration min

<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<1.00
2.02
<0.50

Concentration max

<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<1.00
2.51
<0.50

-------
A-10 5
Table A10. Semi-Volatile Organic Compound (sVOC) Blanks.
Sample ID
Date
Collected
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)
Units

M-g/L
	1
zL
	1
zL
	1
zL
	1
zL
	1
zL
	1
zL
	1
zL
March 2012
Field Blank
3/5/2012
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<2.00
<1.00
<3.00
Field Blank
3/6/2012
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<2.00
<1.00
<3.00
Field Blank
3/7/2012
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<2.00
<1.00
<3.00
Field Blank
3/8/2012
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<2.00
<1.00
<3.00










QL

1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
2.00
1.00
3.00
Detections in Samples

0/20
0/20
0/20
0/20
0/20
0/20
0/20
0/20
Concentration min

<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<2.00
<1.00
<3.00
Concentration max

<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<2.00
<1.00
<3.00
September 2012
Field Blank
9/20/12
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA










QL









Detections in Samples









-------
A-106
Table A10. Semi-Volatile Organic Compound (sVOC) Blanks.
Sample ID
Date
Collected
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)
Units

M-g/L
	1
zL
	1
zL
	1
zL
	1
zL
	1
zL
	1
zL
	1
zL
Concentration min









Concentration max









December 2012
Field Blank 1-122012
12/3/12
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<2.00
<1.00
<3.00
Field Blank 2-122012
12/4/12
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<2.00
<1.00
<3.00
Field Blank 3-122012
12/5/12
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<2.00
<1.00
<3.00
Pump Equipment Blank 1-122012
12/4/12
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<2.00
<1.00
<3.00










QL

1
1
1
1
1
2
1
3
Detections in Samples

0/12
0/12
0/12
0/12
0/12
0/12
0/12
0/12
Concentration min

<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<2.00
<1.00
<3.00
Concentration max

<4.00
<4.00
<4.00
<4.00
<4.00
<8.00
<4.00
<12.0
May 2013
Field Blank 1-052013
5/28/2013
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Field Blank 2-052013
5/29/2013
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
-------
A-10 7
Table A10. Semi-Volatile Organic Compound (sVOC) Blanks.
Sample ID
Date
Collected
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)
Units

Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
M-g/L
M-g/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Field Blank 3-052013
5/30/2013
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Pump Equipment Blank 1-052013
5/29/2013
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA










QL









Detections in Samples









Concentration min









Concentration max









NA. Not Analyzed
-------
A-108
Table A10. Semi-Volatile Organic Compound (sVOC) Blanks.
Sample ID
Date
Collected
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)
Units

M-g/L
	1
zL
	1
zL
	1
zL
	1
zL
	1
zL
	1
zL
	1
zL
September 2011
Field Blank
9/19/11
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
Field Blank
9/20/11
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
Field Blank
9/21/11
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
Field Blank
9/22/11
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
Equipment Blank
9/19/11
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
Equipment Blank
9/20/11
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
Equipment Blank
9/21/11
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
Equipment Blank
9/22/11
<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
Detections in Samples

0/17
0/17
0/17
0/17
0/17
0/17
0/17
0/17
Concentration min

<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
-------
A-109
Table A10. Semi-Volatile Organic Compound (sVOC) Blanks.
Sample ID
Date
Collected
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)
Units

M-g/L
	1
zL
	1
zL
	1
zL
	1
zL
	1
zL
	1
zL
	1
zL
March 2012
Field Blank
3/5/2012
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
Field Blank
3/6/2012
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
Field Blank
3/7/2012
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
Field Blank
3/8/2012
<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
Detections in Samples

0/20
0/20
0/20
0/20
0/20
0/20
0/20
0/20
Concentration min

<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
September 2012
Field Blank
9/20/12
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA










QL









Detections in Samples









-------
A-110
Table A10. Semi-Volatile Organic Compound (sVOC) Blanks.
Sample ID
Date
Collected
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)
Units

M-g/L
	1
zL
	1
zL
	1
zL
	1
zL
	1
zL
	1
zL
	1
zL
Concentration min









Concentration max









December 2012
Field Blank 1-122012
12/3/12
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
Field Blank 2-122012
12/4/12
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
Field Blank 3-122012
12/5/12
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
Pump Equipment Blank 1-122012
12/4/12
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00










QL

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Detections in Samples

0/12
0/12
0/12
0/12
0/12
0/12
0/12
0/12
Concentration min

<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
Concentration max

<4.00
<4.00
<4.00
<4.00
<4.00
<4.00
<4.00
<4.00
May 2013
Field Blank 1-052013
5/28/2013
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Field Blank 2-052013
5/29/2013
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
-------
A-lll
Table A10. Semi-Volatile Organic Compound (sVOC) Blanks.
Sample ID
Date
Collected
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)
Units

Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
M-g/L
M-g/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Field Blank 3-052013
5/30/2013
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Pump Equipment Blank 1-052013
5/29/2013
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA










QL









Detections in Samples









Concentration min









Concentration max









-------
A-112
Table A10. Semi-Volatile Organic Compound (sVOC) Blanks.
Sample ID
Date
Collected
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)
Units

M-g/L
	1
zL
	1
zL
	1
zL
	1
zL
	1
zL
	1
zL
	1
zL
September 2011
Field Blank
9/19/11
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<1.00
<0.50
<1.00
<0.50
<0.50
Field Blank
9/20/11
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<1.00
<0.50
<1.00
<0.50
<0.50
Field Blank
9/21/11
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<1.00
<0.50
<1.00
<0.50
<0.50
Field Blank
9/22/11
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<1.00
<0.50
<1.00
<0.50
<0.50
Equipment Blank
9/19/11
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<1.00
<0.50
<1.00
<0.50
<0.50
Equipment Blank
9/20/11
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<1.00
<0.50
<1.00
<0.50
<0.50
Equipment Blank
9/21/11
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<1.00
<0.50
<1.00
<0.50
<0.50
Equipment Blank
9/22/11
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<1.00
<0.50
<1.00
<0.50
<0.50










QL

0.50
0.50
0.50
1.00
0.50
1.00
0.50
0.50
Detections in Samples

0/17
0/17
0/17
0/17
0/17
0/17
0/17
0/17
Concentration min

<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<1.00
<0.50
<1.00
<0.50
<0.50
Concentration max

<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<1.00
<0.50
<1.00
<0.50
<0.50
-------
A-113
Table A10. Semi-Volatile Organic Compound (sVOC) Blanks.
Sample ID
Date
Collected
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)
Units

M-g/L
	1
zL
	1
zL
	1
zL
	1
zL
	1
zL
	1
zL
	1
zL
March 2012
Field Blank
3/5/2012
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
Field Blank
3/6/2012
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
Field Blank
3/7/2012
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
Field Blank
3/8/2012
<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
Detections in Samples

0/20
0/20
0/20
0/20
0/20
0/20
0/20
0/20
Concentration min

<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
September 2012
Field Blank
9/20/12
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA










QL









Detections in Samples









-------
A-114
Table A10. Semi-Volatile Organic Compound (sVOC) Blanks.
Sample ID
Date
Collected
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)
Units

M-g/L
	1
zL
	1
zL
	1
zL
	1
zL
	1
zL
	1
zL
	1
zL
Concentration min









Concentration max









December 2012
Field Blank 1-122012
12/3/12
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
Field Blank 2-122012
12/4/12
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
Field Blank 3-122012
12/5/12
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
Pump Equipment Blank 1-122012
12/4/12
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00










QL

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Detections in Samples

0/12
0/12
0/12
0/12
0/12
0/12
0/12
0/12
Concentration min

<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
Concentration max

<4.00
<4.00
<4.00
<4.00
<4.00
<4.00
<4.00
<4.00
May 2013
Field Blank 1-052013
5/28/2013
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Field Blank 2-052013
5/29/2013
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
-------
A-115
Table A10. Semi-Volatile Organic Compound (sVOC) Blanks.
Sample ID
Date
Collected
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)
Units

Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
M-g/L
M-g/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Field Blank 3-052013
5/30/2013
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Pump Equipment Blank 1-052013
5/29/2013
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA










QL









Detections in Samples









Concentration min









Concentration max









-------
A-116
Table A10. Semi-Volatile Organic Compound (sVOC) Blanks.
Sample ID
Date
Collected
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)
Units

M-g/L
	1
zL
	1
zL
	1
zL
	1
zL
	1
zL
	1
zL
	1
zL
September 2011
Field Blank
9/19/11
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<1.00
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
Field Blank
9/20/11
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<1.00
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
Field Blank
9/21/11
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<1.00
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
Field Blank
9/22/11
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<1.00
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
Equipment Blank
9/19/11
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<1.00
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
Equipment Blank
9/20/11
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<1.00
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
Equipment Blank
9/21/11
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<1.00
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
Equipment Blank
9/22/11
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<1.00
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50










QL

0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
1.00
0.50
0.50
0.50
Detections in Samples

0/17
0/17
0/17
0/17
0/17
0/17
0/17
0/17
Concentration min

<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<1.00
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
Concentration max

<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<1.00
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
-------
A-117
Table A10. Semi-Volatile Organic Compound (sVOC) Blanks.
Sample ID
Date
Collected
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)
Units

M-g/L
	1
zL
	1
zL
	1
zL
	1
zL
	1
zL
	1
zL
	1
zL
March 2012
Field Blank
3/5/2012
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<2.00
<1.00
<2.00
<1.00
Field Blank
3/6/2012
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<2.00
<1.00
<2.00
<1.00
Field Blank
3/7/2012
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<2.00
<1.00
<2.00
<1.00
Field Blank
3/8/2012
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<2.00
<1.00
<2.00
<1.00










QL

1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
2.00
1.00
2.00
1.00
Detections in Samples

0/20
0/20
0/20
0/20
0/20
0/20
0/20
0/20
Concentration min

<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<2.00
<1.00
<2.00
<1.00
Concentration max

<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<2.00
<1.00
<2.00
<1.00
September 2012
Field Blank
9/20/12
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA










QL









Detections in Samples









-------
A-118
Table A10. Semi-Volatile Organic Compound (sVOC) Blanks.
Sample ID
Date
Collected
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)
Units

M-g/L
	1
zL
	1
zL
	1
zL
	1
zL
	1
zL
	1
zL
	1
zL
Concentration min









Concentration max









December 2012
Field Blank 1-122012
12/3/12
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<2.00
<1.00
<2.00
<1.00
Field Blank 2-122012
12/4/12
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<2.00
<1.00
<2.00
<1.00
Field Blank 3-122012
12/5/12
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<2.00
<1.00
<2.00
<1.00
Pump Equipment Blank 1-122012
12/4/12
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<2.00
<1.00
<2.00
<1.00










QL

1
1
1
1
2
1
2
1
Detections in Samples

0/12
0/12
0/12
0/12
0/12
0/12
0/12
0/12
Concentration min

<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<2.00
<1.00
<2.00
<1.00
Concentration max

<4.00
<4.00
<4.00
<4.00
<8.00
<4.00
<8.00
<4.00
May 2013
Field Blank 1-052013
5/28/2013
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Field Blank 2-052013
5/29/2013
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
-------
A-119
Table A10. Semi-Volatile Organic Compound (sVOC) Blanks.
Sample ID
Date
Collected
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)
Units

Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
M-g/L
M-g/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Field Blank 3-052013
5/30/2013
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Pump Equipment Blank 1-052013
5/29/2013
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA










QL









Detections in Samples









Concentration min









Concentration max









-------
A-120
Table A10. Semi-Volatile Organic Compound (sVOC)
Blanks.
Sample ID
Date
Collected
Pyridine (110-86-1)
Squalene (111-02-4)
Terpiniol (98-55-5)
tri-(2-butoxyethyl) phosphate (78-51-3)
Units

1
	1
zL
M-g/L
M-g/L
September 2011
Field Blank
9/19/11
<0.50
<1.00
<0.50
<1.00
Field Blank
9/20/11
<0.50
<1.00
<0.50
<1.00
Field Blank
9/21/11
<0.50
<1.00
<0.50
<1.00
Field Blank
9/22/11
<0.50
<1.00
<0.50
<1.00
Equipment Blank
9/19/11
<0.50
<1.00
<0.50
<1.00
Equipment Blank
9/20/11
<0.50
<1.00
<0.50
<1.00
Equipment Blank
9/21/11
<0.50
<1.00
<0.50
<1.00
Equipment Blank
9/22/11
<0.50
<1.00
<0.50
<1.00






QL

0.50
1.00
0.50
1.00
Detections in Samples

0/17
0/17
0/17
0/17
Concentration min

<0.50
<1.00
<0.50
<1.00
Concentration max

<0.50
<1.00
<0.50
<1.00
-------
A-121
Table A10. Semi-Volatile Organic Compound (sVOC)
Blanks.
Sample ID
Date
Collected
Pyridine (110-86-1)
Squalene (111-02-4)
Terpiniol (98-55-5)
tri-(2-butoxyethyl) phosphate (78-51-3)
Units

1
M-g/L
M-g/L
M-g/L
March 2012
Field Blank
3/5/2012
<1.00
<2.00
<1.00
NA
Field Blank
3/6/2012
<1.00
<2.00
<1.00
NA
Field Blank
3/7/2012
<1.00
<2.00
<1.00
NA
Field Blank
3/8/2012
<1.00
<2.00
<1.00
NA






QL

1.00
2.00
1.00

Detections in Samples

0/20
0/20
0/20

Concentration min

<1.00
<2.00
<1.00

Concentration max

<1.00
<2.00
<1.00

September 2012
Field Blank
9/20/12
NA
NA
NA
NA






QL





Detections in Samples





-------
A-12 2
Table A10. Semi-Volatile Organic Compound (sVOC)
Blanks.
Sample ID
Date
Collected
Pyridine (110-86-1)
Squalene (111-02-4)
Terpiniol (98-55-5)
tri-(2-butoxyethyl) phosphate (78-51-3)
Units

1
M-g/L
M-g/L
M-g/L
Concentration min





Concentration max





December 2012
Field Blank 1-122012
12/3/12
<1.00
<2.00
<1.00
<1.00
Field Blank 2-122012
12/4/12
<1.00
<2.00
<1.00
<1.00
Field Blank 3-122012
12/5/12
<1.00
<2.00
<1.00
<1.00
Pump Equipment Blank 1-122012
12/4/12
<1.00
<2.00
<1.00
<1.00






QL

1
2
1
1
Detections in Samples

0/12
0/12
0/12
0/12
Concentration min

<1.00
<2.00
<1.00
<1.00
Concentration max

<4.00
<8.00
<4.00
<4.00
May 2013
Field Blank 1-052013
5/28/2013
NA
NA
NA
NA
Field Blank 2-052013
5/29/2013
NA
NA
NA
NA
-------
A-12 3
Table A10. Semi-Volatile Organic Compound (sVOC)
Blanks.





CO





*—1
LO





00





ai





aj





Q.





o





Q.


*—1
I
ID
00
i
o
*—1
i
(N
O
i
*—1
*—1
m
l
lO
lO
i
00
CD
>
-C
+-»
ai
g-



Q.
a-
to
-------
A-124
Table All. Diesel Range Organic Compounds (DRO)
and Gasoline Range Organic Compounds (GRO)
Blanks.
Sample ID
Date
Collected
GRO/TPH
DRO
Units

M-g/L
M-g/L
September 2011
Field Blank
9/19/11
29.9
<20.0
Field Blank
9/20/11
25.0
<20.0
Field Blank
9/21/11
25.5
<20.0
Field Blank
9/22/11
<20.0
<20.0
Equipment Blank
9/19/11
29.1
30.3
Equipment Blank
9/20/11
<20.0
21.4
Equipment Blank
9/21/11
22.2
<20.0
Equipment Blank
9/22/11
<20.0
20.1




QL

20.0
20.0
Detections in Samples

0/17
4/17
Concentration min

<20.0
212
Concentration max

<20.0
254
March 2012
Field Blank
3/5/2012
<20.0
<20.0
Field Blank
3/6/2012
<20.0
<20.0
Field Blank
3/7/2012
<20.0
<20.0
Field Blank
3/8/2012
<20.0
<20.0




QL

20.0
20.0
Detections in Samples

0/20
4/20
Concentration min

<20.0
105
Concentration max

<20.0
150




September 2012




Field Blank
9/20/12
NA
NA




QL



Detections in Samples



Concentration min



Concentration max



December 2012
Field Blank 1-122012
12/3/12
<20.0
27.5
Field Blank 2-122012
12/4/12
<20.0
<20.0
Field Blank 3-122012
12/5/12
<20.0
<20.0
Pump Equipment Blank 1-122012
12/4/12
<20.0
<20.0
-------
A-12 5
Table All. Diesel Range Organic Compounds (DRO)
and Gasoline Range Organic Compounds (GRO)
Blanks.
Sample ID
Date
Collected
GRO/TPH
DRO
Units

M-g/L
M-g/L




QL

20
20
Detections in Samples

2/12
2/12
Concentration min

20.4
770
Concentration max

21.7
853
May 2013
Field Blank 1-052013
5/28/2013
NA
NA
Field Blank 2-052013
5/29/2013
NA
NA
Field Blank 3-052013
5/30/2013
NA
NA
Pump Equipment Blank 1-052013
5/29/2013
NA
NA




QL



Detections in Samples



Concentration min



Concentration max



NA. Not Analyzed
-------
A-12 6
Table A12. Anion and DOC Duplicates.
Sample ID
Date
Collected
DOC
DIC
no3
+
no2
NH3
Br
CI
S042
F
1
Units

mg/L
mg/L
mg
N/L
mg
N/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
	1
=L
September 2011
5x QL

2.50
2.50
0.50
0.50
5.00
5.00
5.00
1.00












WISETXGW01-092011
9/20/2011
<0.50
50.1
0.01
1.77
3.91
788
72.7
<0.60
NA
WISETXGW01-092011 DUP
9/20/2011
<0.50
50.1
0.03
1.78
3.87
826
75.2
<0.20
NA
RPD (%)

NC
0.0
NC
0.6
NC
4.7
3.4
NC
NC











WISETXSW02-092011
9/21/2011
6.93
17.3
<0.10
<0.10
<1.00
10.9
11.6
0.14
NA
WISETXSW02-092011 DUP
9/21/2011
6.89
17.3
0.02
<0.10
<1.00
10.9
11.5
0.14
NA
RPD (%)

0.6
0.0
NC
NC
NC
0.0
0.9
NC
NC
March 2012
5x QL

1.25
2.50
0.50
0.50
5.00
5.00
5.00
1.00












WISETXGW02-032012
3/5/2012
0.32
67.6
0.27
0.55
0.47
67.4
89.9
0.12
NA
WISETXGW02-032012 DUP
3/5/2012
0.31
67.3
0.27
0.57
0.42
68.3
91.3
0.11
NA
RPD (%)

NC
0.44
NC
3.57
NC
1.33
1.55
NC












WISETXSW02-032012
3/6/2012
6.25
22.1
<0.10
<0.10
<1.00
7.25
14.1
0.09
NA
WISETXSW02-032012 DUP
3/6/2012
6.30
22.2
<0.10
<0.10
<1.00
7.05
14.0
0.09
NA
RPD (%)

0.80
0.45
NC
NC
NC
2.80
0.71
NC
NC
September 2012
5x QL

2.50
5.00
0.50
0.50
5.00
5.00
5.00
1.00
50.00











WISETXGW01-092012
9/20/2012
0.77
55.5
<0.10
1.56
2.43
553
58.7
0.34
96.1
WISETXGW01-092012 DUP
9/20/2012
0.85
55.4
<0.10
1.48
2.63
561
62.6
0.33
95.8
RPD (%)

NC
0.2
NC
5.3
NC
1.4
6.4
NC
0.3
-------
A-12 7
Table A12. Anion and DOC Duplicates.
Sample ID
Date
Collected
DOC
DIC
no3
+
no2
nh3
Br
CI
S042
F
1
Units

mg/L
mg/L
mg
N/L
mg
N/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
	1
=L
December 2012
5x QL

2.50
5.00
0.50
0.50
5.00
5.00
5.00
1.00
50.00











WISETXGW13-122012
12/3/2012
0.78
61.2
<0.10
0.62
<1.00
39.7
69.6
<0.20
16.5
WISETXGW13-122012 DUP
12/3/2012
0.72
60.5
<0.10
0.64
<1.00
39.9
68.6
<0.20
16.1
RPD (%)

NC
1.2
NC
3.2
NC
0.5
1.4
NC
NC











WISETXSW04-122012
12/4/2012
22.5
35.6
<0.10
0.08
<1.00
7.34
6.96
0.07
28.2
WISETXSW04-122012 DUP
12/4/2012
22.3
36.0
<0.10
0.07
<1.00
7.51
6.86
0.08
27.0
RPD (%)

0.9
1.1
NC
NC
NC
2.3
1.4
NC
NC
May 2013
5x QL

2.50
5.00
0.50
0.50
5.00
5.00
5.00
1.00
50.00











WISETXGW04-052013
5/29/2013
0.47
55.2
0.02
0.57
<1.00
35.3
64.8
0.09
17.6
WISETXGW04-052013 DUP
5/29/2013
0.40
55.6
0.03
0.56
<1.00
35.2
64.7
0.08
15.3
RPD (%)

NC
0.7
NC
1.8
NC
0.3
0.2
NC
NC











WISETXSW04-052013
5/29/2013
17.6
33.3
0.04
0.98
<1.00
10.7
3.92
0.14
25.2
WISETXSW04-052013 DUP
5/29/2013
17.4
33.5
0.03
0.98
<1.00
10.8
3.94
0.14
24.4
RPD (%)

1.1
0.6
NC
0.0
NC
0.9
NC
NC
NC
NA. Not Analyzed
NC. Not calculated
-------
A-12 8
Table A13. Dissolved Metal Duplicates.
Sample ID
Date
Collected
Ag
Al
As
B
Ba
Be
Ca
Cd
Co
Cr
Cu
Fe
Hg
Units

Hg/L
	1
=L
	1
=L
	1
=L
	1
=L
	1
=L
mg/L
	1
=L
	1
=L
	1
=L
	1
=L
	1
=L
	1
"b5
=L
September 2011
5x QL

70
2470
100
1665
20
50
1
20
20
35
100
335
















WISETXGW01-092011
9/20/2011
<14
<494
<20
262
64
<10
47.0
<4
<4
<7
<20
45
NA
WISETXGW01-092011 DUP
9/20/2011
<14
<494
<20
265
64
<10
46.4
<4
<4
<7
<20
41
NA
RPD (%)

NC
NC
NC
NC
0.0
NC
1.3
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC















WISETXSW02-092011
9/21/2011
<14
<494
<20
<333
53
<10
26.0
<4
<4
<7
<20
<67
NA
WISETXSW02-092011 DUP
9/21/2011
<14
<494
<20
<333
53
<10
25.7
<4
<4
<7
<20
<67
NA
RPD (%)

NC
NC
NC
NC
0.0
NC
1.2
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
March 2012
5x QL

50
1000
5
500
1000
25
25
5
250
10
10
500
















WISETXGW02-032013
3/5/2012
<10
<200
<1.0
172
<200
<5
5.22
<1.0
<50
<2.0
<2.0
<100
NA
WISETXGW02-032012 DUP
3/5/2012
<10
<200
1.0
173
<200
<5
5.32
<1.0
<50
<2.0
<2.0
<100
NA
RPD (%)

NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC















WISETXSW02-032012
3/6/2012
<10
46
1.7
<100
48
<5
43.7
<1.0
<50
<2.0
<2.0
30
NA
WISETXSW02-032012 DUP
3/6/2012
<10
48
1.7
<100
<200
<5
42.0
<1.0
<50
<2.0
<2.0
29
NA
RPD (%)

NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
4.0
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
September 2012
5x QL

50
100
1
200
25
25
0.5
1
25
10
2.5
500
















WISETXGW01-092012
9/20/2012
<10
<20
0.7
222
39
<5
31.5
<0.20
<5
0.6
0.7
112
NA
WISETXGW01-092012 DUP
9/20/2012
<10
<20
0.4
245
38
<5
32.1
<0.20
<5
<2
0.5
108
NA
RPD (%)

NC
NC
NC
9.9
2.6
NC
1.9
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
December 2012
5x QL

50
100
1.0
200
25
25
0.5
1.00
25
10.0
2.5
500
1.0















WISETXGW13-122012
12/3/2012
<10
<20
0.4
174
15
<5
2.0
<0.20
<5
2.1
<0.5
<100
<0.2
WISETXGW13-122012 DUP
12/3/2012
<10
<20
0.4
184
14
<5
2.0
<0.20
<5
<2.0
<0.5
<100
<0.2
-------
A-12 9
Table A13. Dissolved Metal Duplicates.
Sample ID
Date
Collected
Ag
Al
As
B
Ba
Be
Ca
Cd
Co
Cr
Cu
Fe
Hg
Units

Hg/L
	1
=L
	1
=L
	1
=L
	1
=L
	1
=L
mg/L
	1
=L
	1
=L
	1
=L
	1
=L
	1
=L
	1
"b5
=L
RPD (%)

NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
0.0
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC















WISETXSW04-122012
12/4/2012
<10
97
2.6
45
453
<5
46
<0.20
2
<2.0
1.0
838
<0.2
WISETXSW04-122012 DUP
12/4/2012
<10
172
3.0
66
474
<5
46
<0.20
3
<2.0
1.1
1500
<0.2
RPD (%)

NC
55.8
14.3
NC
4.5
NC
0.0
NC
NC
NC
NC
56.6
NC
May 2013
5x QL

50
100
1.0
200
25
25
0.5
1.0
25
10
2.5
500
1.0















WISETXGW04-052013
5/29/2013
<10
21
0.4
167
16
<5
2.1
<0.2
<5
<2
1.2
<100
<0.2
WISETXGW04-052013 DUP
5/29/2013
<10
<20
0.4
178
15
<5
2.1
<0.2
<5
<2
0.4
<100
<0.2
RPD (%)

NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
0.0
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC















WISETXSW04-052013
5/29/2013
<10
477
3.7
<40
340
<5
43
<0.2
<5
<2
1.2
2180
<0.2
WISETXSW04-052013 DUP
5/29/2013
<10
277
3.8
49
340
<5
43
<0.2
<5
<2
1.2
1920
<0.2
RPD (%)

NC
53.1
2.7
NC
0.0
NC
0.0
NC
NC
NC
0.0
12.7
NC
NA. Not Analyzed
NC. Not calculated
-------
A-130
Table A13. Dissolved Metal Duplicates.
Sample ID
Date
Collected
K
Li
Mg
Mn
Mo
Na
Ni
P
Pb
S
Sb
Se
Si
Units

mg/L
	1
=L
mg/L
	1
=L
	1
=L
mg/L
	1
=L
mg/L
	1
=L
mg/L
	1
"b5
=L
	1
"b5
=L
mg/L
September 2011
5x QL

2

1
70
85
9
420
0
85
2

150
2















WISETXGW01-092011
9/20/2011
3.94
NA
21.7
62
<17
506
<84
<0.06
<17
28.0
R
<30
7.22
WISETXGW01-092011 DUP
9/20/2011
3.91
NA
21.6
63
<17
510
<84
<0.06
<17
28.6
R
<30
7.44
RPD (%)

0.8
NC
0.5
NC
NC
0.8
NC
NC
NC
2.1
R
NC
3.0















WISETXSW02-092011
9/21/2011
6.43

3.55
5
<17
10.7
<84
<0.06
<17
4.20
R
<30
4.41
WISETXSW02-092011 DUP
9/21/2011
6.32

3.52
5
<17
10.5
<84
<0.06
<17
4.16
R
<30
4.38
RPD (%)

1.7

0.8
NC
NC
1.9
NC
NC
NC
1.0
R
NC
0.7
March 2012
5x QL

25

25
75
100
25
5
0
5
3
300
25
1















WISETXGW02-032013
3/5/2012
1.56
NA
2.19
8
<20
200
<1.0
NA
<1.0
29.7
<60
R
5.98
WISETXGW02-032012 DUP
3/5/2012
1.59
NA
2.22
8
<20
203
<1.0
NA
<1.0
31.1
<60
R
6.06
RPD (%)

NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
1.5
NC
NC
NC
4.6
NC
R
1.3















WISETXSW02-032012
3/6/2012
5.13
NA
3.10
8
<20
6.71
0.90
NA
<1.0
5.54
<60
R
0.17
WISETXSW02-032012 DUP
3/6/2012
4.90
NA
2.92
6
<20
6.39
0.77
NA
<1.0
5.34
<60
R
0.13
RPD (%)

NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
3.7
NC
R
26.7
September 2012
5x QL

2.5
50
0.25
25
2.5
1.25
1
0.25
1

1
10
0.5















WISETXGW01-092012
9/20/2012
3.1
56
14.6
36
0.6
428
1.2
0.04
<0.2
NA
<0.2
<2
6.1
WISETXGW01-092012 DUP
9/20/2012
3.1
56
14.9
35
0.6
431
1.2
0.04
<0.2
NA
<0.2
<2
6.1
RPD (%)

0.0
0.0
2.0
2.8
NC
0.7
0.0
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
0.0
-------
A-131
Table A13. Dissolved Metal Duplicates.
Sample ID
Date
Collected
K
Li
Mg
Mn
Mo
Na
Ni
P
Pb
s
Sb
Se
Si
Units

mg/L
	1
=L
mg/L
	1
=L
	1
=L
mg/L
	1
=L
mg/L
	1
=L
mg/L
	1
"b5
=L
	1
"b5
=L
mg/L
December 2012
5x QL

2.5
50
0.25
25
2.5
1.25
1.00
0.25
1.00

1.00
10
0.5















WISETXGW13-122012
12/3/2012
1.0
44
0.75
7.0
0.70
173
<0.20
<0.05
<0.20
NA
<0.20
<2
5.7
WISETXGW13-122012 DUP
12/3/2012
1.0
45
0.76
6.8
0.67
173
<0.20
<0.05
<0.20
NA
<0.20
<2
5.7
RPD (%)

NC
NC
1.3
NC
NC
0.0
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
0.0















WISETXSW04-122012
12/4/2012
18.5
<10
5.15
227
0.79
4.36
2.4
0.05
0.60
NA
0.13
<2
2.6
WISETXSW04-122012 DUP
12/4/2012
18.6
<10
5.21
280
0.82
4.35
2.8
0.06
1.0
NA
0.14
0.6
2.7
RPD (%)

0.5
NC
1.2
20.9
NC
0.2
15.4
18.2
50.0
NC
NC
NC
3.8
May 2013















5x QL

2.5
50
0.25
25
2.5
1.25
1.0
0.25
1.00

1.0
10
0.5















WISETXGW04-052013
5/29/2013
1.1
42
0.80
5.0
0.7
159
<0.2
<0.05
0.14
NA
<0.2
<2
5.9
WISETXGW04-052013 DUP
5/29/2013
1.0
43
0.80
<5
1.1
161
<0.2
<0.05
0.17
NA
<0.2
<2
5.9
RPD (%)

NC
NC
0.0
NC
NC
1.3
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
0.0















WISETXSW04-052013
5/29/2013
24
<10
4.84
433
0.6
4.07
3.2
0.09
1.1
NA
<0.2
0.4
2.2
WISETXSW04-052013 DUP
5/29/2013
24
<10
4.86
429
0.6
3.99
3.2
0.09
1.1
NA
<0.2
0.5
1.4
RPD (%)

0.0
NC
0.4
0.9
NC
2.0
0.0
NC
0.0
NC
NC
NC
44.4
NA. Not Analyzed
NC. Not calculated
R. Data rejected
-------
A-132
Table A13. Dissolved Metal Duplicates.
Sample ID
Date
Collected
Sr
Th
Ti
TI
U
V
Zn
Units

Hg/L
	1
=L
	1
=L
	1
=L
	1
=L
	1
=L
	1
=L
September 2011
5x QL

20

35
85
250
50
250









WISETXGW01-092011
9/20/2011
4850
NA
<7
<17
16
<10
<50
WISETXGW01-092011 DUP
9/20/2011
4900
NA
<7
<17
17
<10
<50
RPD (%)

1.0
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC









WISETXSW02-092011
9/21/2011
427
NA
<7
<17
<50
<10
<50
WISETXSW02-092011 DUP
9/21/2011
419
NA
<7
<17
<50
<10
<50
RPD (%)

1.9
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
March 2012
5x QL

50

50
5
5
25










WISETXGW02-032013
3/5/2012
599
NA
<10
<1.0
<1.0
<5.0
NA
WISETXGW02-032012 DUP
3/5/2012
607
NA
<10
<1.0
<1.0
<5.0
NA
RPD (%)

1.3
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NA









WISETXSW02-032012
3/6/2012
327
NA
7
<1.0
0.57
<5.0
NA
WISETXSW02-032012 DUP
3/6/2012
314
NA
7
<1.0
0.56
<5.0
NA
RPD (%)

4.1
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NA
September 2012
5x QL

25
1
25
1
1
1
25









WISETXGW01-092012
9/20/2012
3320
<0.2
<5
<0.2
<0.2
0.06
1
WISETXGW01-092012 DUP
9/20/2012
3290
<0.2
<5
<0.2
<0.2
0.05
1
RPD (%)

0.9
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
-------
A-13 3
Table A13. Dissolved Metal Duplicates.
Sample ID
Date
Collected
Sr
Th
Ti
TI
U
V
Zn
Units

Hg/L
	1
=L
	1
=L
	1
=L
	1
=L
	1
=L
	1
=L
December 2012
5x QL

10.0
1.00
25
1.00
1.00
1.0
25









WISETXGW13-122012
12/3/2012
242
<0.20
<5
<0.20
<0.20
0.03
<5
WISETXGW13-122012 DUP
12/3/2012
241
<0.20
<5
<0.20
<0.20
0.02
<5
RPD (%)

0.4
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC









WISETXSW04-122012
12/4/2012
233
<0.20
11
<0.20
1.1
1.30
3
WISETXSW04-122012 DUP
12/4/2012
235
0.24
15
<0.20
1.1
2.30
5
RPD (%)

0.9
NC
NC
NC
0.0
55.6
NC
May 2013
5x QL

10
1.0
25
1.00
1.00
1.0
25









WISETXGW04-052013
5/29/2013
223
<0.2
<5
<0.20
<0.20
0.02
<5
WISETXGW04-052013 DUP
5/29/2013
223
<0.2
<5
<0.20
<0.20
<0.2
<5
RPD (%)

0.0
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC









WISETXSW04-052013
5/29/2013
205
<0.2
<5
<0.20
0.53
1.5
<5
WISETXSW04-052013 DUP
5/29/2013
200
<0.2
<5
<0.20
0.52
1.6
<5
RPD (%)

2.5
NC
NC
NC
NC
6.5
NC
NA. Not Analyzed
NC. Not calculated
-------
A-134
Table A14. Total Metal Duplicates.
Sample ID
Date
Collected
Ag
Al
As
B
Ba
Be
Ca
Cd
Co
Cr
Cu
Fe
Hg
Units

Hg/L
	1
=L
	1
=L
	1
=L
	1
=L
	1
=L
mg/L
	1
=L
	1
=L
	1
=L
	1
=L
	1
=L
	1
=L
September 2011
5x QL

80
2740
110
1850
20
55
2
20
20
40
110
370
















WISETXGW01-092011
9/20/2011
<16
<548
<22
255
64
<11
47.8
<4
<4
<8
<22
115
NA
WISETXGW01-092011 DUP
9/20/2011
<16
<548
<22
257
63
<11
49.5
<4
<4
<8
<22
120
NA
RPD (%)

NC
NC
NC
NC
1.6
NC
3.5
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC















WISETXSW02-092011
9/21/2011
<16
<548
<22
<370
54
<11
26.9
<4
<4
<8
<22
<74
NA
WISETXSW02-092011 DUP
9/21/2011
<16
<548
<22
<370
54
<11
26.8
<4
<4
<8
<22
<74
NA
RPD (%)

NC
NC
NC
NC
0.0
NC
0.4
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
March 2012
5x QL

50
1000
5
500
1000
25
25
5
250
10
10
500
















WISETXGW02-032013
3/5/2012
<10
<200
1.1
169
<200
<5
5.25
<1.0
<50
<2.0
2.30
<100
NA
WISETXGW02-032012 DUP
3/5/2012
<10
<200
1.0
175
<200
<5
5.33
<1.0
<50
<2.0
<2.0
<100
NA
RPD (%)

NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC















WISETXSW02-032012
3/6/2012
<10
79
1.8
<100
48
<5
43.2
<1.0
<50
<2.0
<2.0
86
NA
WISETXSW02-032012 DUP
3/6/2012
<10
92
1.7
<100
<200
<5
42.2
<1.0
<50
<2.0
<2.0
84
NA
RPD (%)

NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
2.3
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
September 2012
5x QL

50
100
1
100
15
15
0.25
1
15
10
2.5
250
















WISETXGW01-092012
9/20/2012
<10
<20
0.8
249
41
<3
35.4
<0.20
<3
<2
<0.5
69
NA
WISETXGW01-092012 DUP
9/20/2012
<10
<20
0.9
259
41
<3
35.4
<0.20
<3
<2
<0.5
66
NA
RPD (%)

NC
NC
NC
3.9
0.0
NC
0.0
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
-------
A-13 5
Table A14. Total Metal Duplicates.
Sample ID
Date
Collected
Ag
Al
As
B
Ba
Be
Ca
Cd
Co
Cr
Cu
Fe
Hg
Units

Hg/L
	1
=L
	1
=L
	1
=L
	1
=L
	1
=L
mg/L
	1
=L
	1
=L
	1
=L
	1
=L
	1
=L
	1
=L
December 2012
5x QL

50
100
1.0
100
15
15
0.25
1.00
15
10.0
2.5
250
1.0















WISETXGW13-122012
12/3/2012
<10
<20
0.5
203
14
<3
2.0
<0.20
<3
<2.0
0.52
<50
<0.2
WISETXGW13-122012 DUP
12/3/2012
<10
<20
0.4
198
14
<3
2.0
<0.20
<3
<2.0
<0.5
<50
<0.2
RPD (%)

NC
NC
NC
2.5
NC
NC
0.0
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC















WISETXSW04-122012
12/4/2012
<10
976
3.5
68
481
<3
47
<0.20
2
<2.0
1.9
1950
0.010
WISETXSW04-122012 DUP
12/4/2012
<10
542
3.4
70
478
<3
46
<0.20
2
<2.0
1.2
1840
<0.2
RPD (%)

NC
57.2
2.9
2.9
0.6
NC
2.2
NC
NC
NC
NC
5.8
NC
May 2013
5xQL

50
100
1.0
100
15
15
0.25
1.0
15
10
2.5
250
1.0















WISETXGW04-052013
5/29/2013
<10
337
0.5
192
16
<3
2.2
<0.2
<3
<2
1.4
114
<0.2
WISETXGW04-052013 DUP
5/29/2013
<10
264
0.6
196
17
<3
2.3
<0.2
<3
<2
1.4
151
<0.2
RPD (%)

NC
24.3
NC
2.1
6.1
NC
4.4
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC















WISETXSW04-052013
5/29/2013
<10
1170
4.4
60.6
342
<3
40
<0.2
<3
<2
1.5
2520
0.02
WISETXSW04-052013 DUP
5/29/2013
<10
1100
4.6
60.8
341
<3
40
<0.2
<3
<2
1.5
2570
<0.2
RPD (%)

NC
6.2
4.4
NC
0.3
NC
0.0
NC
NC
NC
NC
2.0
NC
NA. Not Analyzed
NC. Not calculated
-------
A-136
Table A14. Total Metal Duplicates.
Sample ID
Date
Collected
K
Li
Mg
Mn
Mo
Na
Ni
P
Pb
S
Sb
Se
Si
Units

!
	1
=L
mg/L
	1
=L
	1
=L
mg/L
	1
=L
mg/L
	1
=L
mg/L
	1
=L
	1
=L
mg/L
September 2011
5x QL

2

1
80
95
10
465
0.35
95
3
0
165
2















WISETXGW01-092011
9/20/2011
4.11
NA
21.9
62
<19
537
<93
<0.07
<19
26.4
R
<33
6.86
WISETXGW01-092011 DUP
9/20/2011
4.19
NA
22.4
63
<19
541
<93
<0.07
<19
26.5
R
<33
6.85
RPD (%)

1.9
NC
2.3
1.6
NC
0.7
NC
NC
NC
0.4
R
NC
0.1















WISETXSW02-092011
9/21/2011
6.85
NA
3.56
20
<19
11.3
<93
<0.07
<19
3.57
R
<33
3.97
WISETXSW02-092011 DUP
9/21/2011
6.79
NA
3.53
20
<19
11.1
<93
<0.07
<19
3.58
R
<33
3.99
RPD (%)

0.9
NC
0.8
0.0
NC
1.8
NC
NC
NC
0.3
R
NC
0.5
March 2012
5x QL

25

25
75
100
25
5

5
3
300
25
1















WISETXGW02-032013
3/5/2012
1.49
NA
2.21
8
<20
200
<1.0
NR
<1.0
29.4
<60
R
5.94
WISETXGW02-032012 DUP
3/5/2012
1.55
NA
2.30
8
<20
207
0.30
NR
<1.0
29.4
<60
R
6.25
RPD (%)

NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
3.4
NC
NR
NC
0.0
NC
R
5.1















WISETXSW02-032012
3/6/2012
4.96
NA
2.94
12
<20
6.47
0.74
NR
<1.0
5.50
<60
R
0.22
WISETXSW02-032012 DUP
3/6/2012
4.79
NA
2.90
11
<20
6.29
0.89
NR
<1.0
5.41
<60
R
0.21
RPD (%)

NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NR
NC
1.6
NC
R
NC
September 2012
5x QL

1.5
25
0.15
15
2.5
0.65
1
0.15
1

1
10
0.5















WISETXGW01-092012
9/20/2012
3.4
64
16.6
40
0.7
461
1.4
0.02
<0.2
NA
<0.2
<2
6.7
WISETXGW01-092012 DUP
9/20/2012
3.4
65
16.8
40
0.7
458
1.3
0.02
<0.2
NA
<0.2
<2
6.7
RPD (%)

0.0
1.6
1.2
0.0
NC
0.7
7.4
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
0.0
-------
A-13 7
Table A14. Total Metal Duplicates.
Sample ID
Date
Collected
K
Li
Mg
Mn
Mo
Na
Ni
P
Pb
S
Sb
Se
Si
Units

mg/L
	1
=L
mg/L
	1
=L
	1
=L
mg/L
	1
=L
mg/L
	1
=L
mg/L
	1
=L
	1
=L
mg/L
December 2012
5x QL

1.5
25
0.15
15
2.5
0.65
1.00
0.15
1.00

1.00
10
0.25















WISETXGW13-122012
12/3/2012
1.0
45
0.79
7.1
0.65
177
1.0
<0.03
<0.20
NA
<0.20
<2
5.9
WISETXGW13-122012 DUP
12/3/2012
1.0
44
0.80
6.9
0.66
180
0.46
<0.03
0.68
NA
<0.20
<2
5.8
RPD (%)

NC
2.2
1.3
NC
NC
1.7
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
1.7















WISETXSW04-122012
12/4/2012
18.7
<5
5.39
299
0.81
4.29
4.1
0.22
1.7
NA
0.14
0.7
2.8
WISETXSW04-122012 DUP
12/4/2012
18.6
<5
5.30
296
0.85
4.29
3.4
0.21
1.7
NA
0.14
<2
2.7
RPD (%)

0.5
NC
1.7
1.0
NC
NC
18.7
4.7
0.0
NC
NC
NC
3.6
May 2013
5xQL

1.5
25
0.15
15
2.5
0.65
1.0
0.15
1.00

1.0
10
0.25















WISETXGW04-052013
5/29/2013
1.0
41
0.86
7.2
0.6
159
0.3
<0.03
0.31
NA
<0.2
<2
6.31
WISETXGW04-052013 DUP
5/29/2013
1.0
42
0.87
7.4
0.8
162
0.7
<0.03
0.42
NA
<0.2
<2
6.58
RPD (%)

NC
2.4
1.2
NC
NC
1.9
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
4.2















WISETXSW04-052013
5/29/2013
23
<5
4.73
445
0.8
3.84
3.2
0.20
1.40
NA
<0.2
<2
4.01
WISETXSW04-052013 DUP
5/29/2013
23
<5
4.73
446
0.8
3.78
3.1
0.18
1.40
NA
<0.2
<2
3.87
RPD (%)

0.0
NC
0.0
0.2
NC
1.6
3.2
10.5
0.0
NC
NC
NC
3.6
NA. Not Analyzed
NC. Not calculated
R. Data rejected
-------
A-138
Table A14. Total Metal Duplicates.
Sample ID
Date
Collected
Sr
Th
Ti
TI
U
V
Zn
Units

Hg/L
	1
=L
	1
=L
	1
=L
	1
=L
	1
=L
	1
=L
September 2011
5x QL

20

40
95
280
55
280









WISETXGW01-092011
9/20/2011
4960

<8
<19
<56
<11
<56
WISETXGW01-092011 DUP
9/20/2011
4960

<8
<19
19
<11
<56
RPD (%)

0.0

NC
NC
NC
NC
NC









WISETXSW02-092011
9/21/2011
432

<8
<19
<56
<11
<56
WISETXSW02-092011 DUP
9/21/2011
428

<8
<19
<56
<11
<56
RPD (%)

0.9

NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
March 2012
5x QL

50

50
5
5
25
0









WISETXGW02-032013
3/5/2012
603

<10
<1.0
<1.0
<5.0
NR
WISETXGW02-032012 DUP
3/5/2012
617

<10
<1.0
<1.0
<5.0
NR
RPD (%)

2.3

NC
NC
NC
NC
NR









WISETXSW02-032012
3/6/2012
327

8
<1.0
0.59
<5.0
NR
WISETXSW02-032012 DUP
3/6/2012
320

7
<1.0
0.60
<5.0
NR
RPD (%)

2.2

NC
NC
NC
NC
NR
September 2012
5x QL

15
i
15
1
1
1
15









WISETXGW01-092012
9/20/2012
3510
<0.2
<3
<0.2
<0.2
<0.20
2
WISETXGW01-092012 DUP
9/20/2012
3490
<0.2
<3
<0.2
<0.2
0.21
1
RPD (%)

0.6
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
-------
A-139
Table A14. Total Metal Duplicates.
Sample ID
Date
Collected
Sr
Th
Ti
TI
U
V
Zn
Units

Hg/L
	1
=L
	1
=L
	1
=L
	1
=L
	1
=L
	1
=L
December 2012
5x QL

10.0
1.00
15
1.00
1.00
1.0
15









WISETXGW13-122012
12/3/2012
250
<0.20
<3
<0.20
<0.20
0.48
<3
WISETXGW13-122012 DUP
12/3/2012
248
<0.20
<3
<0.20
<0.20
<0.2
<3
RPD (%)

0.8
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC









WISETXSW04-122012
12/4/2012
243
0.09
7
<0.20
1.2
3.0
7
WISETXSW04-122012 DUP
12/4/2012
242
0.12
7
<0.20
1.2
2.9
6
RPD (%)

0.4
NC
NC
NC
0.0
3.4
NC
May 2013
5xQL

10
1.0
15
1.00
1.00
1.0
15









WISETXGW04-052013
5/29/2013
236
<0.2
3
<0.20
<0.20
0.91
2
WISETXGW04-052013 DUP
5/29/2013
238
0.4
7
<0.20
<0.20
0.83
2
RPD (%)

0.8
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC









WISETXSW04-052013
5/29/2013
205
0.2
27
<0.20
0.58
2.8
3
WISETXSW04-052013 DUP
5/29/2013
208
0.5
26
<0.20
0.60
2.6
5
RPD (%)

1.5
NC
3.8
NC
NC
7.4
NC
NA. Not Analyzed
NC. Not calculated
-------

RPD (%)
WISETXGW02-032012 DUP
WISETXGW02-032013

Ln
X
JO
i—
March 2012
RPD (%)
WISETXSW02-092011 Dup
WISETXSW02-092011

RPD (%)
WISETXGW01-092011 Dup
WISETXGW01-092011

Ln
X
O
i—
September 2011
cz
D
r+
in
Sample ID


3/5/2012
3/5/2012



9/21/2011
9/21/2011


9/20/2011
9/20/2011



Date
Collected

2
r>
<100
<100

Ln
O
O
2
r>
<100
<100

2
r>
<100
<100

Ln
O
O
T
C*
i—
ethanol (64 17 5)

n
<25.0
<25.0

I—^
NJ
Ln
r>
<25.0
<25.0

r>
<25.0
<25.0

I—^
NJ
Ln
T
C*
i—
isopropanol (67 63 0)

r>
<25.0
<25.0

I—^
NJ
Ln
r>
2
>
2
>

r>
2
>
2
>

>
T
gq^
1—
acrylonitrile (107 13 1)

n
A
O
In
A
O
Ln

NJ
Ln
n
>
>

r>
>
>

>
T
gq^
1—
styrene (100 42 5)

n
A
I—^
o
A
I—^
o

Ln
r>
A
1—^
o
A
1—^
o

r>
A
1—^
o
A
I—^
o

Ln
T
gq^
1—
acetone (67 64 1)

r>
A
Ln
O
A
un
O

NJ
Ln
n
A
Ln
O
A
Ln
O

r>
A
Ln
O
A
Ln
O

NJ
Ln
T
c*
1—
tert butyl Alcohol (75 65 0)

n
A
I—^
o
A
I—^
o

Ln
r>
A
I—1
o
A
I—1
o

r>
A
I—1
o
A
I—^
o

Ln
T
gq^
1—
methyl tert butyl ether (1634 04 4)

r>
A
I—^
o
A
I—^
o

Ln
n
A
I—1
o
A
I—1
o

r>
A
I—1
o
A
I—^
o

Ln
T
c*
i—
diisopropyl ether (108 20 3)
H
as
ra
>
<
o_
ST
CD
O
!~S
oro
as
s
o"
n
o
T3
O
e
3
a
<
o
n
a
e
T3
o
oj
i-h
re
c/>
>
o
-------
WISETXSW04-122012

RPD (%)
WISETXGW13-122012 DUP
WISETXGW13-122012

Ln
X
P
i—
December 2012
RPD (%)
WISETXGW01-092012 DUP
WISETXGW01-092012

Ln
X
P
i—
September 2012
RPD (%)
WISETXSW02-032012 DUP
WISETXSW02-032012
CZ
D
r+
V)
Sample ID
12/4/2012


12/3/2012
12/3/2012



9/20/2012
9/20/2012



3/6/2012
u>
cn
NJ
o
i—^
NJ

Date
Collected
<100

2
r>
<100
<100

un
O
O
2
r>
2
>
2
>

>
2
n
<100
<100
T
c*
i—
ethanol (64 17 5)
A
I—1
O

r>
A
I—1
O
A
I—1
O

Ln
O
r>
>
>

>
n
<25.0
<25.0
T
C*
i—
isopropanol (67 63 0)
A
I—^

r>
A
I—^
A
I—^

Ln
r>
>
>

>
n
<25.0
<25.0
T
c*
i—
acrylonitrile (107 13 1)
>

n
>
>

>
r>
>
>

>
n
A
O
Ln
A
O
Ln
T
c*
i—
styrene (100 42 5)
KD
00

n
A
I—^
A
I—^

Ln
r>
>
>

>
n
A
I—4
o
A
l—4
o
T
c*
i—
acetone (67 64 1)
A
I—1
O

r>
A
I—1
O
A
I—1
O

Ln
O
r>
>
>

>
n
A
Ln
O
A
Ln
O
T
c*
i—
tert butyl Alcohol (75 65 0)
A
O
In

n
A
O
In
A
O
In

NJ
Ln
r>
>
>

>
n
A
I—4
o
A
I—1
o
T
C*
i—
methyl tert butyl ether (1634 04 4)
A
O
In

r>
A
O
In
A
O
In

NJ
Ln
n
>
>

>
n
A
I—4
o
<1.0
T
c*
i—
diisopropyl ether (108 20 3)
H
as
ra
>
<
o_
ST
CD
O
!~S
oro
as
s
o"
n
o
T3
O
e
3
a
<
o
n
a
e
T3
o
oj
i-h
re
c/>
>
-------
A-142
Table A15. Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) Duplicates.
Sample ID
Date
Collected
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)
Units

i—
	1
"b5
=L
	1
"b5
=L
	1
"b5
=L
	1
"b5
=L
	1
"b5
=L
	1
"b5
=L
	1
=L
WISETXSW04-122012 DUP
12/4/2012
<100
<10
-------
RPD (%)
WISETXGW02-032012 DUP
WISETXGW02-032013

Ln
X
P
i—
March 2012
RPD (%)
WISETXSW02-092011 Dup
WISETXSW02-092011

RPD (%)
WISETXGW01-092011 Dup
WISETXGW01-092011

Ln
X
O
i—
September 2011
cz
D
r+
in
Sample ID

3/5/2012
u>
un
NJ
O
1—1
NJ



9/21/2011
9/21/2011


9/20/2011
9/20/2011



Date
Collected
2
n
A
I—^
o
A
l—^
o

Un
2
r>
A
1—^
o
A
1—^
o

2
r>
A
I—^
o
A
I—^
o

Ln
i.
i—
ethyl tert butyl ether (637 92 3)
n
A
I—^
o
A
I—^
o

Ln
r>
A
1—^
o
A
1—^
o

n
A
I—^
o
A
I—^
o

Ln
T
gq^
1—
tert amyl methyl ether (994 05 8)
r>
A
O
In
A
O
In

NJ
In
r>
A
O
Ln
A
O
Ln

n
A
O
Ln
A
O
Ln

NJ
Ln
T
gq^
1—
vinyl chloride (75 01 4)


zn

>
r>
zn


r>



>
T
c*
1—
1,1 dichloroethene (75 35 4)
n
A
O
In
A
O
In

NJ
Ln
r>
A
O
Ln
A
O
Ln

n
A
O
Ln
A
O
Ln

NJ
Ln
T
gq^
1—
carbon disulfide (75 15 0)
r>
A
I—^
o
A
I—^
o

Ln
n
A
l—^
o
A
l—^
o

r>
A
I—^
o
A
I—^
o

Ln
T
gq^
1—
methylene chloride (75 09 2)
n
A
O
In
A
O
In

NJ
Ln
r>
A
O
Ln
A
O
Ln

n
A
O
Ln
A
O
Ln

NJ
Ln
T
c*
i—
trans 1,2 dichloroethene (156 60 5)
r>
A
O
In
A
O
In

NJ
Ln
n
A
O
Ln
A
O
Ln

n
A
O
Ln
A
O
Ln

NJ
Ln
T
c*
i—
1,1 dichloroethane (75 34 3)
H
as
ra
>
<
o_
ST
CD
O
!~S
oro
as
s
o"
n
o
3
T3
O
e
3
a
r->i
<
o
n
w
a
e
H.
o"
oj
i-h
re
E/5
>
-------

RPD (%)
WISETXGW13-122012 DUP
WISETXGW13-122012

un
X
O
i—
December 2012
RPD (%)
WISETXGW01-092012 DUP
WISETXGW01-092012

Ln
X
P
i—
September 2012
RPD (%)
WISETXSW02-032012 DUP
WISETXSW02-032012

CZ
D
r+
V)
Sample ID


12/3/2012
12/3/2012



9/20/2012
9/20/2012



3/6/2012
3/6/2012


Date
Collected

2
r>
A
O
Ln
A
O
Ln

NJ
Ln
2
r>
2
>
2
>

>
2
n
A
I—4
o
A
I—4
o

T
C*
i—
ethyl tert butyl ether (637 92 3)

n
A
O
Ln
A
O
Ln

NJ
Ln
r>
>
>

>
n
A
I—4
o
A
I—4
o

T
c*
i—
tert amyl methyl ether (994 05 8)

n
A
O
Ln
A
O
Ln

NJ
Ln
r>
>
>

>
n
A
O
Ln
A
O
Ln

T
c*
i—
vinyl chloride (75 01 4)

r>
A
O
Ln
A
O
Ln

NJ
Ln
r>
>
>

>




T
c*
i—
1,1 dichloroethene (75 35 4)

n
A
O
Ln
A
O
Ln

NJ
Ln
r>
>
>

>
n
A
O
Ln
A
O
Ln

T
c*
i—
carbon disulfide (75 15 0)

r>
A
O
Ln
A
O
Ln

NJ
Ln
r>
>
>

>
n
A
I—4
o
A
I—4
o

T
C*
i—
methylene chloride (75 09 2)

n
A
O
Ln
A
O
Ln

NJ
Ln
r>
>
>

>
n
A
O
Ln
A
O
Ln

T
c*
i—
trans 1,2 dichloroethene (156 60 5)

n
A
O
Ln
A
O
Ln

NJ
Ln
r>
>
>

>
n
A
O
Ln
A
O
Ln

T
c*
i—
1,1 dichloroethane (75 34 3)
H
as
ra
>
<
o_
ST
CD
O
!~S
oro
as
s
o"
n
o
3
T3
O
e
3
a
r->i
<
o
n
w
a
e
H.
o"
oj
i-h
re
E/5

-------
A-145
Table A15. Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) Duplicates.
Sample ID
Date
Collected
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 1,2 dichloroethene (156 60 5)
1,1 dichloroethane (75 34 3)
Units

i—
	1
"b5
=L
	1
"b5
=L
	1
"b5
=L
	1
=L
	1
=L
	1
=L
	1
=L
WISETXSW04-122012
12/4/2012
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
WISETXSW04-122012 DUP
12/4/2012
<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
May 2013
5x QL

2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5










WISETXGW04-052013
5/29/2013
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
WISETXGW04-052013 DUP
5/29/2013
<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










WISETXSW04-052013
5/29/2013
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
WISETXSW04-052013 DUP
5/29/2013
<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
NA. Not Analyzed
NC. Not Calculated
R. Data Rejected
-------

RPD (%)
WISETXGW02-032012 DUP
WISETXGW02-032013

Ln
X
O
i—
March 2012
RPD (%)
WISETXSW02-092011 Dup
WISETXSW02-092011

RPD (%)
WISETXGW01-092011 Dup
WISETXGW01-092011

un
X
O
i—
September 2011
cz
D
r+
in
Sample ID


3/5/2012
3/5/2012



9/21/2011
9/21/2011


9/20/2011
9/20/2011



Date
Collected

2
n
A
O
In
A
O
In

NJ
Ln
2
r>
A
O
Ln
A
O
Ln

2
r>
A
O
Ln
A
O
Ln

NJ
Ln
T
gq^
1—
cis 1,2 dichoroethene (156 59 2)

n
A
O
In
A
O
In

NJ
Ln
r>
A
O
Ln
A
O
Ln

r>
A
O
Ln
A
O
Ln

NJ
Ln
T
gq^
1—
chloroform (67 66 3)

r>
A
O
In
A
O
In

NJ
Ln
r>
A
O
Ln
A
O
Ln

r>
A
O
Ln
A
O
Ln

NJ
Ln
T
gq^
1—
1,1,1 trichloroethane (71 55 6)

n
A
O
In
A
O
In

NJ
Ln
r>
A
O
Ln
A
O
Ln

r>
A
O
Ln
A
O
Ln

NJ
Ln
T
c*
1—
carbon tetrachloride (56 23 5)

r>
A
O
In
A
O
In

NJ
Ln
r>
A
O
Ln
A
O
Ln

r>
A
O
Ln
A
O
Ln

NJ
Ln
T
gq^
1—
benzene (71 43 2)

n
A
O
In
A
O
In

NJ
Ln
r>
A
O
Ln
A
O
Ln

r>
A
O
Ln
A
O
Ln

NJ
Ln
T
c*
i—
1,2 dichloroethane (107 06 2)

n
A
O
In
A
O
In

NJ
Ln
r>
A
O
Ln
A
O
Ln

r>
A
O
Ln
A
O
Ln

NJ
Ln
T
c*
i—
trichloroethene (79 01 6)

r>
A
O
In
A
O
In

NJ
Ln
r>
A
O
Ln
A
O
Ln

r>
A
O
Ln
A
O
Ln

NJ
Ln
T
c*
i—
toluene (108 88 3)
H
as
ra
>
<
o_
ST
CD
O
!~S
oro
as
s
o"
n
o
3
T3
O
e
3
a
r->i
<
o
n
w
a
e
H.
o"
oj
i-h
re
E/5
>
-------
WISETXSW04-122012

RPD (%)
WISETXGW13-122012 DUP
WISETXGW13-122012

un
X
P
i—
December 2012
RPD (%)
WISETXGW01-092012 DUP
WISETXGW01-092012

Ln
X
P
i—
September 2012
RPD (%)
WISETXSW02-032012 DUP
WISETXSW02-032012
cz
D
r—t
in
Sample ID
12/4/2012


12/3/2012
12/3/2012



9/20/2012
9/20/2012



3/6/2012
U>
cn
NJ
o
i->
NJ

Date
Collected
A
O
Ln

2
r>
A
O
Ln
A
O
Ln

NJ
Ln
2
r>
2
>
2
>

>
2
n
A
O
Ln
A
O
Ln
T
c*
i—
cis 1,2 dichoroethene (156 59 2)
A
O
Ln

r>
A
O
Ln
A
O
Ln

NJ
Ln
r>
>
>

>
n
A
O
Ln
A
O
Ln
T
c*
i—
chloroform (67 66 3)
A
O
Ln

r>
A
O
Ln
A
O
Ln

NJ
Ln
r>
>
>

>
n
A
O
Ln
A
O
Ln
T
c*
i—
1,1,1 trichloroethane (71 55 6)
A
O
Ln

r>
A
O
Ln
A
O
Ln

NJ
Ln
r>
>
>

>
n
A
O
Ln
A
O
Ln
T
C*
i—
carbon tetrachloride (56 23 5)
A
O
Ln

r>
A
O
Ln
A
O
Ln

NJ
Ln
r>
>
>

>
n
A
O
Ln
A
O
Ln
T
c*
i—
benzene (71 43 2)
A
O
Ln

r>
A
O
Ln
A
O
Ln

NJ
Ln
r>
>
>

>
n
A
O
Ln
A
O
Ln
T
c*
i—
1,2 dichloroethane (107 06 2)
A
O
Ln

r>
A
O
Ln
A
O
Ln

NJ
Ln
r>
>
>

>
n
A
O
Ln
A
O
Ln
T
c*
i—
trichloroethene (79 01 6)
A
O
Ln

r>
A
O
Ln
A
O
Ln

NJ
Ln
r>
>
>

>
n
A
O
Ln
A
O
Ln
T
c*
i—
toluene (108 88 3)
H
as
ra
>
<
o_
ST
CD
O
!~S
oro
as
s
o"
n
o
3
T3
O
e
3
a
r->i
<
o
n
w
a
e
H.
o"
oj
i-h
re
E/5
>
-------
A-148
Table A15. Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) Duplicates.
Sample ID
Date
Collected
cis 1,2 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)
Units


	1
=L
	1
=L
	1
=L
	1
=L
	1
=L
	1
=L
	1
=L
WISETXSW04-122012 DUP
12/4/2012
<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
May 2013
5x QL

2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5










WISETXGW04-052013
5/29/2013
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
WISETXGW04-052013 DUP
5/29/2013
<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










WISETXSW04-052013
5/29/2013
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
WISETXSW04-052013 DUP
5/29/2013
<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
NA. Not Analyzed
NC. Not Calculated
-------
A-149
Table A15. Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) Duplicates.
Sample ID
Date
Collected
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)
Units

*
1—
	1
"b5
=L
	1
=L
	1
=L
	1
=L
	1
=L
	1
=L
	1
=L
September 2011
5x QL

NA
2.5
2.5
5
10
2.5
2.5
2.5










WISETXGW01-092011
9/20/2011
R
<0.5
<0.5
<1.0
<2.0
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
WISETXGW01-092011 Dup
9/20/2011
R
<0.5
<0.5
<1.0
<2.0
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
RPD (%)

NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC










WISETXSW02-092011
9/21/2011
R
<0.5
<0.5
<1.0
<2.0
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
WISETXSW02-092011 Dup
9/21/2011
R
<0.5
<0.5
<1.0
<2.0
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
RPD (%)

NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
March 2012
5x QL

NA
2.5
2.5
5
10
2.5
2.5
2.5










WISETXGW02-032013
3/5/2012
R
<0.5
<0.5
<1.0
<2.0
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
WISETXGW02-032012 DUP
3/5/2012
R
<0.5
<0.5
<1.0
<2.0
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
RPD (%)

R
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC










-------
A-150
Table A15. Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) Duplicates.
Sample ID
Date
Collected
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)
Units

*
1—
	1
"b5
=L
	1
=L
	1
=L
	1
=L
	1
=L
	1
=L
	1
=L
WISETXSW02-032012
3/6/2012
R
<0.5
<0.5
<1.0
<2.0
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
WISETXSW02-032012 DUP
3/6/2012
R
<0.5
<0.5
<1.0
<2.0
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
RPD (%)

R
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
September 2012
5x QL

NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA










WISETXGW01-092012
9/20/2012
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
WISETXGW01-092012 DUP
9/20/2012
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
RPD (%)

NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
December 2012
5x QL

2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
5
2.5
2.5
2.5










WISETXGW13-122012
12/3/2012
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<1
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
WISETXGW13-122012 DUP
12/3/2012
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<1
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
RPD (%)

NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC










WISETXSW04-122012
12/4/2012
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<1
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
-------
A-151
Table A15. Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) Duplicates.
Sample ID
Date
Collected
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)
Units

*
1—
	1
"b5
=L
	1
=L
	1
=L
	1
=L
	1
=L
	1
=L
	1
=L
WISETXSW04-122012 DUP
12/4/2012
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
-------
A-152
Table A15. Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) Duplicates.
Sample ID
Date
Collected
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)
Units

M-g/L
	1
"b5
=L
	1
=L
	1
=L
	1
=L
	1
"b5
=L
September 2011
5x QL

2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5








WISETXGW01-092011
9/20/2011
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
WISETXGW01-092011 Dup
9/20/2011
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
RPD (%)

NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC








WISETXSW02-092011
9/21/2011
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
WISETXSW02-092011 Dup
9/21/2011
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
RPD (%)

NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
March 2012
5x QL

2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5








WISETXGW02-032013
3/5/2012
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
WISETXGW02-032012 DUP
3/5/2012
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
RPD (%)

NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC








-------
A-153
Table A15. Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) Duplicates.
Sample ID
Date
Collected
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)
Units

M-g/L
	1
"b5
=L
	1
=L
	1
=L
	1
=L
	1
"b5
=L
WISETXSW02-032012
3/6/2012
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
WISETXSW02-032012 DUP
3/6/2012
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
RPD (%)

NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
September 2012
5x QL

NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA








WISETXGW01-092012
9/20/2012
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
WISETXGW01-092012 DUP
9/20/2012
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
RPD (%)

NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
December 2012
5x QL

2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5








WISETXGW13-122012
12/3/2012
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
WISETXGW13-122012 DUP
12/3/2012
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
RPD (%)

NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC








WISETXSW04-122012
12/4/2012
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
-------
A-154
Table A15. Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) Duplicates.
Sample ID
Date
Collected
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)
Units

M-g/L
	1
"b5
=L
	1
=L
	1
=L
	1
=L
	1
"b5
=L
WISETXSW04-122012 DUP
12/4/2012
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
RPD (%)

NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
May 2013
5x QL

2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5








WISETXGW04-052013
5/29/2013
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
WISETXGW04-052013 DUP
5/29/2013
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
RPD (%)

NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC








WISETXSW04-052013
5/29/2013
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
WISETXSW04-052013 DUP
5/29/2013
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
RPD (%)

NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NA. Not Analyzed
NC. Not Calculated
-------
A-155
Table A16. Low Molecular Weight Acids Duplicates.
Sample ID
Date
Collected
Lactate
(50 21 5)
Formate
(64 18 6)
Acetate
(64 19 7)
Propionate
(79 09 4)
Butyrate
(107 92 6)
Units

mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
September 2011
5x QL

0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50







WISETXGW01-092011
9/20/2011
<0.10
<0.10
<0.10
<0.10
<0.10
WISETXGW01-092011 DUP
9/20/2011
<0.10
<0.10
<0.10
<0.10
<0.10
RPD (%)

NC
NC
NC
NC
NC







WISETXSW02-092011
9/21/2011
<0.10
<0.10
0.24
<0.10
<0.10
WISETXSW02-092011 DUP
9/21/2011
<0.10
<0.10
0.23
<0.10
<0.10
RPD (%)

NC
NC
4.3
NC
NC
March 2012
5x QL

0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
WISETXGW02-032013
3/5/2012
<0.10
0.41
<0.10
<0.10
<0.10
WISETXGW02-032012 DUP
3/5/2012
<0.10
0.42
<0.10
<0.10
<0.10
RPD (%)

NC
NC
NC
NC
NC







WISETXSW02-032012
3/6/2012
<0.10
0.12
0.07
<0.10
<0.10
WISETXSW02-032012 DUP
3/6/2012
<0.10
0.12
0.05
<0.10
<0.10
RPD (%)

NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
September 2012
5x QL













WISETXGW01-092012
9/20/2012
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
WISETXGW01-092012 DUP
9/20/2012
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
RPD (%)

NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
December 2012
5x QL

0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50







WISETXGW13-122012
12/3/2012
<0.10
R
<0.10
<0.10
<0.10
WISETXGW13-122012 DUP
12/3/2012
<0.10
R
<0.10
<0.10
<0.10
RPD (%)

NC
NC
NC
NC
NC







WISETXSW04-122012
12/4/2012
<0.10
R
0.33
<0.10
<0.10
WISETXSW04-122012 DUP
12/4/2012
<0.10
R
0.26
<0.10
<0.10
RPD (%)

NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
May 2013
5x QL













WISETXGW04-052013
5/29/2013
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
WISETXGW04-052013 DUP
5/29/2013
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
-------
A-156
Table A16. Low Molecular Weight Acids Duplicates.
Sample ID
Date
Collected
Lactate
(50 21 5)
Formate
(64 18 6)
Acetate
(64 19 7)
Propionate
(79 09 4)
Butyrate
(107 92 6)
Units

mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
RPD (%)

NC
NC
NC
NC
NC







WISETXSW04-122012
5/29/2013
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
WISETXSW04-122012 DUP
5/29/2013
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
RPD (%)

NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NA. Not Analyzed
NC. Not Calculated
-------
A-157
Table A17. Dissolved Gas Duplicates.
Sample ID
Date
Collected
Methane
(74 82 8)
Ethane
(74 84 0)
Propane
(74 98 6)
Butane
(106 97 8)
Units

	1
E
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
September 2011
5x QL

0.0070
0.0145
0.0200
0.0250






WISETXGW01-092011
9/20/2011
0.0093
<0.0029
<0.0040
<0.0050
WISETXGW01-092011 DUP
9/20/2011
0.0089
<0.0029
<0.0040
<0.0050
RPD (%)

1.1
NC
NC
NC






WISETXSW02-092011
9/21/2011
0.0096
<0.0029
<0.0040
<0.0050
WISETXSW02-092011 DUP
9/21/2011
0.0096
<0.0029
<0.0040
<0.0050
RPD (%)

0.0
NC
NC
NC
March 2012
5x QL

0.0070
0.0135
0.0190
0.0240
WISETXGW02-032013
3/5/2012
0.0016
<0.0027
<0.0038
<0.0048
WISETXGW02-032012 DUP
3/5/2012
0.0017
<0.0027
<0.0038
<0.0048
RPD (%)

NC
NC
NC
NC






WISETXSW02-032012
3/6/2012
0.0082
<0.0027
<0.0038
<0.0048
WISETXSW02-032012 DUP
3/6/2012
0.0071
<0.0027
<0.0038
<0.0048
RPD (%)

14.4
NC
NC
NC
September 2012
5x QL

NA
NA
NA
NA






WISETXGW01-092012
9/20/2012
NA
NA
NA
NA
WISETXGW01-092012 DUP
9/20/2012
NA
NA
NA
NA
RPD (%)

NC
NC
NC
NC
December 2012
5x QL

0.0070
0.0140
0.0190
0.0240






WISETXGW13-122012
12/3/2012
0.0014
<0.0028
<0.0038
<0.0048
WISETXGW13-122012 DUP
12/3/2012
0.0011
<0.0028
<0.0038
<0.0048
RPD (%)

NC
NC
NC
NC






WISETXSW04-122012
12/4/2012
0.1320
<0.0028
<0.0038
<0.0048
WISETXSW04-122012 DUP
12/4/2012
0.1260
<0.0028
<0.0038
<0.0048
RPD (%)

4.7
NC
NC
NC
May 2013
5x QL











WISETXGW04-052013
5/29/2013
NA
NA
NA
NA
WISETXGW04-052013 DUP
5/29/2013
NA
NA
NA
NA
-------
A-158
Table A17. Dissolved Gas Duplicates.
Sample ID
Date
Collected
Methane
(74 82 8)
Ethane
(74 84 0)
Propane
(74 98 6)
Butane
(106 97 8)
Units

	1
E
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
RPD (%)

NC
NC
NC
NC






WISETXSW04-122012
5/29/2013
NA
NA
NA
NA
WISETXSW04-122012 DUP
5/29/2013
NA
NA
NA
NA
RPD (%)

NC
NC
NC
NC
NA. Not Analyzed
NC. Not Calculated
-------
A-159
Table A18. Glycol Duplicates.
Sample ID
Date
Collected
2 butoxyethanol (111 76 2)
Diethylene glycol (111 46 6)
Triethylene glycol (112 27 6)
Tetraethylene glycol (112 60 7)
Units

	1
"b5
=L
	1
"b5
=L
M-g/L
M-g/L
September 2011
5x QL

25
125
125
125






WISETXGW01-092011
9/20/2011
<10
<50
<50
<25
WISETXGW01-092011 DUP
9/20/2011
<10
<50
<50
<25
RPD (%)

NC
NC
NC
NC






WISETXSW02-092011
9/21/2011
<10
<50
<50
<25
WISETXSW02-092011 DUP
9/21/2011
<10
<50
<50
<25
RPD (%)

NC
NC
NC
NC
March 2012
5x QL

50
250
250
125
WISETXGW02-032013
3/5/2012
<10
<50
<50
<25
WISETXGW02-032012 DUP
3/5/2012
<10
<50
<50
<25
RPD (%)

NC
NC
NC
NC






WISETXSW02-032012
3/6/2012
<10
<50
<50
<25
WISETXSW02-032012-DU P
3/6/2012
<10
<50
<50
<25
RPD (%)

NC
NC
NC
NC
September 2012
5x QL

NA
NA
NA
NA






WISETXGW01-092012
9/20/2012
NA
NA
NA
NA
WISETXGW01-092012 DUP
9/20/2012
NA
NA
NA
NA
RPD (%)

NC
NC
NC
NC
December 2012
QL

25
25
25
25
5x QL

125
125
125
125






WISETXGW13-122012
12/3/2012
<25
<25
<25
<25
WISETXGW13-122012 DUP
12/3/2012
<25
<25
<25
<25
RPD (%)

NC
NC
NC
NC






-------
A-160
Table A18. Glycol Duplicates.
Sample ID
Date
Collected
2 butoxyethanol (111 76 2)
Diethylene glycol (111 46 6)
Triethylene glycol (112 27 6)
Tetraethylene glycol (112 60 7)
Units

	1
"b5
=L
	1
"b5
=L
M-g/L
M-g/L
WISETXSW04-122012
12/4/2012
<25
<25
<25
<25
WISETXSW04-122012 DUP
12/4/2012
<25
<25
<25
<25
RPD (%)

NC
NC
NC
NC
May 2013
5x QL











WISETXGW04-052013
5/29/2013
NA
NA
NA
NA
WISETXGW04-052013 DUP
5/29/2013
NA
NA
NA
NA
RPD (%)

NC
NC
NC
NC






WISETXSW04-122012
5/29/2013
NA
NA
NA
NA
WISETXSW04-122012 DUP
5/29/2013
NA
NA
NA
NA
RPD (%)

NC
NC
NC
NC
NA. Not Analyzed
NC. Not Calculated
-------
A-161
Table A19. Semi-Volatile Organic Compounds (sVOC) Duplicates.
Sample ID
Date
Collected
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)
Units

	1
=L
	1
=L
	1
"b5
=L
	1
"b5
=L
	1
"b5
=L
	1
"b5
=L
	1
"b5
=L
	1
"b5
=L
September 2011
5x QL

2.50
2.50
2.50
2.50
2.50
2.50
2.50
2.50










WISETXGW01-092011
9/20/2011
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
WISETXGW01-092011 DUP
9/20/2011
<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










WISETXSW02-092011
9/21/2011
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
WISETXSW02-092011 DUP
9/21/2011
<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
March 2012
5x QL

5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
WISETXGW02-032013
3/5/2012
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
WISETXGW02-032012 DUP
3/5/2012
<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










WISETXSW02-032012
3/6/2012
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
WISETXSW02-032012 DUP
3/6/2012
<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
September 2012
5x QL



















WISETXGW01-092012
9/20/2012
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
WISETXGW01-092012 DUP
9/20/2012
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
RPD (%)

NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
December 2012
5x QL

5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5










WISETXGW13-122012
12/3/2012
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
WISETXGW13-122012 DUP
12/3/2012
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
-------
A-162
Table A19. Semi-Volatile Organic Compounds (sVOC) Duplicates.
Sample ID
Date
Collected
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)
Units

	1
=L
	1
=L
	1
"b5
=L
	1
"b5
=L
	1
"b5
=L
	1
"b5
=L
	1
"b5
=L
	1
"b5
=L
RPD (%)

NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC










WISETXSW04-122012
12/4/2012
<4.00
<4.00
<4.00
<4.00
<4.00
<4.00
<4.00
<4.00
WISETXSW04-122012 DUP
12/4/2012
<4.00
<4.00
<4.00
<4.00
<4.00
<4.00
<4.00
<4.00
RPD (%)

NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
May 2013
5x QL



















WISETXGW04-052013
5/29/2013
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
WISETXGW04-052013 DUP
5/29/2013
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
RPD (%)

NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC










WISETXSW04-122012
5/29/2013
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
WISETXSW04-122012 DUP
5/29/2013
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
RPD (%)

NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NA. Not Analyzed
NC. Not Calculated
-------
A-163
Table A19. Semi-Volatile Organic Compounds (sVOC) Duplicates.
Sample ID
Date
Collected
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)
Units

M-g/L
	1
=L
	1
"b5
=L
	1
"b5
=L
	1
"b5
=L
	1
"b5
=L
	1
"b5
=L
	1
"b5
=L
September 2011
5x QL

2.50
2.50
2.50
2.50
2.50
2.50
2.50
2.50










WISETXGW01-092011
9/20/2011
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
WISETXGW01-092011 DUP
9/20/2011
<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










WISETXSW02-092011
9/21/2011
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
WISETXSW02-092011 DUP
9/21/2011
<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
March 2012
5x QL

5.00
5.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
WISETXGW02-032013
3/5/2012
<1.00
<1.00
<2.00
<2.00
<2.00
<2.00
<2.00
<2.00
WISETXGW02-032012 DUP
3/5/2012
<1.00
<1.00
<2.00
<2.00
<2.00
<2.00
<2.00
<2.00
RPD (%)

NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC










WISETXSW02-032012
3/6/2012
<1.00
<1.00
<2.00
<2.00
<2.00
<2.00
<2.00
<2.00
WISETXSW02-032012 DUP
3/6/2012
<1.00
<1.00
<2.00
<2.00
<2.00
<2.00
<2.00
<2.00
RPD (%)

NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
September 2012
5x QL



















WISETXGW01-092012
9/20/2012
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
WISETXGW01-092012 DUP
9/20/2012
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
RPD (%)

NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
December 2012
5x QL

5
5
10
10
10
10
10
10










WISETXGW13-122012
12/3/2012
<1.00
<1.00
<2.00
<2.00
<2.00
<2.00
<2.00
<2.00
WISETXGW13-122012 DUP
12/3/2012
<1.00
<1.00
<2.00
<2.00
<2.00
<2.00
<2.00
<2.00
-------
A-164
Table A19. Semi-Volatile Organic Compounds (sVOC) Duplicates.
Sample ID
Date
Collected
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)
Units

M-g/L
	1
=L
	1
"b5
=L
	1
"b5
=L
	1
"b5
=L
	1
"b5
=L
	1
"b5
=L
	1
"b5
=L
RPD (%)

NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC










WISETXSW04-122012
12/4/2012
<4.00
<4.00
<8.00
<8.00
<8.00
<8.00
<8.00
<8.00
WISETXSW04-122012 DUP
12/4/2012
<4.00
<4.00
<8.00
<8.00
<8.00
<8.00
<8.00
<8.00
RPD (%)

NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
May 2013
5x QL



















WISETXGW04-052013
5/29/2013
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
WISETXGW04-052013 DUP
5/29/2013
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
RPD (%)

NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC










WISETXSW04-122012
5/29/2013
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
WISETXSW04-122012 DUP
5/29/2013
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
RPD (%)

NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NA. Not Analyzed
NC. Not Calculated
-------
A-165
Table A19. Semi-Volatile Organic Compounds (sVOC) Duplicates.
Sample ID
Date
Collected
2,4 dinitrophenol (51 28 5)
2,4dinitrotoluene (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)
Units

M-g/L
	1
=L
	1
"b5
=L
	1
"b5
=L
	1
"b5
=L
	1
"b5
=L
	1
"b5
=L
	1
"b5
=L
September 2011
5x QL

25.00
2.50
2.50
2.50
2.50
2.50
2.50
2.50










WISETXGW01-092011
9/20/2011
<5.00
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
WISETXGW01-092011 DUP
9/20/2011
<5.00
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
RPD (%)

NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC










WISETXSW02-092011
9/21/2011
<5.00
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
WISETXSW02-092011 DUP
9/21/2011
<5.00
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
RPD (%)

NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
March 2012
5x QL

15.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
10.00
5.00
10.00
WISETXGW02-032013
3/5/2012
<3.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<2.00
<1.00
<2.00
WISETXGW02-032012 DUP
3/5/2012
<3.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<2.00
<1.00
<2.00
RPD (%)

NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC










WISETXSW02-032012
3/6/2012
<3.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<2.00
<1.00
<2.00
WISETXSW02-032012 DUP
3/6/2012
<3.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<2.00
<1.00
<2.00
RPD (%)

NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
September 2012
5x QL



















WISETXGW01-092012
9/20/2012
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
WISETXGW01-092012 DUP
9/20/2012
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
RPD (%)

NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
December 2012
5x QL

15
5
5
5
5
10
5
10










WISETXGW13-122012
12/3/2012
<3.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<2.00
<1.00
<2.00
WISETXGW13-122012 DUP
12/3/2012
<3.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<2.00
<1.00
<2.00
-------
A-166
Table A19. Semi-Volatile Organic Compounds (sVOC) Duplicates.
Sample ID
Date
Collected
2,4 dinitrophenol (51 28 5)
2,4dinitrotoluene (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)
Units

M-g/L
	1
=L
	1
"b5
=L
	1
"b5
=L
	1
"b5
=L
	1
"b5
=L
	1
"b5
=L
	1
"b5
=L
RPD (%)

NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC










WISETXSW04-122012
12/4/2012
<12.0
<4.00
<4.00
<4.00
<4.00
<8.00
<4.00
<8.00
WISETXSW04-122012 DUP
12/4/2012
<12.0
<4.00
<4.00
<4.00
<4.00
<8.00
<4.00
<8.00
RPD (%)

NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
May 2013
5x QL



















WISETXGW04-052013
5/29/2013
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
WISETXGW04-052013 DUP
5/29/2013
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
RPD (%)

NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC










WISETXSW04-122012
5/29/2013
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
WISETXSW04-122012 DUP
5/29/2013
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
RPD (%)

NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NA. Not Analyzed
NC. Not Calculated
-------
A-167
Table A19. Semi-Volatile Organic Compounds (sVOC) Duplicates.
Sample ID
Date
Collected
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)
Units

M-g/L
	1
=L
	1
"b5
=L
	1
"b5
=L
	1
"b5
=L
	1
"b5
=L
	1
"b5
=L
	1
"b5
=L
September 2011
5x QL

2.50
2.50
2.50
5.00
2.50
2.50
2.50
2.50










WISETXGW01-092011
9/20/2011
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
NR
NR
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
WISETXGW01-092011 DUP
9/20/2011
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
NR
NR
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
RPD (%)

NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC










WISETXSW02-092011
9/21/2011
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
NR
NR
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
WISETXSW02-092011 DUP
9/21/2011
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
NR
NR
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
RPD (%)

NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
March 2012
5x QL

5.00
10.00
25.00
5.00
15.00
10.00
5.00
10.00
WISETXGW02-032013
3/5/2012
<1.00
<2.00
<5.00
<1.00
<3.00
<2.00
<1.00
<2.00
WISETXGW02-032012 DUP
3/5/2012
<1.00
<2.00
<5.00
<1.00
<3.00
<2.00
<1.00
<2.00
RPD (%)

NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC










WISETXSW02-032012
3/6/2012
<1.00
<2.00
<5.00
<1.00
<3.00
<2.00
<1.00
<2.00
WISETXSW02-032012 DUP
3/6/2012
<1.00
<2.00
<5.00
<1.00
<3.00
<2.00
<1.00
<2.00
RPD (%)

NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
September 2012
5x QL



















WISETXGW01-092012
9/20/2012
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
WISETXGW01-092012 DUP
9/20/2012
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
RPD (%)

NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
December 2012
5x QL

5
10
25
5
15
10
5
10










WISETXGW13-122012
12/3/2012
<1.00
<2.00
<5.00
<1.00
<3.00
<2.00
<1.00
<2.00
WISETXGW13-122012 DUP
12/3/2012
<1.00
<2.00
<5.00
<1.00
<3.00
<2.00
<1.00
<2.00
-------
A-168
Table A19. Semi-Volatile Organic Compounds (sVOC) Duplicates.
Sample ID
Date
Collected
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)
Units

M-g/L
	1
=L
	1
"b5
=L
	1
"b5
=L
	1
"b5
=L
	1
"b5
=L
	1
"b5
=L
	1
"b5
=L
RPD (%)

NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC










WISETXSW04-122012
12/4/2012
<4.00
<8.00
<20.0
<4.00
<12.0
<8.00
<4.00
<8.00
WISETXSW04-122012 DUP
12/4/2012
<4.00
<8.00
<20.0
<4.00
<12.0
<8.00
<4.00
<8.00
RPD (%)

NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
May 2013
5x QL



















WISETXGW04-052013
5/29/2013
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
WISETXGW04-052013 DUP
5/29/2013
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
RPD (%)

NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC










WISETXSW04-122012
5/29/2013
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
WISETXSW04-122012 DUP
5/29/2013
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
RPD (%)

NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NA. Not Analyzed
NC. Not Calculated
-------
A-169
Table A19. Semi-Volatile Organic Compounds (sVOC) Duplicates.
Sample ID
Date
Collected
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)
Units

s
1—
	1
=L
	1
=L
	1
=L
	1
=L
	1
=L
	1
=L
	1
=L
September 2011
5x QL

5.00
2.50
2.50
12.50
2.50
2.50
2.50
5.00










WISETXGW01-092011
9/20/2011
NR
<0.50
NR
<2.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
NR
WISETXGW01-092011 DUP
9/20/2011
NR
<0.50
NR
<2.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
NR
RPD (%)

NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC










WISETXSW02-092011
9/21/2011
NR
<0.50
NR
<2.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
NR
WISETXSW02-092011 DUP
9/21/2011
NR
<0.50
NR
<2.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
NR
RPD (%)

NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
March 2012
5x QL

15.00
5.00
15.00
15.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
WISETXGW02-032013
3/5/2012
<3.00
<1.00
<3.00
<3.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
WISETXGW02-032012 DUP
3/5/2012
<3.00
<1.00
<3.00
<3.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
RPD (%)

NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC










WISETXSW02-032012
3/6/2012
<3.00
<1.00
<3.00
<3.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
WISETXSW02-032012 DUP
3/6/2012
<3.00
<1.00
<3.00
<3.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
RPD (%)

NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
September 2012
5x QL



















WISETXGW01-092012
9/20/2012
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
WISETXGW01-092012 DUP
9/20/2012
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
RPD (%)

NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
December 2012
5x QL

15
5
15
15
5
5
5
5










WISETXGW13-122012
12/3/2012
<3.00
<1.00
<3.00
<3.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
WISETXGW13-122012 DUP
12/3/2012
<3.00
<1.00
<3.00
<3.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
-------
A-170
Table A19. Semi-Volatile Organic Compounds (sVOC) Duplicates.
Sample ID
Date
Collected
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)
Units

s
1—
	1
=L
	1
=L
	1
=L
	1
=L
	1
=L
	1
=L
	1
=L
RPD (%)

NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC










WISETXSW04-122012
12/4/2012
<12.0
<4.00
<12.0
<12.0
<4.00
<4.00
<4.00
<4.00
WISETXSW04-122012 DUP
12/4/2012
<12.0
<4.00
<12.0
<12.0
<4.00
<4.00
<4.00
<4.00
RPD (%)

NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
May 2013
5x QL



















WISETXGW04-052013
5/29/2013
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
WISETXGW04-052013 DUP
5/29/2013
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
RPD (%)

NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC










WISETXSW04-122012
5/29/2013
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
WISETXSW04-122012 DUP
5/29/2013
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
RPD (%)

NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NA. Not Analyzed
NC. Not Calculated
-------
A-171
Table A19. Semi-Volatile Organic Compounds (sVOC) Duplicates.
Sample ID
Date
Collected
Anthracene (120 12 7)
Azobenzene (103 33 3)
Benzo(a)anthracene (56 55 3)
Benzo(a)pyrene (50 32 3)
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)
Units

M-g/L
	1
=L
	1
"b5
=L
	1
"b5
=L
	1
"b5
=L
	1
"b5
=L
	1
"b5
=L
	1
"b5
=L
September 2011
5x QL

2.50
2.50
2.50
2.50
2.50
2.50
2.50
25.00










WISETXGW01-092011
9/20/2011
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<5.00
WISETXGW01-092011 DUP
9/20/2011
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<5.00
RPD (%)

NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC










WISETXSW02-092011
9/21/2011
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<5.00
WISETXSW02-092011 DUP
9/21/2011
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<5.00
RPD (%)

NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
March 2012
5x QL

5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
15.00
WISETXGW02-032013
3/5/2012
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<3.00
WISETXGW02-032012 DUP
3/5/2012
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<3.00
RPD (%)

NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC










WISETXSW02-032012
3/6/2012
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<3.00
WISETXSW02-032012 DUP
3/6/2012
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<3.00
RPD (%)

NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
September 2012
5x QL



















WISETXGW01-092012
9/20/2012
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
WISETXGW01-092012 DUP
9/20/2012
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
RPD (%)

NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
December 2012
5x QL

5
5
5
5
5
5
5
15










WISETXGW13-122012
12/3/2012
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<3.00
WISETXGW13-122012 DUP
12/3/2012
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<3.00
-------
A-172
Table A19. Semi-Volatile Organic Compounds (sVOC) Duplicates.
Sample ID
Date
Collected
Anthracene (120 12 7)
Azobenzene (103 33 3)
Benzo(a)anthracene (56 55 3)
Benzo(a)pyrene (50 32 3)
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)
Units

M-g/L
	1
=L
	1
"b5
=L
	1
"b5
=L
	1
"b5
=L
	1
"b5
=L
	1
"b5
=L
	1
"b5
=L
RPD (%)

NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC










WISETXSW04-122012
12/4/2012
<4.00
<4.00
<4.00
<4.00
<4.00
<4.00
<4.00
<12.0
WISETXSW04-122012 DUP
12/4/2012
<4.00
<4.00
<4.00
<4.00
<4.00
<4.00
<4.00
<12.0
RPD (%)

NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
May 2013
5x QL



















WISETXGW04-052013
5/29/2013
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
WISETXGW04-052013 DUP
5/29/2013
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
RPD (%)

NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC










WISETXSW04-122012
5/29/2013
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
WISETXSW04-122012 DUP
5/29/2013
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
RPD (%)

NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NA. Not Analyzed
NC. Not Calculated
-------
A-173
Table A19. Semi-Volatile Organic Compounds (sVOC) Duplicates.
Sample ID
Date
Collected
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)
Units

	1
=L
	1
=L
	1
"b5
=L
	1
"b5
=L
	1
"b5
=L
	1
"b5
=L
	1
"b5
=L
	1
"b5
=L
September 2011
5x QL

2.50
2.50
2.50
2.50
5.00
5.00
2.50
2.50










WISETXGW01-092011
9/20/2011
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<1.00
<1.00
<0.50
NR
WISETXGW01-092011 DUP
9/20/2011
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<1.00
<1.00
<0.50
NR
RPD (%)

NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC










WISETXSW02-092011
9/21/2011
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<1.00
<1.00
<0.50
NR
WISETXSW02-092011 DUP
9/21/2011
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<1.00
<1.00
<0.50
NR
RPD (%)

NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
March 2012
5x QL

5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
10.00
5.00
15.00
WISETXGW02-032013
3/5/2012
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<2.00
<1.00
<3.00
WISETXGW02-032012 DUP
3/5/2012
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<2.00
<1.00
<3.00
RPD (%)

NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC










WISETXSW02-032012
3/6/2012
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<2.00
<1.00
<3.00
WISETXSW02-032012 DUP
3/6/2012
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<2.00
<1.00
<3.00
RPD (%)

NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
September 2012
5x QL



















WISETXGW01-092012
9/20/2012
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
WISETXGW01-092012 DUP
9/20/2012
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
RPD (%)

NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
December 2012
5x QL

5
5
5
5
5
10
5
15










WISETXGW13-122012
12/3/2012
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<2.00
<1.00
<3.00
WISETXGW13-122012 DUP
12/3/2012
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<2.00
<1.00
<3.00
-------
A-174
Table A19. Semi-Volatile Organic Compounds (sVOC) Duplicates.
Sample ID
Date
Collected
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)
Units

	1
=L
	1
=L
	1
"b5
=L
	1
"b5
=L
	1
"b5
=L
	1
"b5
=L
	1
"b5
=L
	1
"b5
=L
RPD (%)

NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC










WISETXSW04-122012
12/4/2012
<4.00
<4.00
<4.00
<4.00
<4.00
<8.00
<4.00
<12.0
WISETXSW04-122012 DUP
12/4/2012
<4.00
<4.00
<4.00
<4.00
<4.00
<8.00
<4.00
<12.0
RPD (%)

NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
May 2013
5x QL



















WISETXGW04-052013
5/29/2013
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
WISETXGW04-052013 DUP
5/29/2013
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
RPD (%)

NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC










WISETXSW04-122012
5/29/2013
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
WISETXSW04-122012 DUP
5/29/2013
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
RPD (%)

NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NA. Not Analyzed
NC. Not Calculated
-------
A-175
Table A19. Semi-Volatile Organic Compounds (sVOC) Duplicates.
Sample ID
Date
Collected
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)
Units

M-g/L
	1
=L
	1
"b5
=L
	1
"b5
=L
	1
"b5
=L
	1
"b5
=L
	1
"b5
=L
	1
"b5
=L
September 2011
5x QL

2.50
2.50
2.50
2.50
2.50
2.50
2.50
2.50










WISETXGW01-092011
9/20/2011
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
WISETXGW01-092011 DUP
9/20/2011
<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










WISETXSW02-092011
9/21/2011
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
WISETXSW02-092011 DUP
9/21/2011
<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
March 2012
5x QL

5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
WISETXGW02-032013
3/5/2012
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
WISETXGW02-032012 DUP
3/5/2012
<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










WISETXSW02-032012
3/6/2012
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
WISETXSW02-032012 DUP
3/6/2012
<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
September 2012
5x QL



















WISETXGW01-092012
9/20/2012
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
WISETXGW01-092012 DUP
9/20/2012
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
RPD (%)

NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
December 2012
5x QL

5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5










WISETXGW13-122012
12/3/2012
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
WISETXGW13-122012 DUP
12/3/2012
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
-------
A-176
Table A19. Semi-Volatile Organic Compounds (sVOC) Duplicates.
Sample ID
Date
Collected
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)
Units

M-g/L
	1
=L
	1
"b5
=L
	1
"b5
=L
	1
"b5
=L
	1
"b5
=L
	1
"b5
=L
	1
"b5
=L
RPD (%)

NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC










WISETXSW04-122012
12/4/2012
<4.00
<4.00
<4.00
<4.00
<4.00
<4.00
<4.00
<4.00
WISETXSW04-122012 DUP
12/4/2012
<4.00
<4.00
<4.00
<4.00
<4.00
<4.00
<4.00
<4.00
RPD (%)

NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
May 2013
5x QL



















WISETXGW04-052013
5/29/2013
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
WISETXGW04-052013 DUP
5/29/2013
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
RPD (%)

NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC










WISETXSW04-122012
5/29/2013
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
WISETXSW04-122012 DUP
5/29/2013
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
RPD (%)

NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NA. Not Analyzed
NC. Not Calculated
-------
A-177
Table A19. Semi-Volatile Organic Compounds (sVOC) Duplicates.
Sample ID
Date
Collected
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)
Units

	1
=L
	1
=L
	1
"b5
=L
	1
"b5
=L
	1
"b5
=L
	1
"b5
=L
	1
"b5
=L
	1
"b5
=L
September 2011
5x QL

2.50
2.50
2.50
5.00
2.50
5.00
2.50
2.50










WISETXGW01-092011
9/20/2011
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<1.00
<0.50
<1.00
<0.50
<0.50
WISETXGW01-092011 DUP
9/20/2011
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<1.00
<0.50
<1.00
<0.50
<0.50
RPD (%)

NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC










WISETXSW02-092011
9/21/2011
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<1.00
<0.50
<1.00
<0.50
<0.50
WISETXSW02-092011 DUP
9/21/2011
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<1.00
<0.50
<1.00
<0.50
<0.50
RPD (%)

NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
March 2012
5x QL

5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
WISETXGW02-032013
3/5/2012
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
WISETXGW02-032012 DUP
3/5/2012
<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










WISETXSW02-032012
3/6/2012
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
WISETXSW02-032012 DUP
3/6/2012
<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
September 2012
5x QL



















WISETXGW01-092012
9/20/2012
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
WISETXGW01-092012 DUP
9/20/2012
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
RPD (%)

NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
December 2012
5x QL

5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5










WISETXGW13-122012
12/3/2012
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
WISETXGW13-122012 DUP
12/3/2012
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
-------
A-178
Table A19. Semi-Volatile Organic Compounds (sVOC) Duplicates.
Sample ID
Date
Collected
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)
Units

	1
=L
	1
=L
	1
"b5
=L
	1
"b5
=L
	1
"b5
=L
	1
"b5
=L
	1
"b5
=L
	1
"b5
=L
RPD (%)

NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC










WISETXSW04-122012
12/4/2012
<4.00
<4.00
<4.00
<4.00
<4.00
<4.00
<4.00
<4.00
WISETXSW04-122012 DUP
12/4/2012
<4.00
<4.00
<4.00
<4.00
<4.00
<4.00
<4.00
<4.00
RPD (%)

NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
May 2013
5x QL



















WISETXGW04-052013
5/29/2013
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
WISETXGW04-052013 DUP
5/29/2013
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
RPD (%)

NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC










WISETXSW04-122012
5/29/2013
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
WISETXSW04-122012 DUP
5/29/2013
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
RPD (%)

NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NA. Not Analyzed
NC. Not Calculated
-------
A-179
Table A19. Semi-Volatile Organic Compounds (sVOC) Duplicates.
Sample ID
Date
Collected
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)
Units

	1
=L
	1
=L
	1
"b5
=L
	1
"b5
=L
	1
"b5
=L
	1
"b5
=L
	1
"b5
=L
	1
"b5
=L
September 2011
5x QL

2.50
2.50
2.50
2.50
5.00
2.50
2.50
2.50










WISETXGW01-092011
9/20/2011
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<1.00
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
WISETXGW01-092011 DUP
9/20/2011
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<1.00
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
RPD (%)

NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC










WISETXSW02-092011
9/21/2011
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<1.00
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
WISETXSW02-092011 DUP
9/21/2011
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
<1.00
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
RPD (%)

NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
March 2012
5x QL

5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
10.00
5.00
10.00
5.00
WISETXGW02-032013
3/5/2012
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<2.00
<1.00
<2.00
<1.00
WISETXGW02-032012 DUP
3/5/2012
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<2.00
<1.00
<2.00
<1.00
RPD (%)

NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC










WISETXSW02-032012
3/6/2012
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<2.00
<1.00
<2.00
<1.00
WISETXSW02-032012 DUP
3/6/2012
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<2.00
<1.00
<2.00
<1.00
RPD (%)

NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
September 2012
5x QL



















WISETXGW01-092012
9/20/2012
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
WISETXGW01-092012 DUP
9/20/2012
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
RPD (%)

NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
December 2012
5x QL

5
5
5
5
10
5
10
5










WISETXGW13-122012
12/3/2012
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<2.00
<1.00
<2.00
<1.00
-------
A-180
Table A19. Semi-Volatile Organic Compounds (sVOC) Duplicates.
Sample ID
Date
Collected
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)
Units

M-g/L
	1
=L
	1
"b5
=L
	1
"b5
=L
	1
"b5
=L
	1
"b5
=L
	1
"b5
=L
	1
"b5
=L
WISETXGW13-122012 DUP
12/3/2012
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<2.00
<1.00
<2.00
<1.00
RPD (%)

NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC










WISETXSW04-122012
12/4/2012
<4.00
<4.00
<4.00
<4.00
<8.00
<4.00
<8.00
<4.00
WISETXSW04-122012 DUP
12/4/2012
<4.00
<4.00
<4.00
<4.00
<8.00
<4.00
<8.00
<4.00
RPD (%)

NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
May 2013
5x QL



















WISETXGW04-052013
5/29/2013
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
WISETXGW04-052013 DUP
5/29/2013
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
RPD (%)

NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC










WISETXSW04-122012
5/29/2013
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
WISETXSW04-122012 DUP
5/29/2013
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
RPD (%)

NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NA. Not Analyzed
NC. Not Calculated
-------
A-181
Table A19. Semi-Volatile Organic Compounds (sVOC)
Duplicates.	
Sample ID
Date
Collected
Pyridine (110-86-1)
Squalene (111-02-4)
Terpiniol (98-55-5)
tri-(2-butoxyethyl) phosphate (78-51-3)
Units

M-g/L
	1
=L
M-g/L
M-g/L
September 2011
5x QL

2.50
5.00
2.50
5.00






WISETXGW01-092011
9/20/2011
<0.50
<1.00
<0.50
<1.00
WISETXGW01-092011 DUP
9/20/2011
<0.50
<1.00
<0.50
<1.00
RPD (%)

NC
NC
NC
NC






WISETXSW02-092011
9/21/2011
<0.50
<1.00
<0.50
<1.00
WISETXSW02-092011 DUP
9/21/2011
<0.50
<1.00
<0.50
<1.00
RPD (%)

NC
NC
NC
NC
March 2012
5x QL

5.00
10.00
5.00
5.00
WISETXGW02-032013
3/5/2012
<1.00
<2.00
<1.00
NR
WISETXGW02-032012 DUP
3/5/2012
<1.00
<2.00
<1.00
NR
RPD (%)

NC
NC
NC
NC






WISETXSW02-032012
3/6/2012
<1.00
<2.00
<1.00
NR
WISETXSW02-032012 DUP
3/6/2012
<1.00
<2.00
<1.00
NR
RPD (%)

NC
NC
NC
NC
September 2012
5x QL











WISETXGW01-092012
9/20/2012
NA
NA
NA
NA
WISETXGW01-092012 DUP
9/20/2012
NA
NA
NA
NA
RPD (%)

NC
NC
NC
NC
December 2012
5x QL

5
10
5
5






WISETXGW13-122012
12/3/2012
<1.00
<2.00
<1.00
<1.00
-------
A-182
Table A19. Semi-Volatile Organic Compounds (sVOC)
Duplicates.	
Sample ID
Date
Collected
Pyridine (110-86-1)
Squalene (111-02-4)
Terpiniol (98-55-5)
tri-(2-butoxyethyl) phosphate (78-51-3)
Units

M-g/L
	1
=L
M-g/L
M-g/L
WISETXGW13-122012 DUP
12/3/2012
<1.00
<2.00
<1.00
<1.00
RPD (%)

NC
NC
NC
NC






WISETXSW04-122012
12/4/2012
<4.00
<8.00
<4.00
<4.00
WISETXSW04-122012 DUP
12/4/2012
<4.00
<8.00
<4.00
<4.00
RPD (%)

NC
NC
NC
NC
May 2013
5x QL











WISETXGW04-052013
5/29/2013
NA
NA
NA
NA
WISETXGW04-052013 DUP
5/29/2013
NA
NA
NA
NA
RPD (%)

NC
NC
NC
NC






WISETXSW04-122012
5/29/2013
NA
NA
NA
NA
WISETXSW04-122012 DUP
5/29/2013
NA
NA
NA
NA
RPD (%)

NC
NC
NC
NC
NA. Not Analyzed
NC. Not Calculated
-------
A-18 3
Table A20. Diesel Range Organic Compounds
(DRO) and Gasoline Range Organic
Compounds (GRO) Duplicates.
Sample ID
Date
Collected
GRO/TPH
DRO
Units

	1
=L
	1
"b5
=L
September 2011
5x QL

100
100




WISETXGW01-092011
9/20/2011
<20.0
<20.0
WISETXGW01-092011 DUP
9/20/2011
<20.0
<20.0
RPD (%)

NC
NC




WISETXSW02-092011
9/21/2011
<20.0
243
WISETXSW02-092011 DUP
9/21/2011
<20.0
254
RPD (%)

NC
4.4
March 2012
5x QL

100
100




WISETXGW02-032013
3/5/2012
<20.0
<20.0
WISETXGW02-032012 DUP
3/5/2012
<20.0
<20.0
RPD (%)

NC
NC




WISETXSW02-032012
3/6/2012
<20.0
105
WISETXSW02-032012 DUP
3/6/2012
<20.0
140
RPD (%)

NC
28.6
September 2012
5x QL

NA
NA




WISETXGW01-092012
9/20/2012
NA
NA
WISETXGW01-092012 DUP
9/20/2012
NA
NA
RPD (%)

NC
NC
December 2012
5x QL

100
100




WISETXGW13-122012
12/3/2012
<20.0
<20.0
WISETXGW13-122012 DUP
12/3/2012
<20.0
<20.0
RPD (%)

NC
NC
WISETXSW04-122012
12/4/2012
<20.0
770
WISETXSW04-122012 DUP
12/4/2012
21.7
853
-------
A-184
Table A20. Diesel Range Organic Compounds
(DRO) and Gasoline Range Organic
Compounds (GRO) Duplicates.
Sample ID
Date
Collected
GRO/TPH
DRO
Units

	1
=L
	1
"b5
=L
RPD (%)

NC
10.2
May 2013
WISETXGW04-052013
5/29/2013
NA
NA
WISETXGW04-052013 DUP
5/29/2013
NA
NA
RPD (%)

NC
NC




WISETXSW04-122012
5/29/2013
NA
NA
WISETXSW04-122012 DUP
5/29/2013
NA
NA
RPD (%)

NC
NC
NA. Not Analyzed
NC. Not Calculated
-------
A-18 5
Table A21. Stable Water Isotope Duplicates.
Sample ID
Date
Collected
62H
6lsO
Units

n
%0
September 2011
WISETXGW01-092011
9/20/2011
NA
NA
WISETXGW01-092011 DUP
9/20/2011
NA
NA
RPD (%)

NC
NC




WISETXSW02-092011
9/21/2011
NA
NA
WISETXSW02-092011 DUP
9/21/2011
NA
NA
RPD (%)

NC
NC
March 2012
WISETXGW02-032013
3/5/2012
-33.09
-5.59
WISETXGW02-032012 DUP
3/5/2012
-33.17
-5.54
RPD (%)

0.3
0.9




WISETXSW02-032012
3/6/2012
NA
NA
WISETXSW02-032012 DUP
3/6/2012
NA
NA
RPD (%)

NA
NA
September 2012
WISETXGW01-092012
9/20/2012
-34.31
-5.53
WISETXGW01-092012 DUP
9/20/2012
-34.54
-5.57
RPD (%)

0.7
0.7
December 2012
WISETXGW13-122012
12/3/2012
-34.66
-5.92
WISETXGW13-122012 DUP
12/3/2012
-34.72
-5.86
RPD (%)

0.2
1.0




WISETXSW04-122012
12/4/2012
9.53
3.39
WISETXSW04-122012 DUP
12/4/2012
9.89
3.50
RPD (%)

3.7
3.3
May 2013
WISETXGW04-052013
5/29/2013
-35.23
-5.79
WISETXGW04-052013 DUP
5/29/2013
-35.41
-5.85
RPD (%)

0.5
1.0




WISETXSW04-052013
5/29/2013
1.99
1.37
WISETXSW04-052013 DUP
5/29/2013
2.11
1.38
RPD (%)

5.8
1.1
NA. Not Analyzed
NC. Not Calculated
-------
A-186
Table A22 . 87Sr and 86 Sr Stable Isotopes of Water Duplicates.
Sample ID
Date
Collected
Sr
87- ,86-
Sr/ Sr
1/Sr
Rb/Sr
Units

	1
"b5
=L
Atom Ratio
L/kig
Weight Ratio
September 2011
WISETXGW01-092011
9/20/2011
NA
NA
NA
NA
WISETXGW01-092011 DUP
9/20/2011
NA
NA
NA
NA
RPD (%)

NC
NC
NC
NC






WISETXSW02-092011
9/21/2011
NA
NA
NA
NA
WISETXSW02-092011 DUP
9/21/2011
NA
NA
NA
NA
RPD (%)

NC
NC
NC
NC
March 2012
WISETXGW02-032013
3/5/2012
566
0.708491
0.0017668
0.001413
WISETXGW02-032012 DUP
3/5/2012
557
0.708491
0.0017953
0.001436
RPD (%)

1.6
0.0
1.6
1.6






WISETXSW02-032012
3/6/2012
NR
NR
NR
NR
WISETXSW02-032012 DUP
3/6/2012
NR
NR
NR
NR
RPD (%)

NC
NC
NC
NC
September 2012
WISETXGW01-092012
9/20/2012
3750
0.70880
0.0000243
0.0910813
WISETXGW01-092012 DUP
9/20/2012
3740
0.70877
0.0000243
0.0908384
RPD (%)

0.3
0.0
0.0
0.3
December 2012
WISETXGW13-122012
12/3/2012
237
0.70848
0.004219409
0.002531646
WISETXGW13-122012 DUP
12/3/2012
241
0.70849
0.004149378
0.002489627
RPD (%)

1.7
0.0
1.7
1.7






WISETXSW04-122012
12/4/2012
233
0.70969
0.004291845
0.012017167
WISETXSW04-122012 DUP
12/4/2012
233
0.70973
0.004291845
0.012017167
RPD (%)

0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0






May 2013
WISETXGW04-052013
5/29/2013
221
0.708407
2.41412E-05
0.0053352
WISETXGW04-052013 DUP
5/29/2013
222
0.708397
2.41412E-05
0.005359341
RPD (%)

0.5
0.0
0.0
0.5






WISETXSW04-052013
5/29/2013
198
0.709651
2.41412E-05
0.004779953
WISETXSW04-052013 DUP
5/29/2013
198
0.709667
2.41412E-05
0.004779953
RPD (%)

0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
NA. Not Analyzed
NC. Not Calculated
-------
A-18 7
Table A23. Data Usability Summary1.
Analysis/Lab
Summary of QA/QC Results
Impact on Data/Usability
September 2011
Field Parameters/EPA on-
site
Results for ferrous iron and sulfide are
considered screening values as they were
measured on site with field kits.
A YSI performance check was not done at mid-
day on September 19, 2011. Initial and end of
day checks were done and were within
acceptance limits.
All detected results are footnoted
in the data summary as
estimated. Data usability is
unaffected.
Sample measurements were
bracketed by performance checks
prior to first sample
measurement and after last
sample measurement which
indicated the YSI was operating
within acceptance limits. No
impact to data usability.
Dissolved gases/ Shaw
Environmental
Dissolved gases (methane, ethane, propane,
butane) were detected in one of two trip
blanks collected on 9/22/2011 due to
carryover in the analytical process from
standards analyzed prior to the blanks.
Sample WISETXSW03 was qualified with a "B"
due to the trip blank described above.
Trip blank was rejected and
qualified with an "R" as unusable.
The qualification of sample
WISETXSW03 with "B"was not
appropriate since the trip blank
was rejected. The data is usable
with no qualifications.
DOC/ORD/NRMRL- Ada
DOC in two equipment blanks were >QL.
The "B" qualifier was applied to
affected sample WISETXGW05.
Sample value is <2x equipment
blank value; data is usable with
caution that the qualifier
indicates.
DIC/ORD/NRMRL- Ada
All QA/QC criteria were met.
Meets project requirements.
Anions/Ammonia
ORD/NRMRL- Ada
Equipment blank for N03+N02 collected on
9/22/2011 was preserved with nitric acid
instead of sulfuric acid.
Equipment blank was rejected
and qualified with an "R"; this
blank data is unusable. No
impact to data usability as all
other field and equipment blanks
had no detected values.

Holding time exceeded for Br analysis.
RSKSOP-276v3 was initially used but high
chloride concentrations interfered with
bromide analysis. The re-analysis of Br was
performed using RSKSOP-214v5 (a modified
version of Standard Method 4500-Br D, 21st
Edition 2005 using Flow Injection Analysis).
This method is specified in the QAPP for
nitrate+nitrite and ammonium but was not
specified for bromide. The re-analysis was
All bromide results are qualified
"H" to indicate samples exceeded
28-day holding time. Holding
time exceedance is considered a
potential negative bias which is
taken into account for data
usability.
-------
A-188
Table A23. Data Usability Summary1.
Analysis/Lab
Summary of QA/QC Results
Impact on Data/Usability

conducted past the 28 day holding time
(between 34 and 41 days after sample
collection).

Dissolved Metals/ Shaw
Environmental
ICP-MS: All 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 are rejected due
to potential spectral interference.
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
remaining sampling events.
ICP-OES: Sb results for all
samples are qualified with an "R"
and data are rejected as
unusable.
All samples with detected
quantities for these metals are
qualified "J" as estimated.
Data for B, Ba, K, Na, Ag, Si, S, P,
and U are usable as positive
identifications with estimated
concentrations.
Total Metals/ Shaw
Environmental
ICP-MS: All 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 are rejected due to
potential spectral interference.
Continuing calibration checks were being
analyzed at appropriate intervals, however
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 two
sampling events.
ICP-OES: Total Sb results for all
samples are qualified with an "R"
and data are rejected as
unusable.
All samples with detected
quantities for these metals are
-------
A-189
Table A23. Data Usability Summary1.
Analysis/Lab
Summary of QA/QC Results
Impact on Data/Usability

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.
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 has been applied
to detections above the QL for all
total metals. Data is usable as
positive identifications with
estimated concentrations.
Charge Balance
The calculated charge balance ranged from 0.3
to 4.7% based on major anions (bicarbonate,
chloride, and sulfate) and major cations
(dissolved calcium, magnesium, potassium,
and sodium).
Meets project requirements.
Measured SPC Versus
Calculated SPC
The measured SPC versus calculate SPC ranged
from 3.9 to 14.1%.
Meet project requirements.
VOC/Shaw Environmental
The matrix spike results for 1,1-dichloroethene
and 1,1,2-trichloroethane are significantly
outside 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.
Low matrix spike recovery for carbon disulfide.
All data for 1,1-dichloroethene
and 1,1,2-trichloroethane are
qualified with "R" and rejected as
unusable.
Affected samples (see Appendix
B) qualified with "J-". There is a
potential negative bias that is
taken into account for data
usability.
Low Molecular Weight
Acids/ Shaw Environmental
Two field blanks and all equipment blanks
were above QL for acetate.
Samples with detected quantities
are qualified with a "B." Sample
values are close to field and
equipment blanks; data is
unusable.
Glycols/ EPA Region 3
Laboratory
The method for glycols was under
development.
All samples analyzed for 2-butoxyethanol
exceeded the 14 day holding time limit by 1-3
days and samples collected on 9/21 and 9/20
analyzed for the three glycol analytes were 1-2
The QAPP stated these are to be
considered screening values until
method was validated. Even
though the data is considered as
screening, it still is usable as on-
going QC checks provide
confidence that the method can
detect glycols.
The affected samples are
qualified with "H" indicating a
potential negative bias that is
taken into account for data
-------
A-190
Table A23. Data Usability Summary1.
Analysis/Lab
Summary of QA/QC Results
Impact on Data/Usability

days past the 14 day limit.
usability.

Low recoveries of blank spikes for R-(+)-
limonene, 1,3-dimethyladamantane,
adamantane, diphenylamine, and squalene.
Affected samples (see Appendix
B) were qualified with "J-" (see
Appendix B) for a potential
negative bias that is taken into
account for data usability.

The analytes 3-nitroaniline, 4-choloroaniline, 4-
nitroaniline, aniline, and carbazole were
subject to poor extraction or did not produce a
linear calibration curve and were not reported
by the laboratory.
Data for these compounds were
not reported and noted as "NR."
The loss of these data is not
significant as they were not
detected in subsequent rounds.
sVOC/ EPA Region 8
Laboratory
3,3'-dichlorobenzidene was not in the stock
standard used by the laboratory and was not
reported by the laboratory.
Data for 3,3'-dichlorobenzidene
were not reported and noted as
"NR". The loss of these data is not
significant as they were not
detected in subsequent rounds.

A field blank was above QL for bis-(2-
ethylhexyl) phthalate.
Affected sample WISETXGW06
was qualified with a "B." Sample
data is usable with caution as it is
only twice the blank value.

A matrix spike recovery was high for bis-(2-
ethylhexyl) phthalate.
Affected sample WISETXGW11
was qualified with a "J+"
indicating potential for a positive
bias. Bis-(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
is a common laboratory
contaminant and its true
presence in sample WISETXGW11
is thus questionable: data should
be used with caution.
DRO- GRO/ EPA Region 8
Laboratory
DRO: Low recovery for a matrix spike.
DRO: Affected samples
WISETXSW01, WISETXSW02,
WISETXSW02dup, and
WISETXSW03 and three of four
equipment blanks collected were
qualified with a J- for potential
negative bias. The data are usable
but may be higher than reported.

GRO: Three field blanks and two equipment
blanks were above QL.
GRO: All samples were 
-------
A-191
Table A23. Data Usability Summary1.
Analysis/Lab
Summary of QA/QC Results
Impact on Data/Usability
March 2012
Field Parameters/EPA on-
Results for ferrous iron and sulfide are
considered screening values as they were
measured on site with field kits.
All detected results are footnoted
in the data summary as
estimated. Data usability is
unaffected.
site
A YSI performance check was not done at mid-
day on March 8, 2012. Initial and end of day
checks were done and were within acceptance
limits.
Only one sample collected on
March 8, 2012. A mid-day check
was not required. No impact to
data usability.
Dissolved gases/ Shaw
Environmental
All QA/QC criteria were met.
Meets project requirements.
DOC/ORD/NRMRL- Ada
DOC was detected above the QL in three
equipment blanks collected.
The affected samples have been
qualified with "B". Affected
samples WISETXSW01,
WISETXSW02, WISETXSW02dup,
and WISETXSW03 are more than
7x greater than equipment blank
value; data are usable.
WISETXGW11 is greater than the
associated blank and is usable
with caution. Values for other
affected samples are too close to
equipment blank value; data are
unusable.
DIC/ ORD/NRMRL- Ada
All QA/QC criteria were met.
Meets project requirements.
Anions/Ammonia
ORD/NRMRL- Ada
All QA/QC criteria were met.
Meets project requirements.
Dissolved Metals/Shaw
Environmental
ICP-MS: All ICP-MS results analyzed were
rejected due to potential interferences and
that 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.
CLP lab ICP-MS data were used.
Samples re-analyzed by CLP using
EPA CLP Inorganic Statement of
Work (SOW) ISM01.3, Exhibit D -
Part B.
CLP lab ICP-OES data were used.
Samples re-analyzed by CLP using
EPA CLP Inorganic Statement of
Work (SOW) ISM01.3, Exhibit D -
Part B.
Dissolved Metals/ CLP
ICP-OES: Matrix spike recoveries were low and
outside limits for Fe.
The "J-" qualifier was applied to
all samples including field blanks
and equipment blanks indicating
a potential negative bias that is
taken into account for data
usability.

Laboratory duplicate for S exceeded
acceptance limits.
The qualifier was applied to S
data for affected samples
-------
A-192
Table A23. Data Usability Summary1.
Analysis/Lab
Summary of QA/QC Results
Impact on Data/Usability


WiseTXGW13-032012,
WiseTXGW14-032012,
WiseTXGW15-032012,
WiseTXGW16-032012,
WiseTXSWOl-032012,
WiseTXSW02-032012,
WiseTXSW02-032012dup, and
WiseTXSW03-032012. Positive
identifications may lack precision;
data are usable with caution.

ICP-MS: Se analysis was subject to interference
from bromide, a known issue with these
samples.
ICP-MS: All dissolved Se data
were qualified with "R" as
rejected. Data are unusable.
Total Metals/ Shaw
Environmental
ICP-MS: All ICP-MS results were rejected due
to potential interferences and that
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.
CLP lab ICP-MS data were used.
CLP lab ICP-OES data were used.

ICP-OES: Matrix spike recoveries were low and
not within control limits for Fe for all samples.
The "J-" qualifier was applied for
total Fe to all samples including
field blanks and equipment blanks
indicating a potential negative
bias that is taken into account for
data usability.
Total Metals/ CLP
Laboratory duplicate analysis for S exceeded
acceptance limits. Total S for duplicate sample
WISETXSW02-032012 Dup was above the RPD
limit at 22%.
The"*"qualifier was applied for
total S to affected samples
WiseTXSWOl-032012,
WiseTXSW02-032012,
WiseTXSW02-032012 dup and
WiseTXSW03-032012. Positive
identifications may lack precision;
data are usable with caution.

Low matrix spike recovery for S.
The "J-" qualifier was applied for
total S to affected samples
WiseTXGW13-032012 and
WiseTXGW14-032012. There is a
potential negative bias that is
taken into account for data
usability.

ICP-MS: Se analysis was subject to interference
from bromide, a known issue with these
samples.
ICP-MS: All total Se data were
qualified with "R" as rejected.
Data are unusable.
-------
A-19 3
Table A23. Data Usability Summary1.
Analysis/Lab
Summary of QA/QC Results
Impact on Data/Usability
Charge Balance
The calculated charge balance ranged from 0.4
to 9.1% based on major anions (bicarbonate,
chloride, and sulfate) and major cations
(dissolved calcium, magnesium, potassium,
and sodium).
Meets project requirements.
Measured SPC Versus
Calculated SPC
The measured SPC versus calculate SPC ranged
from 0.8 to 16.7%.
All Samples except WISETXGW08
meet project requirements.
WISETXGW08 measured SPC
versus calculated SPC was 16.7%
and slightly outside the desired
range and is usable with caution.

The matrix spike results for 1,1-dichloroethene
and 1,1,2-trichloroethane are significantly
outside the control limits.The compounds
1,1,2-trichloroethane and 1,1-dichloroethene
are known to be affected by base hydrolysis.
The preservative used, 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.
All data for 1,1-dichloroethene
and 1,1,2-trichloroethane are
qualified with "R" and rejected as
unusable.
VOC/Shaw Environmental
Matrix spikes and matrix spike duplicate
recoveries were outside acceptable limits for
certain analytes: GW01 MS (58.2%
acrylonitrile), GW01 MSD (50.3% acrylonitrile),
60.5% carbon disulfide,,, 50.4% carbon
disulfide,, GW11 MS (69.8% acrylonitrile),
GW11 MSD (68.1% acrylonitrile),, 67.2%
acetone, 60.8% carbon disulfide,) and GW10
MSD (, 65.6% acetone, 64.8% carbon disulfide).
The "J-" qualifier was applied to
all acrylonitrile and carbon
disulfide data. For acetone, the
"J-" qualifier was applied to
affected samples WiseTXGW06-
032012, WiseTXGW07-032012,
WiseTXGW09-032012,
WiseTXGWlO-032012,
WiseTXGWll-032012,
WiseTXSW03-032012, field blanks
collected on 3/7/2012 and
3/8/2012, and the equipment
blank collected on 3/6/2012.
There is a potential negative bias
that is taken into account for data
usability.
Low Molecular Weight
Acids/ Shaw Environmental
Formate was detected above the QL in three of
four field blanks collected.
Affected samples (13 of 20) are
qualified with "B" (see
Appendix B). One field sample
(WISETXGW08-032012) is almost
lOx associated field blank value;
data is usable. WISETXGW06,
WISETXGW11, and WISETXSW03
are less than their associated
blanks and are unusable. All other
field sample values are greater
than their field blank values
making data usable with caution.
-------
A-194
Table A23. Data Usability Summary1.
Analysis/Lab
Summary of QA/QC Results
Impact on Data/Usability
Dissolved Gases/Shaw
Environmental
All QA/QC criteria were met.
Meets project requirements.
Glycols/ EPA Region 3
Laboratory
The method for glycols was under
development.
Blank spike recoveries were low. Triethylene
glycol 25 ppb blank spike recovery was 56%.
For the 5 ppb blank spike, 2-butoxyethanol
recovery was 58% recovery.
The QAPP stated these are to be
considered screening values until
method was validated. Even
though the data is considered as
screening, it still is usable as on-
going QC checks provide
confidence that the method can
detect glycols.
The "J-" qualifier was applied to
all samples including field blanks
and equipment blanks for 2-
butoxyethanol and triethylene
glycol indicating a potential
negative bias that is taken into
account for data usability.
sVOC/ EPA Region 8
Laboratory
No samples were collected for the SVOC matrix
spike and matrix spike duplicate pair.
One blank spike (LCS) sample had low recovery
for 2-butoxyethanol phosphate, squalene,
benzo(a) pyrene, chrysene. 2-butoxyethanol
phosphate is not reported in the final data
summary.
Although other QC checks were
used which provided information
on data quality, such as
surrogates and blank spikes, data
should be used with caution.
The "J-" qualifier was applied to
all data for squalene,
benzo(a)pyrene, and chrysene.
There is a potential negative bias
that is taken into account for data
usability.
DRO- GRO/ EPA Region 8
Laboratory
DRO: High matrix spike recovery: Sample
WISETXSW02-032012 had a recovery of 112%,
slightly outside the 50-110% limits.
DRO: The "J+" qualifier was
applied to affected samples
WiseTXSWOl-032012,
WiseTXSW02-032012,
WiseTXSW02-032012 dup and
WiseTXSW03-032012 indicating a
potential positive bias. The
recovery in the matrix spike was
only slightly above the upper
acceptable limit; data are usable.

GRO: All QA/QC criteria were met.
GRO: Meets project
requirements.
0 and H Stable Isotopes of
water/Shaw Environmental
All QA/QC criteria were met.
Meets project requirements.
Sr Isotopes/ USGS
Laboratory
All QA/QC criteria were met.
Meets project requirements.
-------
A-19 5
Table A23. Data Usability Summary1.
Analysis/Lab
Summary of QA/QC Results
Impact on Data/Usability
September 2012
Field Parameters/EPA on-
site
Results for ferrous iron and sulfide are
considered screening values as they were
measured on site with field kits.
All detected results are footnoted
in the data summary as
estimated. Data usability is
unaffected.
Dissolved Gases/Shaw
Environmental
Not analyzed for in this sampling round.
NA
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
Fluoride: Sample WISETXPW01-092012 was
highly diluted to allow for chloride
measurement; fluoride measurement was
thereby compromised.
Fluoride: A footnote was added to
WISETXPW01-092012 indicating
potential dilution effects. The
high sample dilution may have
been a factor in fluoride not being
detected in the sample. Data is
usable with caution with such a
high QL (20 mg/L).
Dissolved Metals/ SWRI
Missing Target Analyte: S was not analyzed
per the QAPP Addendum No. 2.
S in samples is predominantly (if
not entirely) in the form of
sulfate. Sulfate was measured in
samples; thus there is no
expected impact.

Missing target analyte: S was not analyzed per
the QAPP Addendum No. 2.
S in samples is predominantly (if
not entirely) in the form of
sulfate. Sulfate was measured in
samples; thus there is no
expected impact.
Total Metals/ SWRI
Total Ni was detected above the QL in the
equipment blank and the field blank. It was
also detected in a lab preparation blank since
the equipment blank and field blank are both
qualified with "B".
The "B" qualifier was applied to
affected samples WISETXGW01-
092012, WISETXGWOldup-
092012, and WISETXGW08-
092012. The values are <2x
equipment blank value; however,
total Ni values are similar to the
dissolved Ni values (with no blank
issues), therefore, data usable
with caution.
Charge Balance
The calculated charge balance ranged from 0.6
to 1.72% based on major anions (bicarbonate,
chloride, and sulfate) and major cations
(dissolved calcium, magnesium, potassium,
and sodium).
Meets project requirements.
-------
A-196
Table A23. Data Usability Summary1.
Analysis/Lab
Summary of QA/QC Results
Impact on Data/Usability
Measured SPC Versus
Calculated SPC
The measured SPC versus calculate SPC ranged
from 12.8 to 16.7%.
All Samples except WISETXPW01
meet project requirements.
WISETXPW01 measured SPC
versus calculated SPC was 34.8%
and slightly outside the desired
range and has a high ionic
strength and it is likely the
calculated SPC is not account for
all the SPC measured as would be
suggested by the low difference
in charge balance. Therefore
WISETXPW01 is usable with
caution.
VOC/SWRI
Not analyzed for in this sampling round.
NA
Low Molecular Weight
Acids/ Shaw Environmental
Not analyzed for in this sampling round.
NA
Dissolved Gases/Shaw
Environmental
Not analyzed for in this sampling round.
NA
Glycols/ EPA Region 3
Laboratory
Not analyzed for in this sampling round.
NA
sVOC/ EPA Region 8
Laboratory
Not analyzed for in this sampling round.
NA
DRO- GRO/ EPA Region 8
Laboratory
Not analyzed for in this sampling round.
NA
0 and H Stable Isotopes of
water/Shaw Environmental
All QA/QC criteria were met.
Meets project requirements.
Sr Isotopes/ USGS
Laboratory
All QA/QC criteria were met.
Meets project requirements.
December 2012
Field Parameters/EPA on-
site
Results for ferrous iron and sulfide are
considered screening values as they were
measured on site with field kits.
All detected results are footnoted
in the data summary as
estimated. Data usability is
unaffected.
DOC/ORD/NRMRL- Ada
DOC was detected above the QL in a field blank
collected on 12/3/2012.
The "B" qualifier was applied to
affected samples WISETXGW13-
122012 and WISETXGW13dup-
122012. Results for affected
samples were greater than the
field blank value; data are usable
with caution.
DIC/ORD/NRMRL- Ada
All QA/QC criteria were met.
Meets project requirements.
Anions/Ammonia
ORD/NRMRL- Ada
All QA/QC criteria were met.
Meets project requirements.
Dissolved Metals/ SWRI
Ni: Dissolved Ni equaled the QL in an
equipment blank collected on 12/4/2012.
Ni: The "B" qualifier was applied
to affected samples
WISETXGW04-122012, and
WISETXGW08-122012. Sample
-------
A-19 7
Table A23. Data Usability Summary1.
Analysis/Lab
Summary of QA/QC Results
Impact on Data/Usability


WISETXGW04 is less than the
equipment blank and is unusable.
WISETXGW08 is 6x equipment
blank value; data is usable with
caution.

Al, Fe, Pb, and V: RPD criteria not met for
dissolved Al, Fe, Pb and V in duplicate samples
WISETXSW04-122012 and WISETXSW04-
122012dup.
Al, Fe, Pb, and V: The "*" qualifier
was applied to affected samples
WISETXSW04-122012 and
WISETXSW04-122012dup
indicating precision issues.
Positive identifications for
dissolved Al, Fe, Pb and V may
lack precision; data are usable
with caution.

Zn: Zn was detected in the field blank collected
on 12/3/12 at the QL.
Zn: WISETXGW01-122012,
WISETXGW02-122012, and
WISETXGW03-122012 are
qualified with a "B". Total Zn in
WISETXGW02-122012 is 7x that
of field blank; data is usable with
caution. Total Zn in other two
affected samples is close to field
blank value; data is unusable.
Total Metals/ SWRI
Al: Total Al matrix spike and matrix spike
duplicate results (samples WISETXSW04S and
WISETXSW04SD) had percent recoveries above
limits at 133.5% and 131%, respectively.
The "J+" qualifier was applied for
total Al to affected samples
WISETXGW01-122012,
WISETXGW15-122012,
WISETXSW04-122012, and
WISETXSW04-122012 DUP
indicating a potential positive
bias. The data are usable but may
be potentially lower than
reported.

Al: RPD for laboratory and field duplicates
(WISETXSW04-122012) exceeded the
acceptance limits.
Al: The qualifier was applied
for total Al to affected samples
WISETXGW01-122012,
WISETXGW15-122012,
WISETXSW04-122012,
WISETXSW04-122012 DUP, and
the field blank collected on
12/5/2012; Positive
identifications may lack precision;
data are usable with caution.

Al: Field blank 3 collected 12/5/12 was above
QL.
Al: Affected sample
(WISETXGW15-122012) was
qualified with a "B". Sample is <3x
-------
A-198
Table A23. Data Usability Summary1.
Analysis/Lab
Summary of QA/QC Results
Impact on Data/Usability


blank value and is usable with
caution.

Cu: RPD for laboratory and field duplicates
(WISETXSW04-122012) exceeded the
acceptance limits.
The qualifier was applied for
total Cu to affected samples
(including field blanks, see
Appendix B) with detections
above the MDL (13 of 16
samples). Positive identifications
may lack precision; data are
usable with caution.

Ni: RPD for laboratory duplicates exceeded the
acceptance limits.
Ni: The qualifier was applied
for total Ni to all samples
(including field blanks). Positive
identifications may lack precision;
data are usable with caution.

Ni: Ni was above QL in all field blanks and
pump equipment blank 1 as well as the
laboratory preparation blank (0.42 ug/L).
Ni: All samples with exception of
WISETXGW01-122012 are
qualified with a "B". All samples
are to close in value to the
preparation blank and are
unusable, with exception of
WISETXSW04-122012 and
WISESW03-122012 DUP, which
are over 8x blank value and are
usable with caution.

V: V was above QL in two of three field blanks
as well as the pump equipment blank 1.
V: Affected samples
(WISETXGW04-122012,
WISETXGW08-122012,
WISETXGW14-12-2012,
WISETXGW15-122012,
WISETXGW16-122012,
WISETXSW04-1220212, and
WISETXSW04122012DUP are
qualified with a "B". With
exception of the surface water,
data are similar to blank values
and are unusable. WISETXSW04-
1220212 and
WISETXSW04122012DUP are ~8x
the blank value and are usable
with caution.
Charge Balance
The calculated charge balance ranged from
0.01 to 2.5% based on major anions
(bicarbonate, chloride, and sulfate) and major
cations (dissolved calcium, magnesium,
potassium, and sodium).
Meets project requirements.
-------
A-199
Table A23. Data Usability Summary1.
Analysis/Lab
Summary of QA/QC Results
Impact on Data/Usability
Measured SPC Versus
Calculated SPC
The measured SPC versus calculate SPC ranged
from 4.0 to 15.8%.
All Samples except WISETXGW01
meet project requirements.
WISETXGW01 measured SPC
versus calculated SPC was 15.8%
and slightly outside the desired
range and is usable with caution.
VOC/SWRI
Acetone was detected above the QL in two
field blanks, pump equipment blank 1, and a
trip blank.
The "B" qualifier was applied for
acetone to affected samples with
detections above the QL
(WISETXGW08, WISETXGW14,
WISETXSW16, WISETXSW04, and
WISETXSW04DUP). WISETXGW08
is greater than the blank value
and is usable with caution. Data
for remaining affected samples
were near or below blank values;
data are unusable.
Low Molecular Weight
Acids/ Shaw Environmental
Formate presence in field blanks and samples
is believed to originate from sample
containers.
The "R" qualifier was applied to
all formate data indicating data
are rejected and unusable.
Dissolved Gases/Shaw
Environmental
All QA/QC criteria were met.
Meets project requirements.
Glycols/ EPA Region 3
Laboratory
The method for glycols was under
development.
The QAPP stated these are to be
considered screening values until
method was validated. Even
though the data is considered as
screening, it still is usable as on-
going QC checks provide
confidence that the method can
detect glycols.
sVOC/ EPA Region 8
Laboratory
Low matrix spike and matrix spike duplicate
recoveries in MS1/MSD1 for all limonene, 1,3-
dimethyladamantane, and adamantane
analyses.
Low matrix spike and matrix spike duplicate
recoveries in MS2/MSD2 (WISETXSW04 and
WISETXSW04 DUP) for 4-chloroaniline, 3-
nitroaniline, 3,3'-dichlorobenzidine and
squalene; however MS2/MSD2 samples were
diluted by a factor of 4 due to strongly colored
extracts; thus results should only be used to
qualify the MS/MSD 2 source sample
(WISETXSW04 and WISETXSW04 DUP).
The "J-" qualifier was applied for
limonene, 1,3-
dimethyladamantane, and
adamantane to all samples
including blanks. There is a
potential negative bias that is
taken into account for data
usability.
The "J-" qualifier was applied for
4-chloroaniline, 3-nitroaniline,
3,3'-dichlorobenzidine and
squalene to affected samples
WISETXSW04 and WISETXSW04
DUP. There is a potential negative
bias that is taken into account for
data usability.
DRO- GRO/ EPA Region 8
Laboratory
All QA/QC criteria were met.
Meets project requirements.
-------
A-200
Table A23. Data Usability Summary1.
Analysis/Lab
Summary of QA/QC Results
Impact on Data/Usability
0 and H Stable Isotopes of
water/Shaw Environmental
All QA/QC criteria were met.
Meets project requirements.
Sr Isotopes/ USGS
Laboratory
All QA/QC criteria were met.
Meets project requirements.
May 2013
Field Parameters/EPA on-
site
Results for ferrous iron and sulfide are
considered screening values as they were
measured on site with field kits.
A YSI performance check was not done at mid-
day on May 30, 2013. Initial and end of day
checks were done and were within acceptance
limits.
All detected results are footnoted
in the data summary as
estimated. Data usability is
unaffected.
Only two samples collected on
May 30, 2013. A mid-day check
was not required. No impact to
data usability.
Dissolved gases/ Shaw
Environmental
Not analyzed for in this sampling round.
NA
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/ NRMRL ORD-Ada
All QA/QC criteria were met.
Meets project requirements.

Al and Si: RPD for dissolved Al and Si were
outside acceptance criteria for field duplicates
WISETXSW04 and WISETXSW04DUP.
Al and Si: The "*" qualifier was
applied for dissolved Al and Si to
affected samples WISETXSW04
and WISETXSW04 DUP. Positive
identifications may lack precision;
data are usable with caution.
Dissolved Metals/ SWRI
Cu: Dissolved Cu was detected above the QL in
an equipment blank collected on 5/28/2013.
Cu: The "B" qualifier was applied
for dissolved Cu to affected
samples WISETXGW01,
WISETXGW02, WISETXGW13, and
WISETXGW14. The sample values
were less than the equipment
blank value; data are usable with
caution since the dissolved Cu
concentrations are similar to the
total Cu concentrations.

Mo: Mo was above the QL in pump equipment
blank 1.
Mo: The "B" qualifier was applied
to affected sample WISETXGW08.
Blank value is ~10x that of
sample; sample data is unusable.

Ni: Dissolved Ni was detected above the QL in
a field blank collected on 5/28/2013 and at the
QL in pump equipment blank 1 collected on
5/29/2013.
Ni: The "B" qualifier was applied
for dissolved Ni to affected
samples WISETXGW02,
WISETXGW08, WISETXGW13, and
-------
A-201
Table A23. Data Usability Summary1.
Analysis/Lab
Summary of QA/QC Results
Impact on Data/Usability


WISETXGW14. With exception of
WISETXGW08, sample results
were similar to blank results; data
are usable with caution. The
concentrations of dissolved Ni are
similar to total Ni, which did not
have blank issues. WISETXGW08
is ~7x the pump equipment blank
and is usable with caution.

P: Dissolved P was detected above the QL in an
equipment blank collected on 5/30/2013.
The "B" qualifier was applied for
dissolved P to affected sample
WISETXGW15. The result for the
affected sample was equal to the
value of the blank; data is usable
with caution.

Pb: Dissolved Pb was detected above the QL in
an equipment blank collected on 5/28/2013.
Pb: The "B" qualifier was applied
for dissolved Pb to affected
samples WISETXGW02 and
WISETXGW14. Sample results
were less than blank value; data
are usable with caution since the
total Pb had similar
concentrations and were not
affected by blank contamination.

Zn: Dissolved Zn was detected above the QL in
pump equipment blank 1 collected on
5/29/2013.
Zn: The affected sample
WISETXGW08 was qualified with
a "B"; data is ~2x the blank and is
usable with caution.

Al: Matrix spike recoveries were greater than
acceptance limits.
Al: The "J+" qualifier was applied
for total Al to affected samples
WISETXSW04 and WISETXSW04
DUP. The data may be biased
high and should be used with
caution.
Total Metals/ SWRI
Fe: Matrix spike recoveries were greater than
acceptance limits.
Fe: The "J+" qualifier was applied
for total Fe to affected samples
WISETXGW01, WISETXGW04,
WISETXGW04dup, WISETXGW08,
WISETXPW02, WISETXPW03,
WISETXSW04 and
WISETXSW04dup. The data may
be biased high and should be
used with caution.

Fe: RPD were outside acceptance limits for
laboratory duplicates
Fe: The qualifier was applied
for total Fe to affected samples
WISETXGW01, WISETXGW04,
-------
A-202
Table A23. Data Usability Summary1.
Analysis/Lab
Summary of QA/QC Results
Impact on Data/Usability


WISETXGW04dup, WISETXGW08,
WISETXPW02 and WISETXPW03
indicating a precision issue. Data
are usable although values may
not be precise.

Mo, Ni, Zn: Total Mo, Ni, and Zn were detected
above the QL in pump equipment blank 1
collected on 5/29/2013.
Mo, Ni, Zn: The "B" qualifier was
applied for total Mo, Ni, and Zn to
affected sample WISETXGW08.
Total Mo and Zn values were less
than equipment blank value data
are unusable and total Ni was less
than 3x equipment blank value;
data are usable with caution.

Ti: RPD criteria for total Ti not met for
laboratory duplicates. For samples
WISETXSW04 and WISETXSW04dup there was
a high % difference for the serial dilution.
Ti: The qualifier was applied
for total Ti to affected samples
WISETXGW04, WISETXGW04dup,
WISETXSW04 and
WISETXSW04dup. Positive
identifications may lack precision;
data are usable with caution. "J"
was applied to WISETXSW04 and
WISETXSW04dup; data should
considered as estimates and used
with caution.

Th: Total Th was detected at the QL in
equipment blank collected on 5/28/13.
Th: All associated samples
collected on 5/28/13 were 
-------
A-203
Table A23. Data Usability Summary1.
Analysis/Lab
Summary of QA/QC Results
Impact on Data/Usability


WISETXPW03 measured SPC
versus calculated SPC was 69.3%
and outside the desired range
and is unusable.
VOC/SWRI
Acetone: Detected above QL in all three field
blanks.
Acetone; The "B" qualifier was
applied for acetone to 11 of the
13 field samples. Sample values
are similar to or less than the
blank values are considered
unusable.
Low Molecular Weight
Acids/ Shaw Environmental
Not analyzed for in this sampling round.
NA
Dissolved Gases/Shaw
Environmental
Not analyzed for in this sampling round.
NA
Glycols/ EPA Region 3
Laboratory
Not analyzed for in this sampling round.
NA
sVOC/ EPA Region 8
Laboratory
Not analyzed for in this sampling round.
NA
DRO- GRO/ EPA Region 8
Laboratory
Not analyzed for in this sampling round.
NA
0 and H Stable Isotopes of
water/Shaw Environmental
All QA/QC criteria were met.
Meets project requirements.
Sr Isotopes/ USGS
Laboratory
All QA/QC criteria were met.
Meets project requirements.
1QA/QC criteria and project requirements were met with exceptions as listed.
-------
A-204
Table A24. Data qualifiers and data descriptors.
Qualifier
Definition
U
The analyte was analyzed for, but was not detected above the reported quantitation limit (QL).
J
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, there may be a low bias due to low spike recoveries or sample preservation issues.
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.
R
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.
Data Descriptors
Descriptor
Definition
NA
Not Applicable (See QAPP)
NR
Not Reported by Laboratory or Field Sampling Team
ND
Not Detected
NS
Not Sampled
-------
A-205
Table A25. Performance Evaluation sample results returned by EPA ORD/NRMRL
(Ada) Laboratory for anions, ammonia, DOC, and DIC.
Reported Value
(mg/L)
Certified Value
(mg/L)
Acceptance
Range
Quarter
Year
Performance
Evaluation
DOC by EPA Method 9060A (RSKSOP 330v0)
3.07
2.41
1.97-2.90
4
2010
Not Acceptable
1.89
1.80
1.45-2.22
1
2011
Acceptable
4.02
3.95
3.29-4.62
2
2011
Acceptable
4.30
4.20
3.51-4.90
3
2011
Acceptable
1.78
1.77
1.42-2.18
4
2011
Acceptable
2.46
2.34
1.91-2.82
1
2012
Acceptable
1.52
1.37
1.08-1.74
2
2012
Acceptable
3.11
3.16
2.62-3.74
3
2012
Acceptable
11.3
11.5
10.2-12.6
4
2012
Acceptable
8.02
7.89
7.01-8.68
1
2013
Acceptable
11.7
11.8
10.5-13.0
2
2013
Acceptable
Ammonia and Nitrate + Nitrite by EPA Method 350.1 and 353.2 (RSKSOP 214v5)
Ammonia
4.90
4.64
3.36-5.96
4
2010
Acceptable
3.40
3.40
2.42 - 4.45
1
2011
Acceptable
8.79
9.03
6.67-11.3
2
2011
Acceptable
9.49
9.76
7.22-12.2
3
2011
Acceptable
14.9
14.0
10.4-17.4
4
2011
Acceptable
6.73
6.86
5.03 - 8.66
1
2012
Acceptable
8.53
8.15
6.00 -10.2
2
2012
Acceptable
11.0
10.9
8.08-13.6
3
2012
Acceptable
3.96
3.86
2.77-5.01
4
2012
Acceptable
19.1
18.5
13.8-22.8
1
2013
Acceptable
5.48
5.29
2.85-6.75
2
2013
Acceptable
Nitrate + Nitrite
10.5
10.7
8.74-12.5
4
2010
Acceptable
9.32
9.29
7.57-10.8
1
2011
Acceptable
8.61
9.03
7.36-10.4
2
2011
Acceptable
8.99
9.28
7.56-10.8
3
2011
Acceptable
18.7
19.3
15.7-22.4
4
2011
Acceptable
8.39
8.50
6.92-9.89
1
2012
Acceptable
6.63
6.67
5.43-7.76
2
2012
Acceptable
4.37
4.35
3.54-5.07
3
2012
Acceptable
25.4
26.1
21.3-30.3
4
2012
Acceptable
20.7
21.6
17.6-25.1
1
2013
Acceptable
19.8
20.2
16.5 23.5
2
2013
Acceptable
Anions by EPA Method 6500 (RSKSOP 276v3)
Chloride
56.4
55.4
47.1-64.2
4
2010
Acceptable
116
115
98.9-131
1
2011
Acceptable
57.2
59.0
50.2 - 68.2
2
2011
Acceptable
83.3
85.0
72.8-97.3
3
2011
Acceptable
50.5
50.5
42.8-58.7
4
2011
Acceptable
-------
A-206
Table A25. Performance Evaluation sample results returned by EPA ORD/NRMRL
(Ada) Laboratory for anions, ammonia, DOC, and DIC.
Reported Value
(mg/L)
Certified Value
(mg/L)
Acceptance
Range
Quarter
Year
Performance
Evaluation
68.5
69.0
58.9-79.4
1
2012
Acceptable
78.2
80.1
68.6-91.8
2
2012
Acceptable
62.2
62.8
53.5-72.5
3
2012
Acceptable
89.1
92.2
79.1-105
4
2012
Acceptable
82.4
85.3
73.1-97.6
1
2013
Acceptable
39.2
40.7
34.3-47.8
2
2013
Acceptable
Sulfate
43.1
42.9
34.9-49.8
4
2010
Acceptable
18.8
20.4
15.9 - 24.4
1
2011
Acceptable
31.8
33.6
27.0-39.3
2
2011
Acceptable
18.2
20.0
15.5 - 24.0
3
2011
Acceptable
29.2
28.8
23.0-33.9
4
2011
Acceptable
30.3
30.9
24.7 - 36.2
1
2012
Acceptable
30.9
32.5
26.1-38.0
2
2012
Acceptable
28.0
28.3
22.5-33.3
3
2012
Acceptable
41.8
43.3
35.2-50.2
4
2012
Acceptable
28.5
30.3
24.2-35.6
1
2013
Acceptable
27.1
28.4
22.6-33.4
2
2013
Acceptable
Fluoride
1.45
1.39
1.09 -1.69
4
2010
Acceptable
1.64
1.66
1.33-1.99
1
2011
Acceptable
2.13
2.02
1.65 - 2.40
2
2011
Acceptable
1.89
2.02
1.65 - 2.40
3
2011
Acceptable
1.54
1.55
1.23-1.87
4
2011
Acceptable
3.52
3.72
3.14-4.32
1
2012
Acceptable
0.939
0.955
0.713-1.20
2
2012
Acceptable
2.53
1.99
1.62-2.36
3
2012
Not Acceptable
2.46
2.29
1.88-2.70
4
2012
Acceptable
1.34
1.30
1.02-1.58
1
2013
Acceptable
2.43
2.52
2.08-2.96
2
2013
Acceptable
Bromide (No EPA Method)
1.72
2.06
1.75-2.37
4
2010
Not Acceptable
1.48
1.54
1.31-1.77
1
2011
Acceptable
3.57
3.43
2.92-3.94
2
2011
Acceptable
9.04
8.93
7.59-10.3
3
2011
Acceptable
8.73
8.57
7.28-9.86
4
2011
Acceptable
8.04
8.11
6.89-9.33
1
2012
Acceptable
2.29
2.22
1.89-2.55
2
2012
Acceptable
2.52
2.57
1.96-3.12
3
2012
Acceptable
5.06
4.88
4.02 - 5.73
4
2012
Acceptable
1.86
2.08
1.52-2.57
1
2013
Acceptable
2.95
2.94
2.29-3.54
2
2013
Acceptable
-------
A-207
Table A25. Performance Evaluation sample results returned by EPA ORD/NRMRL
(Ada) Laboratory for anions, ammonia, DOC, and DIC.
Reported Value
(mg/L)
Certified Value
(mg/L)
Acceptance
Range
Quarter
Year
Performance
Evaluation
Anions by EPA Method 6500 (RSKSOP 288v3)
Chloride
64.5
62.8
53.5-72.5
3
2012
Acceptable
91.7
92.2
79.1-105
4
2012
Acceptable
83.8
85.3
73.1-97.6
1
2013
Acceptable
39.8
40.7
34.3-47.8
2
2013
Acceptable
Sulfate
27.7
28.3
22.5-33.3
3
2012
Acceptable
43.0
43.3
35.2-50.2
4
2012
Acceptable
29.5
30.3
24.2-35.6
1
2013
Acceptable
27.9
28.4
22.6-33.4
2
2013
Acceptable
Fluoride
1.95
1.99
1.62-2.36
3
2012
Acceptable
2.36
2.29
1.88-2.70
4
2012
Acceptable
1.29
1.30
1.02-1.58
1
2013
Acceptable
2.41
2.52
2.08-2.96
2
2013
Acceptable
Bromide (No EPA Method)
2.44
2.57
1.96-3.12
3
2012
Acceptable
4.80
4.88
4.02 - 5.73
4
2012
Acceptable
1.98
2.08
1.52-2.57
1
2013
Acceptable
2.96
2.94
2.29-3.54
2
2013
Acceptable
Bromide by RSKSOP 214v5 (No EPA Method)
5.14
4.88
4.02 - 5.73
4
2012
Acceptable
1.99
2.08
1.52-2.57
1
2013
Acceptable
2.94
2.94
2.29-3.54
2
2013
Acceptable
-------
A-208
Table A26. Performance Evaluation sample results returned by Shaw
Environmental Laboratory (Ada) for ICP-OES metals, ICP-MS metals, and VOCs.
Reported Value
(Hg/L or mg/L)
Certified Value
(M-g/L or mg/L)
Acceptance
Range
Quarter
Year
Performance
Evaluation
ICP OES metals by EPA Method 200.7 (RSKSOP 213v4)
Aluminum
394
361
319 - 424
4
2010
Acceptable
1090
1070
823 - 1220
1
2011
Acceptable
1730
1760
1580 - 1940
2
2011
Acceptable
2310
2300
2070 - 2530
3
2011
Acceptable
738
708
644 - 814
4
2011
Acceptable
1270
1300
1160 -1440
1
2012
Acceptable
626
638
578-711
2
2012
Acceptable
2500
2610
2150 - 3030
3
2012
Acceptable
324
292
212-376
4
2012
Acceptable
404
456
350 - 564
1
2013
Acceptable
Antimony
512
514
432 - 574
4
2010
Acceptable
796
805
703 - 872
1
2011
Acceptable
468
465
408 - 506
2
2011
Acceptable
113
121
106 -136
3
2011
Acceptable
810
842
730-915
4
2011
Acceptable
105
110
93.5-122
1
2012
Acceptable
809
794
672 - 870
2
2012
Acceptable
694
710
502 - 853
3
2012
Acceptable
660
686
484 - 824
4
2012
Acceptable
374
401
277 - 484
1
2013
Acceptable
Arsenic
730
721
655 - 780
4
2010
Acceptable
370
377
333-421
1
2011
Acceptable
389
394
347 - 440
2
2011
Acceptable
155
165
146 -184
3
2011
Acceptable
744
763
686 - 820
4
2011
Acceptable
748
759
679 - 815
1
2012
Acceptable
559
574
503 - 619
2
2012
Acceptable
639
639
536 - 748
3
2012
Acceptable
187
182
149 - 215
4
2012
Acceptable
376
376
314 - 441
1
2013
Acceptable
Barium
331
330
303 - 354
4
2010
Acceptable
976
982
914-1070
1
2011
Acceptable
1390
1410
1300 - 1510
2
2011
Acceptable
364
357
324 - 387
3
2011
Acceptable
981
971
884 - 1060
4
2011
Acceptable
1490
1530
1400 -1640
1
2012
Acceptable
953
948
870 - 1020
2
2012
Acceptable
2100
2160
1880 - 2440
3
2012
Acceptable
2070
2080
1810 - 2350
4
2012
Acceptable
1870
1880
1630 - 2120
1
2013
Acceptable
-------
A-209
Table A26. Performance Evaluation sample results returned by Shaw
Environmental Laboratory (Ada) for ICP-OES metals, ICP-MS metals, and VOCs.
Reported Value
(Hg/L or mg/L)
Certified Value
(M-g/L or mg/L)
Acceptance
Range
Quarter
Year
Performance
Evaluation
Beryllium
588
583
525 - 631
4
2010
Acceptable
508
512
480 - 554
1
2011
Acceptable
421
426
395 - 465
2
2011
Acceptable
62
59
53.8-64.6
3
2011
Acceptable
109
109
101-116
4
2011
Acceptable
513
519
470 - 557
1
2012
Acceptable
440
441
397 - 472
2
2012
Acceptable
700
709
603 - 801
3
2012
Acceptable
176
169
143 -191
4
2012
Acceptable
556
544
462 - 614
1
2013
Acceptable
Boron
1500
1500
1360 - 1630
4
2010
Acceptable
1120
1120
1000 - 1260
1
2011
Acceptable
1560
1600
1490 - 1700
2
2011
Acceptable
2030
1920
1740 - 2100
3
2011
Acceptable
1080
1050
990-1110
4
2011
Acceptable
1710
1730
1540 - 1920
1
2012
Acceptable
1190
1200
1070 - 1320
2
2012
Acceptable
1820
1840
1500 - 2140
3
2012
Acceptable
1260
1230
1010 -1430
4
2012
Acceptable
933
930
769 - 1080
1
2013
Acceptable
Cadmium
225
226
203 - 244
4
2010
Acceptable
356
362
327 - 388
1
2011
Acceptable
226
232
219 - 243
2
2011
Acceptable
524
529
477 - 564
3
2011
Acceptable
77.0
78.9
70.6 - 84.6
4
2011
Acceptable
244
251
222 - 270
1
2012
Acceptable
397
405
361 - 428
2
2012
Acceptable
93.0
95.9
81.1-110
3
2012
Acceptable
390
393
335 - 447
4
2012
Acceptable
657
671
573 - 762
1
2013
Acceptable
Chromium
416
421
382 - 459
4
2010
Acceptable
621
636
578 - 694
1
2011
Acceptable
483
492
456 - 528
2
2011
Acceptable
90
92
83.9 -100
3
2011
Acceptable
781
794
742 - 843
4
2011
Acceptable
557
571
526-611
1
2012
Acceptable
727
734
662 - 794
2
2012
Acceptable
473
481
418 - 544
3
2012
Acceptable
611
611
532 - 691
4
2012
Acceptable
768
779
679 - 880
1
2013
Acceptable
Cobalt
712
709
658 - 774
4
2010
Acceptable
-------
A-210
Table A26. Performance Evaluation sample results returned by Shaw
Environmental Laboratory (Ada) for ICP-OES metals, ICP-MS metals, and VOCs.
Reported Value
Certified Value
Acceptance


Performance
(Hg/L or mg/L)
(M-g/L or mg/L)
Range


Evaluation
518
521
496 - 557
1
2011
Acceptable
233
233
222 - 253
2
2011
Acceptable
752
741
693 - 819
3
2011
Acceptable
580
581
542 - 632
4
2011
Acceptable
130
130
120 -145
1
2012
Acceptable
321
315
292-351
2
2012
Acceptable
294
283
248 - 318
3
2012
Acceptable
295
290
254 - 326
4
2012
Acceptable
277
276
242 - 310
1
2013
Acceptable
Copper
860
864
783 - 935
4
2010
Acceptable
638
648
593 - 729
1
2011
Acceptable
759
782
725 - 839
2
2011
Acceptable
642
637
588 - 685
3
2011
Acceptable
764
737
688 - 786
4
2011
Acceptable
837
845
769-911
1
2012
Acceptable
624
625
569 * 681
2
2012
Acceptable
728
735
662 - 808
3
2012
Acceptable
573
569
512 - 626
4
2012
Acceptable
250
238
214 - 264
1
2013
Acceptable
Iron
716
722
660 - 784
4
2010
Acceptable
791
800
745 - 871
1
2011
Acceptable
1740
1790
1620 - 2000
2
2011
Acceptable
775
787
722 - 868
3
2011
Acceptable
1090
1050
978-1140
4
2011
Acceptable
1450
1470
1370 - 1600
1
2012
Acceptable
672
670
618 - 749
2
2012
Acceptable
2370
2410
2140 - 2710
3
2012
Acceptable
466
462
406 - 526
4
2012
Acceptable
1060
1070
946-1210
1
2013
Acceptable
Lead
1820
1800
1640 - 1960
4
2010
Acceptable
1390
1400
1280 - 1520
1
2011
Acceptable
1020
1040
956-1120
2
2011
Acceptable
1690
1670
1520 - 1850
3
2011
Acceptable
304
310
278 - 342
4
2011
Acceptable
712
722
665 - 793
1
2012
Acceptable
2440
2440
2230 - 2640
2
2012
Acceptable
1320
1320
1160 - 1470
3
2012
Acceptable
259
259
222 - 295
4
2012
Acceptable
296
305
262 - 346
1
2013
Acceptable
Manganese
600
596
571 - 644
4
2010
Acceptable
336
335
308 - 375
1
2011
Acceptable
1060
1060
992-1130
2
2011
Acceptable
-------
A-211
Table A26. Performance Evaluation sample results returned by Shaw
Environmental Laboratory (Ada) for ICP-OES metals, ICP-MS metals, and VOCs.
Reported Value
(Hg/L or mg/L)
Certified Value
(M-g/L or mg/L)
Acceptance
Range
Quarter
Year
Performance
Evaluation
1560
1540
1450 - 1690
3
2011
Acceptable
625
634
592 - 670
4
2011
Acceptable
1410
1430
1320 - 1540
1
2012
Acceptable
2020
2010
1840 - 2170
2
2012
Acceptable
2120
2090
1880 - 2320
3
2012
Acceptable
1320
1280
1150 - 1420
4
2012
Acceptable
783
767
688 - 852
1
2013
Acceptable
Molybdenum
512
510
457 - 550
4
2010
Acceptable
148
148
134 -165
1
2011
Acceptable
418
419
387 - 451
2
2011
Acceptable
279
279
253 - 304
3
2011
Acceptable
303
308
286 - 330
4
2011
Acceptable
558
562
516-598
1
2012
Acceptable
128
131
116 -142
2
2012
Acceptable
500
500
424 - 571
3
2012
Acceptable
332
330
278 - 379
4
2012
Acceptable
200
202
168 - 234
1
2013
Acceptable
Nickel
751
757
694 - 820
4
2010
Acceptable
680
693
637 - 748
1
2011
Acceptable
2000
2040
1890 - 2180
2
2011
Acceptable
2030
2040
1860 - 2210
3
2011
Acceptable
550
559
506-611
4
2011
Acceptable
1650
1680
1520 - 1840
1
2012
Acceptable
943
951
862 - 1030
2
2012
Acceptable
609
617
555 - 691
3
2012
Acceptable
279
279
247 - 315
4
2012
Acceptable
769
765
688 - 855
1
2013
Acceptable
Selenium
741
737
673 - 801
4
2010
Acceptable
566
573
495 - 635
1
2011
Acceptable
1600
1600
1460 - 1700
2
2011
Acceptable
1170
1170
1020 - 1290
3
2011
Acceptable
484
491
437 - 543
4
2011
Acceptable
502
502
435 - 557
1
2012
Acceptable
117
119
104 -124
2
2012
Acceptable
1160
1160
923 - 1340
3
2012
Acceptable
1040
1050
835 - 1220
4
2012
Acceptable
634
652
517-755
1
2013
Acceptable
Silver
302
323
292 - 352
4
2010
Acceptable
147
154
138 -170
1
2011
Acceptable
485
503
463 - 543
2
2011
Acceptable
479
484
452 - 514
3
2011
Acceptable
166
173
155 -189
4
2011
Acceptable
-------
A-212
Table A26. Performance Evaluation sample results returned by Shaw
Environmental Laboratory (Ada) for ICP-OES metals, ICP-MS metals, and VOCs.
Reported Value
(Hg/L or mg/L)
Certified Value
(M-g/L or mg/L)
Acceptance
Range
Quarter
Year
Performance
Evaluation
530
552
498 - 603
1
2012
Acceptable
528
541
486 - 596
2
2012
Acceptable
141
152
130 -174
3
2012
Acceptable
328
333
286 - 382
4
2012
Acceptable
259
257
220 - 294
1
2013
Acceptable
Strontium
83.0
83.7
75.7-91.6
4
2010
Acceptable
163
165
149 -181
1
2011
Acceptable
151
149
137 -164
2
2011
Acceptable
126
126
117 -134
3
2011
Acceptable
167
164
151 -180
4
2011
Acceptable
230
241
224 - 258
1
2012
Acceptable
116
116
104 -124
2
2012
Acceptable
85.0
84.7
71.3-98.1
3
2012
Acceptable
245
245
213-278
4
2012
Acceptable
215
217
188 - 246
1
2013
Acceptable
Thallium
288
293
259-321
4
2010
Acceptable
554
553
470 - 599
1
2011
Acceptable
134
142
128 -159
2
2011
Acceptable
401
410
372 - 447
3
2011
Acceptable
684
694
634 - 754
4
2011
Acceptable
461
466
413 - 503
1
2012
Acceptable
836
827
738 - 909
2
2012
Acceptable
522
518
417 - 622
3
2012
Acceptable
493
487
390 - 586
4
2012
Acceptable
511
513
412-616
1
2013
Acceptable
Vanadium
1310
1300
1210-1380
4
2010
Acceptable
738
739
680 - 798
1
2011
Acceptable
246
249
224 - 263
2
2011
Acceptable
472
466
429 - 503
3
2011
Acceptable
1410
1350
1260 - 1420
4
2011
Acceptable
604
603
556 - 637
1
2012
Acceptable
596
584
533 - 619
2
2012
Acceptable
1800
1780
1560 - 1990
3
2012
Acceptable
468
455
398 - 509
4
2012
Acceptable
1420
1420
1240 - 1590
1
2013
Acceptable
Zinc
848
850
780 - 920
4
2010
Acceptable
189
188
173 - 214
1
2011
Acceptable
1030
1050
974-1120
2
2011
Acceptable
412
397
368 - 442
3
2011
Acceptable
1370
1320
1200 -1440
4
2011
Acceptable
566
563
508 - 618
1
2012
Acceptable
1740
1730
1560 - 1890
2
2012
Acceptable
-------
A-213
Table A26. Performance Evaluation sample results returned by Shaw
Environmental Laboratory (Ada) for ICP-OES metals, ICP-MS metals, and VOCs.
Reported Value
(Hg/L or mg/L)
Certified Value
(M-g/L or mg/L)
Acceptance
Range
Quarter
Year
Performance
Evaluation
1260
1280
1100 -1470
3
2012
Acceptable
193
191
162 - 225
4
2012
Acceptable
252
253
216-295
1
2013
Acceptable
Metals by ICP MS EPA Method 6020A (RSKSOP 332vl or RSKSOP 257v3)
Aluminum
NA
203
174 - 232
4
2010
Not Evaluated
NA
198
169 - 227
1
2011
Not Evaluated
NA
940
818-1020
2
2011
Not Evaluated
NA
1610
1460 - 1720
3
2011
Not Evaluated
NA
810
719 - 895
4
2011
Not Evaluated
NA
1090
940 - 1200
1
2012
Not Evaluated
2180
2270
1980 - 2420
2
2012
Acceptable
Antimony
12.2
12.5
9.95-15.0
4
2010
Acceptable
37.2
39.3
35.4-43.2
1
2011
Acceptable
40.4
42.2
34.3 - 50.9
2
2011
Acceptable
16.8
17.0
14.4-18.5
3
2011
Acceptable
45.3
45.7
40.0-52.3
4
2011
Acceptable
26.9
26.5
24.6-28.9
1
2012
Acceptable
8.69
8.73
7.23-10.1
2
2012
Acceptable
Arsenic
23.9
24.4
20.8-27.9
4
2010
Acceptable
41.9
43.8
38.7-48.2
1
2011
Acceptable
18.8
18.5
15.8-21.2
2
2011
Acceptable
26.1
27.1
24.4 - 30.3
3
2011
Acceptable
21.1
21.3
18.3 - 24.0
4
2011
Acceptable
43.5
45.8
38.4 - 50.4
1
2012
Acceptable
14.1
13.8
12.2-15.4
2
2012
Acceptable
Barium
599
601
541 - 661
4
2010
Acceptable
2060
2040
1870 - 2180
1
2011
Acceptable
1220
1270
1110-1380
2
2011
Acceptable
1240
1210
1110-1310
3
2011
Acceptable
2060
2070
1870 - 2210
4
2011
Acceptable
1340
1360
1250 - 1470
1
2012
Acceptable
2340
2350
2060 - 2560
2
2012
Acceptable
Beryllium
5.98
6.53
5.38-7.68
4
2010
Acceptable
2.32
2.42
2.03-2.81
1
2011
Acceptable
5.29
5.42
4.80-6.36
2
2011
Acceptable
4.06
4.17
3.45-4.89
3
2011
Acceptable
7.30
7.62
6.72 - 8.40
4
2011
Acceptable
3.31
3.31
2.57-3.77
1
2012
Acceptable
2.18
2.12
1.82 - 2.42
2
2012
Acceptable
-------
A-214
Table A26. Performance Evaluation sample results returned by Shaw
Environmental Laboratory (Ada) for ICP-OES metals, ICP-MS metals, and VOCs.
Reported Value
(Hg/L or mg/L)
Certified Value
(M-g/L or mg/L)
Acceptance
Range
Quarter
Year
Performance
Evaluation
Boron
950
966
859 - 1070
4
2010
Acceptable
1340
1340
1210 -1470
1
2011
Acceptable
1080
1160
1030 - 1290
2
2011
Acceptable
1130
1140
1040 -1240
3
2011
Acceptable
1560
1590
1400 - 1760
4
2011
Acceptable
1320
1320
1170 - 1460
1
2012
Acceptable
852
1040
926-1150
2
2012
Not Acceptable
Cadmium
24.0
23.8
20.8-26.8
4
2010
Acceptable
22.7
22.9
20.5-25.1
1
2011
Acceptable
29.0
28.8
24.7-31.8
2
2011
Acceptable
43.8
45.8
41.9-49.6
3
2011
Acceptable
9.02
9.06
8.10-10.0
4
2011
Acceptable
44.8
46.8
43.9-48.6
1
2012
Acceptable
24.6
25.2
22.0-26.8
2
2012
Acceptable
Chromium
166
171
151-191
4
2010
Acceptable
22.2
22.7
20.1-25.1
1
2011
Acceptable
133
133
118 -148
2
2011
Acceptable
59
63
58.3 - 66.7
3
2011
Acceptable
184
180
165 -191
4
2011
Acceptable
158
158
146 -169
1
2012
Acceptable
118
120
106 -134
2
2012
Acceptable
Copper
1210
1220
1100 -1340
4
2010
Acceptable
438
429
387 - 464
1
2011
Acceptable
213
218
197 - 239
2
2011
Acceptable
644
622
556 - 688
3
2011
Acceptable
360
359
321 - 388
4
2011
Acceptable
341
348
317-379
1
2012
Acceptable
418
419
385 - 450
2
2012
Acceptable
Iron
1090
1070
930-1210
4
2010
Acceptable
184
179
156 - 202
1
2011
Acceptable
715
732
679 - 776
2
2011
Acceptable
473
475
419 - 530
3
2011
Acceptable
313
308
272 - 344
4
2011
Acceptable
810
839
796 - 898
1
2012
Acceptable
485
489
454 - 544
2
2012
Acceptable
Lead
52.3
52.5
44.8-60.1
4
2010
Acceptable
19.9
18.0
15.8-20.2
1
2011
Acceptable
38.8
38.7
33.1-44.3
2
2011
Acceptable
60.6
63.6
56.6-70.5
3
2011
Acceptable
-------
A-215
Table A26. Performance Evaluation sample results returned by Shaw
Environmental Laboratory (Ada) for ICP-OES metals, ICP-MS metals, and VOCs.
Reported Value
(Hg/L or mg/L)
Certified Value
(M-g/L or mg/L)
Acceptance
Range
Quarter
Year
Performance
Evaluation
55.6
53.9
47.4 - 60.4
4
2011
Acceptable
78.6
78.3
71.2-85.4
1
2012
Acceptable
85.9
88.2
78.8-94.6
2
2012
Acceptable
Manganese
510
497
450 - 544
4
2010
Acceptable
185
190
175 - 209
1
2011
Acceptable
683
653
608 - 697
2
2011
Acceptable
765
782
714 - 849
3
2011
Acceptable
639
640
595 - 697
4
2011
Acceptable
59.0
59.7
55.5-65.1
1
2012
Acceptable
451
459
410 - 498
2
2012
Acceptable
Mercury
31.4
24.8
19.5 - 30.0
4
2010
Not Acceptable
17.6
17.3
13.8-21.1
1
2011
Acceptable
19.2
19.7
18.3-22.6
2
2011
Acceptable
8.96
8.14
6.80-10.1
3
2011
Acceptable
11.0
11.5
10.5 -13.0
4
2011
Acceptable
4.36
3.98
3.41-4.54
1
2012
Acceptable
4.76
3.98
3.41-4.54
2
2012
Not Acceptable
Molybdenum
92.8
92.7
80.7 -105
4
2010
Acceptable
71.7
73.8
64.2 - 83.4
1
2011
Acceptable
91.7
94.8
82.5 -107
2
2011
Acceptable
97.6
99.5
94.0 -105
3
2011
Acceptable
74.6
73.8
65.3 - 80.5
4
2011
Acceptable
42.3
43.8
40.2 - 47.4
1
2012
Acceptable
17.4
17.0
15.5-18.2
2
2012
Acceptable
Nickel
430
431
385 - 477
4
2010
Acceptable
114
109
97.6-119
1
2011
Acceptable
219
223
206 - 240
2
2011
Acceptable
68.8
68.6
61.2-76.0
3
2011
Acceptable
205
207
187 - 226
4
2011
Acceptable
38.1
39.7
35.6-43.8
1
2012
Acceptable
156
156
142 -168
2
2012
Acceptable
Selenium
51.9
52.1
43.3 - 60.9
4
2010
Acceptable
19.5
20.2
17.2-23.6
1
2011
Acceptable
82.4
80.7
70.0-93.0
2
2011
Acceptable
49.0
50.9
44.6-57.2
3
2011
Acceptable
31.5
31.0
27.2-35.4
4
2011
Acceptable
56.3
58.0
47.4-66.1
1
2012
Acceptable
22.2
22.3
18.9-26.1
2
2012
Acceptable
Silver
186
182
161 - 203
4
2010
Acceptable
-------
A-216
Table A26. Performance Evaluation sample results returned by Shaw
Environmental Laboratory (Ada) for ICP-OES metals, ICP-MS metals, and VOCs.
Reported Value
(Hg/L or mg/L)
Certified Value
(M-g/L or mg/L)
Acceptance
Range
Quarter
Year
Performance
Evaluation
175
176
160 -187
1
2011
Acceptable
123
130
121-139
2
2011
Acceptable
60.3
62.1
56.8-67.3
3
2011
Acceptable
93.9
95.7
85.8 -104
4
2011
Acceptable
133
140
128 -152
1
2012
Acceptable
97.8
106
95.2-113
2
2012
Acceptable
Thallium
3.39
3.44
2.66-4.22
4
2010
Acceptable
6.68
6.65
5.78-7.44
1
2011
Acceptable
3.55
3.61
2.79-4.43
2
2011
Acceptable
6.34
6.47
5.57-7.38
3
2011
Acceptable
3.02
3.10
2.60-3.59
4
2011
Acceptable
8.78
8.84
8.01 - 9.44
1
2012
Acceptable
9.13
9.19
8.17-10.2
2
2012
Acceptable
Vanadium
811
816
752 - 880
4
2010
Acceptable
766
778
717 - 839
1
2011
Acceptable
594
598
551 - 645
2
2011
Acceptable
885
890
820 - 960
3
2011
Acceptable
912
910
824 - 972
4
2011
Acceptable
735
726
674 - 769
1
2012
Acceptable
570
571
526-616
2
2012
Acceptable
Zinc
1160
1180
1070 - 1290
4
2010
Acceptable
725
729
666 - 792
1
2011
Acceptable
1110
1130
1030 - 1260
2
2011
Acceptable
772
789
724 - 854
3
2011
Acceptable
1060
1130
1020 - 1260
4
2011
Acceptable
1130
1160
1070 - 1250
1
2012
Acceptable
1410
1390
1260 - 1510
2
2012
Acceptable
Metals by ICP MS EPA Method 6020A (RSKSOP 332vl)
Aluminum
492
475
380 - 570
3
2012
Acceptable
664
645
544 - 742
4
2012
Acceptable
690
688
593 - 803
1
2013
Acceptable
Antimony
20.9
20.8
14.6-27.0
3
2012
Acceptable
27.6
28.7
20.1-37.3
4
2012
Acceptable
32.6
35.8
25.1-46.5
1
2013
Acceptable
Arsenic
44.2
44.4
31.1-57.7
3
2012
Acceptable
42.8
41.4
29.0-53.8
4
2012
Acceptable
15.1
15.9
11.1-20.7
1
2013
Acceptable
Barium
1710
1740
1480 - 2000
3
2012
Acceptable
-------
A-217
Table A26. Performance Evaluation sample results returned by Shaw
Environmental Laboratory (Ada) for ICP-OES metals, ICP-MS metals, and VOCs.
Reported Value
(Hg/L or mg/L)
Certified Value
(M-g/L or mg/L)
Acceptance
Range
Quarter
Year
Performance
Evaluation
864
883
750 - 1020
4
2012
Acceptable
1290
1350
1150 - 1550
1
2013
Acceptable
Beryllium
16.3
16.7
14.2-49.2
3
2012
Acceptable
4.05
4.46
3.79-5.13
4
2012
Acceptable
4.21
4.20
3.57-4.83
1
2013
Acceptable
Boron
1830
1800
1530 - 2070
3
2012
Acceptable
1400
1430
1220 - 1640
4
2012
Acceptable
1100
1090
926-1250
1
2013
Acceptable
Cadmium
16.8
16.9
13.5-20.3
3
2012
Acceptable
41.4
42.5
34.0-51.0
4
2012
Acceptable
30.5
31.0
24.8-37.2
1
2013
Acceptable
Chromium
184
180
153 - 207
3
2012
Acceptable
149
152
129 -175
4
2012
Acceptable
122
124
105 -143
1
2013
Acceptable
Copper
1360
1300
1170 - 1430
3
2012
Acceptable
360
368
331 - 405
4
2012
Acceptable
490
488
439 - 537
1
2013
Acceptable
Iron
1430
1510
1280 - 1740
3
2012
Acceptable
1150
1180
1000 - 1360
4
2012
Acceptable
566
572
486 - 658
1
2013
Acceptable
Lead
20.0
19.8
13.9-25.7
3
2012
Acceptable
84.3
84.2
58.9 -109
4
2012
Acceptable
30.5
32.6
22.8-42.4
1
2013
Acceptable
Manganese
684
722
614 - 830
3
2012
Acceptable
76.1
81.1
68.9-93.3
4
2012
Acceptable
76.5
75.8
64.4 - 87.2
1
2013
Acceptable
Mercury
3.22
3.74
2.32-5.19
3
2012
Acceptable
24.1
22.3
13.7-30.1
4
2012
Acceptable
7.73
8.31
5.12-11.3
1
2013
Acceptable
Molybdenum
90.2
89.4
76.0 -103
3
2012
Acceptable
63.3
63.7
54.1-73.2
4
2012
Acceptable
38.5
39.6
33.7-45.5
1
2013
Acceptable
Nickel
453
441
375 - 507
3
2012
Acceptable
59.2
61.3
52.1-70.5
4
2012
Acceptable
-------
A-218
Table A26. Performance Evaluation sample results returned by Shaw
Environmental Laboratory (Ada) for ICP-OES metals, ICP-MS metals, and VOCs.
Reported Value
(Hg/L or mg/L)
Certified Value
(M-g/L or mg/L)
Acceptance
Range
Quarter
Year
Performance
Evaluation
355
358
304 - 412
1
2013
Acceptable
Selenium
63.6
64.1
51.3-76.9
3
2012
Acceptable
84.8
82.6
66.1-99.1
4
2012
Acceptable
26.6
29.3
23.4-35.2
1
2013
Acceptable
Silver
41.0
41.8
29.3-54.3
3
2012
Acceptable
99.9
102
71.4-133
4
2012
Acceptable
27.8
28.4
19.9-36.9
1
2013
Acceptable
Thallium
6.03
6.11
4.28-7.94
3
2012
Acceptable
6.01
6.11
4.28-7.94
4
2012
Acceptable
7.12
7.73
5.41 -10.0
1
2013
Acceptable
Vanadium
336
329
280 - 378
3
2012
Acceptable
877
843
716-969
4
2012
Acceptable
863
867
737 - 997
1
2013
Acceptable
Zinc
1510
1420
1210 -1630
3
2012
Acceptable
549
539
458 - 620
4
2012
Acceptable
440
449
382 - 516
1
2013
Acceptable
Metals by ICP MS EPA Method 6020A (RSKSOP 257v3)
Aluminum
506
475
380 - 570
3
2012
Acceptable
656
645
544 - 742
4
2012
Acceptable
650
688
593 - 803
1
2013
Acceptable
Antimony
20.5
20.8
14.6-27.0
3
2012
Acceptable
28.1
28.7
20.1-37.3
4
2012
Acceptable
33.5
35.8
25.1-46.5
1
2013
Acceptable
Arsenic
42.4
44.4
31.1-57.7
3
2012
Acceptable
42.6
41.4
29.0-53.8
4
2012
Acceptable
15.2
15.9
11.1-20.7
1
2013
Acceptable
Barium
1740
1740
1480 - 2000
3
2012
Acceptable
860
883
750 - 1020
4
2012
Acceptable
1380
1350
1150 - 1550
1
2013
Acceptable
Beryllium
15.6
16.7
14.2-49.2
3
2012
Acceptable
4.31
4.46
3.79-5.13
4
2012
Acceptable
3.60
4.20
3.57-4.83
1
2013
Acceptable
Boron
1720
1800
1530 - 2070
3
2012
Acceptable
1510
1430
1220 - 1640
4
2012
Acceptable
-------
A-219
Table A26. Performance Evaluation sample results returned by Shaw
Environmental Laboratory (Ada) for ICP-OES metals, ICP-MS metals, and VOCs.
Reported Value
(Hg/L or mg/L)
Certified Value
(M-g/L or mg/L)
Acceptance
Range
Quarter
Year
Performance
Evaluation
1130
1090
926-1250
1
2013
Acceptable
Cadmium
16.7
16.9
13.5-20.3
3
2012
Acceptable
41.0
42.5
34.0-51.0
4
2012
Acceptable
28.6
31.0
24.8-37.2
1
2013
Acceptable
Chromium
183
180
153 - 207
3
2012
Acceptable
145
152
129 -175
4
2012
Acceptable
126
124
105 -143
1
2013
Acceptable
Copper
1280
1300
1170 - 1430
3
2012
Acceptable
356
368
331 - 405
4
2012
Acceptable
490
488
439 - 537
1
2013
Acceptable
Iron
1560
1510
1280 - 1740
3
2012
Acceptable
1200
1180
1000 - 1360
4
2012
Acceptable
553
572
486 - 658
1
2013
Acceptable
Lead
20.2
19.8
13.9-25.7
3
2012
Acceptable
84.4
84.2
58.9 -109
4
2012
Acceptable
31.6
32.6
22.8-42.4
1
2013
Acceptable
Manganese
692
722
614 - 830
3
2012
Acceptable
78.9
81.1
68.9-93.3
4
2012
Acceptable
78.6
75.8
64.4 - 87.2
1
2013
Acceptable
Mercury
3.52
3.74
2.32-5.19
3
2012
Acceptable
24.4
22.3
13.7-30.1
4
2012
Acceptable
7.48
8.31
5.12-11.3
1
2013
Acceptable
Molybdenum
92.9
89.4
76.0 -103
3
2012
Acceptable
65.4
63.7
54.1-73.2
4
2012
Acceptable
39.2
39.6
33.7-45.5
1
2013
Acceptable
Nickel
398
441
375 - 507
3
2012
Acceptable
60.2
61.3
52.1-70.5
4
2012
Acceptable
370
358
304 - 412
1
2013
Acceptable
Selenium
64.5
64.1
51.3-76.9
3
2012
Acceptable
86.2
82.6
66.1-99.1
4
2012
Acceptable
27.0
29.3
23.4-35.2
1
2013
Acceptable
Silver
36.5
41.8
29.3-54.3
3
2012
Acceptable
99.8
102
71.4-133
4
2012
Acceptable
27.8
28.4
19.9-36.9
1
2013
Acceptable
-------
A-220
Table A26. Performance Evaluation sample results returned by Shaw
Environmental Laboratory (Ada) for ICP-OES metals, ICP-MS metals, and VOCs.
Reported Value
(Hg/L or mg/L)
Certified Value
(M-g/L or mg/L)
Acceptance
Range
Quarter
Year
Performance
Evaluation
Thallium
6.19
6.11
4.28-7.94
3
2012
Acceptable
6.10
6.11
4.28-7.94
4
2012
Acceptable
7.34
7.73
5.41 -10.0
1
2013
Acceptable
Vanadium
343
329
280 - 378
3
2012
Acceptable
845
843
716-969
4
2012
Acceptable
887
867
737 - 997
1
2013
Acceptable
Zinc
1400
1420
1210 -1630
3
2012
Acceptable
547
539
458 - 620
4
2012
Acceptable
439
449
382 - 516
1
2013
Acceptable
Volatile Organic Compounds by GC MS EPA Method 5021A + 8260C (RSKSOP 299vl)
Agilent 1
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
15.6
17.2
12.4-21.3
4
2010
Acceptable
6.62
6.93
4.99-8.59
2
2011
Acceptable
13.3
11.3
8.14-14.0
3
2011
Acceptable
16.8
15.9
11.4-19.7
4
2011
Acceptable
16.6
15.8
11.4-19.6
1
2012
Acceptable
7.04
6.44
4.64-7.99
2
2012
Acceptable
9.49
8.78
5.27-12.3
3
2012
Acceptable
11.4
11.7
9.36-14.0
4
2012
Acceptable
3.19
3.05
1.83-4.27
1
2013
Acceptable
1,1,2-Trichloroethane
9.40
9.63
7.43-11.8
4
2010
Acceptable
7.17
6.88
5.31-8.46
2
2011
Acceptable
16.5
15.8
12.2-19.4
3
2011
Acceptable
3.78
2.95
2.28-3.63
4
2011
Not Acceptable
14.4
15.1
11.7-18.6
1
2012
Acceptable
3.15
3.03
2.34-3.73
2
2012
Acceptable
22.0
19.1
15.3-22.9
3
2012
Acceptable
4.00
3.94
2.36-5.52
4
2012
Acceptable
20.9
18.6
14.9-22.3
1
2013
Acceptable
1,1-Dichloroethene
3.19
3.11
2.15-4.07
4
2010
Acceptable
15.1
14.9
10.3-19.5
1
2011
Acceptable
14.6
13.8
9.54-18.1
2
2011
Acceptable
5.73
4.78
3.30-6.26
3
2011
Acceptable
10.6
9.56
6.61-12.5
4
2011
Acceptable
7.03
6.56
4.53-8.59
1
2012
Acceptable
20.3
18.1
12.5-23.7
2
2012
Acceptable
7.85
7.46
4.48 -10.4
3
2012
Acceptable
7.33
7.06
4.24-9.88
4
2012
Acceptable
-------
A-221
Table A26. Performance Evaluation sample results returned by Shaw
Environmental Laboratory (Ada) for ICP-OES metals, ICP-MS metals, and VOCs.
Reported Value
(Hg/L or mg/L)
Certified Value
(M-g/L or mg/L)
Acceptance
Range
Quarter
Year
Performance
Evaluation
17.0
15.8
12.6-19.0
1
2013
Acceptable
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
NA
8.78
5.63-11.1
4
2010
Not Evaluated
NA
3.74
2.40-4.71
2
2011
Not Evaluated
NA
8.54
5.47 -10.8
3
2011
Not Evaluated
NA
11.6
7.44 -14.6
4
2011
Not Evaluated
NA
14.7
9.42 -18.5
1
2012
Not Evaluated
NA
6.84
4.38-8.62
2
2012
Not Evaluated
NA
2.94
1.76-4.12
3
2012
Not Evaluated
NA
6.41
3.85-8.97
4
2012
Not Evaluated
NA
17.0
13.6-20.4
1
2013
Not Evaluated
1,2-Dichlorobenzene
17.5
17.4
13.3-21.2
4
2010
Acceptable
8.58
9.42
7.19-11.5
1
2011
Acceptable
16.2
17.3
13.2-21.1
2
2011
Acceptable
18.1
16.6
12.7-20.2
3
2011
Acceptable
17.3
17.0
13.0-20.7
4
2011
Acceptable
17.8
18.7
14.3-22.8
1
2012
Acceptable
17.3
18.3
14.0-22.3
2
2012
Acceptable
19.5
19.3
15.4-23.2
3
2012
Acceptable
14.3
14.2
11.4-17.0
4
2012
Acceptable
9.57
9.44
5.66-13.2
1
2013
Acceptable
1,2-Dichloroethane
17.7
18.8
14.6-23.5
4
2010
Acceptable
2.79
2.37
1.84-2.96
1
2011
Acceptable
4.85
4.27
3.32-5.34
2
2011
Acceptable
16.9
14.8
11.5-18.5
3
2011
Acceptable
3.46
2.82
2.19-3.52
4
2011
Acceptable
17.2
18.5
14.4-23.1
1
2012
Acceptable
9.45
8.78
6.82-11.0
2
2012
Acceptable
3.44
2.96
1.78-4.14
3
2012
Acceptable
7.00
6.71
4.03 - 9.39
4
2012
Acceptable
3.15
2.22
1.33-3.11
1
2013
Not Acceptable
1,2-Dichloropropane
NA
14.5
11.2-17.8
4
2010
Not Evaluated
NA
19.1
14.8-23.5
1
2011
Not Evaluated
NA
16.7
12.9-20.5
2
2011
Not Evaluated
NA
16.5
12.8-20.3
3
2011
Not Evaluated
NA
9.17
7.09-11.3
4
2011
Not Evaluated
NA
18.2
14.1-22.4
1
2012
Not Evaluated
NA
15.0
11.6-18.4
2
2012
Not Evaluated
NA
6.77
4.06 - 9.48
3
2012
Not Evaluated
NA
12.5
10.0-15.0
4
2012
Not Evaluated
NA
3.26
1.96-4.56
1
2013
Not Evaluated
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
13.0
14.4
10.4-17.7
4
2010
Acceptable
-------
A-222
Table A26. Performance Evaluation sample results returned by Shaw
Environmental Laboratory (Ada) for ICP-OES metals, ICP-MS metals, and VOCs.
Reported Value
(Hg/L or mg/L)
Certified Value
(M-g/L or mg/L)
Acceptance
Range
Quarter
Year
Performance
Evaluation
6.51
7.68
5.53-9.45
1
2011
Acceptable
3.40
3.84
2.76-4.72
2
2011
Acceptable
15.0
16.4
11.8-20.2
3
2011
Acceptable
14.6
15.1
10.9 -18.6
4
2011
Acceptable
14.5
15.0
10.8-18.4
1
2012
Acceptable
6.12
6.72
4.84-8.27
2
2012
Acceptable
7.53
8.84
5.30-12.4
3
2012
Acceptable
11.0
13.6
10.9 -16.3
4
2012
Acceptable
15.9
16.0
12.8-19.2
1
2013
Acceptable
Benzene
13.8
15.5
12.2-18.8
4
2010
Acceptable
14.6
14.8
11.6-17.9
1
2011
Acceptable
14.1
14.0
11.0-16.9
2
2011
Acceptable
7.98
7.74
6.08-9.36
3
2011
Acceptable
16.5
15.8
12.4-19.1
4
2011
Acceptable
8.25
8.15
6.41-9.86
1
2012
Acceptable
14.2
14.0
11.0-16.9
2
2012
Acceptable
7.48
7.52
4.51-10.5
3
2012
Acceptable
12.0
12.5
10.0-15.0
4
2012
Acceptable
15.4
15.0
12.0-18.0
1
2013
Acceptable
cis-l,2-Dichloroethene
39.4
40.2
30.1-49.4
4
2010
Acceptable
43.4
43.3
32.4-53.3
1
2011
Acceptable
6.02
5.89
4.41-7.24
2
2011
Acceptable
22.8
22.1
16.6-27.2
3
2011
Acceptable
46.1
42.9
32.1-52.8
4
2011
Acceptable
45.2
45.3
33.9-55.7
1
2012
Acceptable
33.4
31.9
23.9-39.2
2
2012
Acceptable
15.4
15.0
12.0-18.0
3
2012
Acceptable
24.0
25.0
20.0 - 30.0
4
2012
Acceptable
22.9
21.2
17.0-25.4
1
2013
Acceptable
Carbon Tetrachloride
6.14
6.18
4.24-7.79
4
2010
Acceptable
11.9
11.9
8.16-15.0
1
2011
Acceptable
8.75
9.27
6.36-11.7
2
2011
Acceptable
20.0
16.3
11.2-20.5
3
2011
Acceptable
2.94
2.77
1.90-3.49
4
2011
Acceptable
15.9
14.9
10.2 -18.8
1
2012
Acceptable
6.55
5.76
3.95-7.26
2
2012
Acceptable
16.7
15.9
12.7-19.1
3
2012
Acceptable
11.1
10.9
8.72-13.1
4
2012
Acceptable
13.1
12.4
9.92-14.9
1
2013
Acceptable
Chlorobenzene
13.7
14.7
11.5-17.9
4
2010
Acceptable
28.9
29.7
23.2-36.2
1
2011
Acceptable
23.2
23.8
18.6-29.0
2
2011
Acceptable
-------
A-223
Table A26. Performance Evaluation sample results returned by Shaw
Environmental Laboratory (Ada) for ICP-OES metals, ICP-MS metals, and VOCs.
Reported Value
(Hg/L or mg/L)
Certified Value
(M-g/L or mg/L)
Acceptance
Range
Quarter
Year
Performance
Evaluation
2.72
2.65
2.07-3.23
3
2011
Acceptable
40.4
38.3
29.9-46.7
4
2011
Acceptable
44.3
45.4
35.5-55.4
1
2012
Acceptable
5.38
5.88
4.59-7.17
2
2012
Acceptable
21.0
21.6
17.3-25.9
3
2012
Acceptable
15.9
16.4
13.1-19.7
4
2012
Acceptable
17.6
16.2
13.0-19.4
1
2013
Acceptable
Diisopropyl Ether
8.62
9.26
7.18-11.8
4
2010
Acceptable
8.63
9.26
7.18-11.8
1
2011
Acceptable
21.2
20.0
15.5-25.4
2
2011
Acceptable
22.0
21.7
17.5-26.9
4
2011
Acceptable
22.8
22.5
18.1-27.9
1
2012
Acceptable
18.3
18.7
15.2-23.4
2
2012
Acceptable
33.2
31.4
25.5-39.2
3
2012
Acceptable
33.4
31.4
25.5-39.2
4
2012
Acceptable
26.3
24.2
19.6-30.2
1
2013
Acceptable
Ethylbenzene
15.0
15.7
11.9-19.5
4
2010
Acceptable
7.98
8.43
6.41 -10.4
1
2011
Acceptable
15.2
15.5
11.8-19.2
2
2011
Acceptable
8.40
8.78
6.67 -10.9
3
2011
Acceptable
20.4
19.3
14.7-23.9
4
2011
Acceptable
17.9
16.9
12.8-21.0
1
2012
Acceptable
16.2
15.4
11.7-19.1
2
2012
Acceptable
18.6
19.2
15.4-23.0
3
2012
Acceptable
18.1
19.2
15.4-23.0
4
2012
Acceptable
10.6
9.22
5.53-12.9
1
2013
Acceptable
Methylene chloride
9.66
11.6
8.06 -14.8
4
2010
Acceptable
12.4
12.9
8.97-16.5
1
2011
Acceptable
11.9
11.6
8.06 -14.8
2
2011
Acceptable
19.9
19.2
13.3-24.6
3
2011
Acceptable
18.7
17.8
12.4-22.8
4
2011
Acceptable
19.7
19.3
13.4-24.7
1
2012
Acceptable
19.5
17.9
12.4-22.9
2
2012
Acceptable
5.53
5.22
3.13-7.31
3
2012
Acceptable
17.8
18.4
14.7-22.1
4
2012
Acceptable
18.6
17.8
14.2-21.4
1
2013
Acceptable
m-Xylene
NS
7.64
5.78-9.47
4
2010
Not Evaluated
NS
13.5
10.2 -16.7
2
2011
Not Evaluated
NS
00
00
6.68-11.0
3
2011
Not Evaluated
NS
4.52
3.42 - 5.60
4
2011
Not Evaluated
NS
6.70
5.06-8.31
1
2012
Not Evaluated
NS
5.77
4.36-7.15
2
2012
Not Evaluated
-------
A-224
Table A26. Performance Evaluation sample results returned by Shaw
Environmental Laboratory (Ada) for ICP-OES metals, ICP-MS metals, and VOCs.
Reported Value
(Hg/L or mg/L)
Certified Value
(M-g/L or mg/L)
Acceptance
Range
Quarter
Year
Performance
Evaluation
NS
4.81
3.64-5.96
3
2012
Not Evaluated
NS
2.27
1.72-2.81
4
2012
Not Evaluated
NS
13.1
9.90-16.2
1
2013
Not Evaluated
o-Xylene
8.38
8.73
6.60 -10.8
4
2010
Acceptable
5.85
6.30
4.76-7.81
2
2011
Acceptable
6.72
6.48
4.90 - 8.04
3
2011
Acceptable
8.10
7.99
6.04-9.91
4
2011
Acceptable
8.16
7.93
6.00 - 9.83
1
2012
Acceptable
10.9
9.97
7.54-12.4
2
2012
Acceptable
6.86
7.18
5.43 - 8.90
3
2012
Acceptable
4.39
4.23
3.20-5.24
4
2012
Acceptable
15.6
12.6
9.52-15.6
1
2013
Acceptable
p-Xylene
NS
2.46
1.86-3.05
4
2010
Not Evaluated
NS
5.54
4.19-6.87
2
2011
Not Evaluated
NS
11.1
8.39-13.8
3
2011
Not Evaluated
NS
8.13
6.15-10.1
4
2011
Not Evaluated
NS
12.2
9.22-15.1
1
2012
Not Evaluated
NS
15.5
11.7-19.2
2
2012
Not Evaluated
NS
15.8
11.9-19.6
3
2012
Not Evaluated
NS
3.48
2.63-4.32
4
2012
Not Evaluated
NS
10.7
8.09 -13.3
1
2013
Not Evaluated
Styrene
NA
8.59
6.44 -10.8
4
2010
Not Evaluated
NA
5.72
4.29-7.21
2
2011
Not Evaluated
NA
17.6
13.2-22.2
3
2011
Not Evaluated
NA
2.99
2.24-3.77
4
2011
Not Evaluated
NA
9.12
6.84-11.5
1
2012
Not Evaluated
NA
14.0
10.5-17.6
2
2012
Not Evaluated
NA
12.3
9.84-14.8
3
2012
Not Evaluated
NA
6.01
3.61-8.41
4
2012
Not Evaluated
NA
16.5
13.2-19.8
1
2013
Not Evaluated
trans-l,2-Dichloroethene
15.7
17.1
12.7-21.4
4
2010
Acceptable
4.68
4.63
3.44-5.79
1
2011
Acceptable
16.3
16.1
12.0-20.1
2
2011
Acceptable
36.0
33.1
24.6-41.4
3
2011
Acceptable
42.8
40.0
29.7 - 50.0
4
2011
Acceptable
9.93
9.40
6.98-11.8
1
2012
Acceptable
6.69
6.67
4.96-8.34
2
2012
Acceptable
13.0
12.8
10.2 -15.4
3
2012
Acceptable
14.6
14.2
11.4-17.0
4
2012
Acceptable
16.0
15.9
12.7-19.1
1
2013
Acceptable
tert-Amyl Methyl Ether
22.2
21.6
16.4-27.4
4
2010
Acceptable
-------
A-225
Table A26. Performance Evaluation sample results returned by Shaw
Environmental Laboratory (Ada) for ICP-OES metals, ICP-MS metals, and VOCs.
Reported Value
(Hg/L or mg/L)
Certified Value
(M-g/L or mg/L)
Acceptance
Range
Quarter
Year
Performance
Evaluation
25.7
21.6
16.4-27.4
1
2011
Acceptable
6.50
7.06
5.37-8.97
2
2011
Acceptable
29.3
30.8
22.7-39.4
4
2011
Acceptable
30.2
31.4
23.2-40.2
1
2012
Acceptable
32.9
36.8
27.6-47.1
2
2012
Acceptable
11.1
11.3
8.45 -14.4
3
2012
Acceptable
9.17
11.3
8.45 -14.4
4
2012
Acceptable
19.0
18.0
13.5-22.9
1
2013
Acceptable
tert-Butyl Alcohol
28.9
28.7
21.3-37.0
4
2010
Acceptable
29.4
28.7
21.3-37.0
1
2011
Acceptable
17.0
20.3
15.0-26.2
2
2011
Acceptable
25.8
33.3
22.2-44.6
4
2011
Acceptable
32.8
40.0
26.6-53.6
1
2012
Acceptable
23.5
28.6
17.1-39.8
2
2012
Acceptable
34.4
34.8
20.7 - 48.4
3
2012
Acceptable
32.8
34.8
20.7 - 48.4
4
2012
Acceptable
35.1
36.6
21.8-50.9
1
2013
Acceptable
tert-Butyl Ethyl Ether
8.41
8.32
6.35 -10.9
4
2010
Acceptable
8.48
8.32
6.35 -10.9
1
2011
Acceptable
13.0
13.2
10.1-17.3
2
2011
Acceptable
41.0
41.0
31.9-53.3
4
2011
Acceptable
17.4
17.7
13.8-23.0
1
2012
Acceptable
28.5
31.3
24.7 - 40.4
2
2012
Acceptable
9.33
9.10
7.19-11.7
3
2012
Acceptable
8.30
9.10
7.19-11.7
4
2012
Acceptable
10.3
9.98
7.88-12.9
1
2013
Acceptable
tert-Butyl Methyl Ether
27.4
25.7
19.7-31.9
4
2010
Acceptable
28.6
25.7
19.7-31.9
1
2011
Acceptable
31.3
31.5
24.2-39.1
2
2011
Acceptable
22.8
23.7
18.8-29.2
4
2011
Acceptable
23.6
24.2
19.2-29.8
1
2012
Acceptable
17.1
18.3
14.5-22.7
2
2012
Acceptable
45.4
41.4
33.1-49.7
3
2012
Acceptable
39.6
41.4
33.1-49.7
4
2012
Acceptable
31.6
29.8
23.8-35.8
1
2013
Acceptable
Tetrachloroethene
15.4
16.2
11.1-19.6
4
2010
Acceptable
3.27
3.69
2.52-4.46
2
2011
Acceptable
3.12
3.02
2.07 - 3.65
3
2011
Acceptable
20.0
19.0
13.0-23.0
4
2011
Acceptable
11.4
11.2
7.66-13.6
1
2012
Acceptable
12.1
11.0
7.52-13.3
2
2012
Acceptable
4.27
3.90
2.34-5.46
3
2012
Acceptable
-------
A-226
Table A26. Performance Evaluation sample results returned by Shaw
Environmental Laboratory (Ada) for ICP-OES metals, ICP-MS metals, and VOCs.
Reported Value
(Hg/L or mg/L)
Certified Value
(M-g/L or mg/L)
Acceptance
Range
Quarter
Year
Performance
Evaluation
14.0
14.2
11.4-17.0
4
2012
Acceptable
8.95
8.72
5.23-12.2
1
2013
Acceptable
Toluene
16.4
17.9
13.9-21.7
4
2010
Acceptable
4.69
5.13
3.97-6.21
2
2011
Acceptable
20.2
19.2
14.9-23.2
3
2011
Acceptable
8.25
8.59
6.65 -10.4
4
2011
Acceptable
7.53
7.40
5.73-8.95
1
2012
Acceptable
8.94
8.39
6.49 -10.2
2
2012
Acceptable
15.8
16.3
13.0-19.6
3
2012
Acceptable
18.1
19.2
15.4-23.0
4
2012
Acceptable
21.7
18.5
14.8-22.2
1
2013
Acceptable
Total Xylenes
17.9
18.8
14.2-23.3
4
2010
Acceptable
24.0
25.3
19.1-31.4
2
2011
Acceptable
27.2
26.4
20.0-32.7
3
2011
Acceptable
21.2
20.6
15.6-25.5
4
2011
Acceptable
28.1
26.8
20.3-33.2
1
2012
Acceptable
34.3
31.2
23.6-38.7
2
2012
Acceptable
27.0
27.8
21.0-34.5
3
2012
Acceptable
10.8
9.98
5.99 -14.0
4
2012
Acceptable
38.7
36.4
2.91-43.7
1
2013
Acceptable
Trichloroethene
1.72
2.10
1.56-2.50
4
2010
Acceptable
3.20
3.64
2.70-4.33
2
2011
Acceptable
3.20
3.00
2.22-6.57
3
2011
Acceptable
13.6
12.6
9.34-15.0
4
2011
Acceptable
2.16
2.18
1.62-2.59
1
2012
Acceptable
9.00
8.59
6.36-10.2
2
2012
Acceptable
9.45
9.24
5.54-12.9
3
2012
Acceptable
20.4
20.0
16.0 - 24.0
4
2012
Acceptable
8.37
8.49
5.09-11.9
1
2013
Acceptable
Vinyl Chloride
9.10
6.22
3.68-9.14
4
2010
Acceptable
17.6
16.7
9.87 - 24.6
2
2011
Acceptable
14.5
12.0
7.09-17.6
3
2011
Acceptable
16.0
12.8
7.56-18.8
4
2011
Acceptable
6.80
6.25
3.69-9.19
1
2012
Acceptable
8.91
8.60
5.08-12.6
2
2012
Acceptable
9.35
9.00
5.40-12.6
3
2012
Acceptable
10.0
8.60
5.16-12.0
4
2012
Acceptable
14.7
12.5
7.50-17.5
1
2013
Acceptable
-------
A-227
Table A26. Performance Evaluation sample results returned by Shaw
Environmental Laboratory (Ada) for ICP-OES metals, ICP-MS metals, and VOCs.
Reported Value
(Hg/L or mg/L)
Certified Value
(M-g/L or mg/L)
Acceptance
Range
Quarter
Year
Performance
Evaluation
Agilent II
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
6.11
6.44
4.64-7.99
2
2012
Acceptable
8.50
8.78
5.27-12.3
3
2012
Acceptable
13.2
11.7
9.36-14.0
4
2012
Acceptable
3.45
3.05
1.83-4.27
1
2013
Acceptable
1,1,2-Trichloroethane
3.12
3.03
2.34-3.73
2
2012
Acceptable
19.2
19.1
15.3-22.9
3
2012
Acceptable
4.01
3.94
2.36-5.52
4
2012
Acceptable
23.7
18.6
14.9-22.3
1
2013
Not Acceptable
1,1-Dichloroethene
16.5
18.1
12.5-23.7
2
2012
Acceptable
7.88
7.46
4.48 -10.4
3
2012
Acceptable
7.69
7.06
4.24-9.88
4
2012
Acceptable
19.0
15.8
12.6-19.0
1
2013
Acceptable
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
NA
6.84
4.38-8.62
2
2012
Not Evaluated
NA
2.94
1.76-4.12
3
2012
Not Evaluated
NA
6.41
3.85-8.97
4
2012
Not Evaluated
NA
17.0
13.6-20.4
1
2013
Not Evaluated
1,2-Dichlorobenzene
19.6
18.3
14.0-22.3
2
2012
Acceptable
19.6
19.3
15.4-23.2
3
2012
Acceptable
14.9
14.2
11.4-17.0
4
2012
Acceptable
10.6
9.44
5.66-13.2
1
2013
Acceptable
1,2-Dichloroethane
10.0
8.78
6.82-11.0
2
2012
Acceptable
3.26
2.96
1.78-4.14
3
2012
Acceptable
7.39
6.71
4.03 - 9.39
4
2012
Acceptable
3.46
2.22
1.33-3.11
1
2013
Not Acceptable
1,2-Dichloropropane
NA
15.0
11.6-18.4
2
2012
Not Evaluated
NA
6.77
4.06 - 9.48
3
2012
Not Evaluated
NA
12.5
10.0-15.0
4
2012
Not Evaluated
NA
3.26
1.96-4.56
1
2013
Not Evaluated
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
6.09
6.72
4.84-8.27
2
2012
Acceptable
8.61
8.84
5.30-12.4
3
2012
Acceptable
12.8
13.6
10.9 -16.3
4
2012
Acceptable
18.2
16.0
12.8-19.2
1
2013
Acceptable
Benzene
13.6
14.0
11.0-16.9
2
2012
Acceptable
7.46
7.52
4.51-10.5
3
2012
Acceptable
-------
A-228
Table A26. Performance Evaluation sample results returned by Shaw
Environmental Laboratory (Ada) for ICP-OES metals, ICP-MS metals, and VOCs.
Reported Value
(Hg/L or mg/L)
Certified Value
(M-g/L or mg/L)
Acceptance
Range
Quarter
Year
Performance
Evaluation
13.1
12.5
10.0-15.0
4
2012
Acceptable
17.4
15.0
12.0-18.0
1
2013
Acceptable
cis-l,2-Dichloroethene
33.1
31.9
23.9-39.2
2
2012
Acceptable
14.8
15.0
12.0-18.0
3
2012
Acceptable
27.1
25.0
20.0 - 30.0
4
2012
Acceptable
24.1
21.2
17.0-25.4
1
2013
Acceptable
Carbon Tetrachloride
4.97
5.76
3.95-7.26
2
2012
Acceptable
15.7
15.9
12.7-19.1
3
2012
Acceptable
12.0
10.9
8.72-13.1
4
2012
Acceptable
14.6
12.4
9.92-14.9
1
2013
Acceptable
Chlorobenzene
5.21
5.88
4.59-7.17
2
2012
Acceptable
21.2
21.6
17.3-25.9
3
2012
Acceptable
16.7
16.4
13.1-19.7
4
2012
Acceptable
18.7
16.2
13.0-19.4
1
2013
Acceptable
Diisopropyl Ether
18.6
18.7
15.2-23.4
2
2012
Acceptable
34.7
31.4
25.5-39.2
3
2012
Acceptable
36.3
31.4
25.5-39.2
4
2012
Acceptable
29.2
24.2
19.6-30.2
1
2013
Acceptable
Ethylbenzene
13.5
15.4
11.7-19.1
2
2012
Acceptable
19.3
19.2
15.4-23.0
3
2012
Acceptable
20.3
19.2
15.4-23.0
4
2012
Acceptable
10.6
9.22
5.53-12.9
1
2013
Acceptable
Methylene Chloride
19.7
17.9
12.4-22.9
2
2012
Acceptable
5.02
5.22
3.13-7.31
3
2012
Acceptable
19.4
18.4
14.7-22.1
4
2012
Acceptable
22.4
17.8
14.2-21.4
1
2013
Not Acceptable
m-Xylene
NS
5.77
4.36-7.15
2
2012
Not Evaluated
NS
4.81
3.64-5.96
3
2012
Not Evaluated
NS
2.27
1.72-2.81
4
2012
Not Evaluated
NS
13.1
9.90-16.2
1
2013
Not Evaluated
o-Xylene
9.06
9.97
7.54-12.4
2
2012
Acceptable
7.29
7.18
5.43 - 8.90
3
2012
Acceptable
4.23
4.23
3.20-5.24
4
2012
Acceptable
17.1
12.6
9.52-15.6
1
2013
Not Acceptable
p-Xylene
NS
15.5
11.7-19.2
2
2012
Not Evaluated
NS
15.8
11.9-19.6
3
2012
Not Evaluated
-------
A-229
Table A26. Performance Evaluation sample results returned by Shaw
Environmental Laboratory (Ada) for ICP-OES metals, ICP-MS metals, and VOCs.
Reported Value
(Hg/L or mg/L)
Certified Value
(M-g/L or mg/L)
Acceptance
Range
Quarter
Year
Performance
Evaluation
NS
3.48
2.63-4.32
4
2012
Not Evaluated
NS
10.7
8.09 -13.3
1
2013
Not Evaluated
Styrene
NA
14.0
10.5-17.6
2
2012
Not Evaluated
NA
12.3
9.84-14.8
3
2012
Not Evaluated
NA
6.01
3.61-8.41
4
2012
Not Evaluated
NA
16.5
13.2-19.8
1
2013
Not Evaluated
trans-l,2-Dichloroethene
5.98
6.67
4.96-8.34
2
2012
Acceptable
12.9
12.8
10.2 -15.4
3
2012
Acceptable
15.4
14.2
11.4-17.0
4
2012
Acceptable
18.2
15.9
12.7-19.1
1
2013
Acceptable
tert-Amyl Methyl Ether
33.6
36.8
27.6-47.1
2
2012
Acceptable
12.1
11.3
8.45 -14.4
3
2012
Acceptable
11.2
11.3
8.45 -14.4
4
2012
Acceptable
18.5
18.0
13.5-22.9
1
2013
Acceptable
tert-Butyl Alcohol
28.9
28.6
17.1-39.8
2
2012
Acceptable
32.0
34.8
20.7 - 48.4
3
2012
Acceptable
37.3
34.8
20.7 - 48.4
4
2012
Acceptable
36.5
36.6
21.8-50.9
1
2013
Acceptable
tert-Butyl Ethyl Ether
29.5
31.3
24.7 - 40.4
2
2012
Acceptable
9.94
9.10
7.19-11.7
3
2012
Acceptable
9.46
9.10
7.19-11.7
4
2012
Acceptable
10.7
9.98
7.88-12.9
1
2013
Acceptable
tert-Butyl Methyl Ether
16.5
18.3
14.5-22.7
2
2012
Acceptable
42.6
41.4
33.1-49.7
3
2012
Acceptable
46.8
41.4
33.1-49.7
4
2012
Acceptable
32.5
29.8
23.8-35.8
1
2013
Acceptable
Tetrachloroethene
10.3
11.0
7.52-13.3
2
2012
Acceptable
3.99
3.90
2.34-5.46
3
2012
Acceptable
16.1
14.2
11.4-17.0
4
2012
Acceptable
10.3
8.72
5.23-12.2
1
2013
Acceptable
Toluene
7.15
8.39
6.49 -10.2
2
2012
Acceptable
16.3
16.3
13.0-19.6
3
2012
Acceptable
20.3
19.2
15.4-23.0
4
2012
Acceptable
23.6
18.5
14.8-22.2
1
2013
Not Acceptable
Total Xylenes
29.2
31.2
23.6-38.7
2
2012
Acceptable
28.0
27.8
21.0-34.5
3
2012
Acceptable
-------
A-230
Table A26. Performance Evaluation sample results returned by Shaw
Environmental Laboratory (Ada) for ICP-OES metals, ICP-MS metals, and VOCs.
Reported Value
(Hg/L or mg/L)
Certified Value
(M-g/L or mg/L)
Acceptance
Range
Quarter
Year
Performance
Evaluation
10.2
9.98
5.99 -14.0
4
2012
Acceptable
44.8
36.4
2.91-43.7
1
2013
Not Acceptable
Trichloroethene
8.44
8.59
6.36-10.2
2
2012
Acceptable
9.16
9.24
5.54-12.9
3
2012
Acceptable
22.4
20.0
16.0 - 24.0
4
2012
Acceptable
10.2
8.49
5.09-11.9
1
2013
Acceptable
Vinyl Chloride
8.60
8.60
5.08-12.6
2
2012
Acceptable
10.2
9.00
5.40-12.6
3
2012
Acceptable
9.36
8.60
5.16-12.0
4
2012
Acceptable
15.8
12.5
7.50-17.5
1
2013
Acceptable
-------
A-231
Table A27. Performance Evaluation sample results returned by EPA Region 8
Laboratory for semi-volatile organic compounds, diesel range organic compounds,
and gasoline range organic compounds.
Reported Value
Assigned Value
Acceptance Limits
Performance Period
Performance
Evaluation
(m-s/l)
(M-S/L)
(M-S/L)


Gasoline Range Organics (GRO) EPA Method 8015D (ORGM-506 rl.O)
2860
2890
1120 - 5100
Fall 2010
Acceptable
2760
2930
1140-5170
Spring 2011
Acceptable
3350
3130
1200 - 5470
Fall 2011
Acceptable
2270
2530
949 - 4440
Spring 2012
Acceptable
4260
3780
1470 - 6590
Fall 2012
Acceptable
3500
3290
1270 - 5750
Spring 2013
Acceptable
Diesel Range Organics (DRO) EPA Method 8015D (ORGM-508 rl.O)
1820
2630
623 - 3410
Fall 2010
Acceptable
1320
1970
440 - 2580
Spring 2011
Acceptable
799
1030
103 - 1460
Fall 2011
Acceptable
6940
5390
1530 - 6670
Spring 2012
Not Acceptable
2240
2960
651-3770
Fall 2012
Acceptable
2220
2300
412-2980
Spring 2013
Acceptable
Semi Volatile Organic Compounds (sVOC) by EPA Method 8270D (ORGM 515 rl.l)
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
148
150
34.2 -176
Fall 2010
Acceptable
68.4
73
15.3-88.8
Spring 2011
Acceptable
41.6
67.8
14.0-82.9
Fall 2011
Acceptable
< 10
<5.00
0.00 - 5.00
Spring 2012
Acceptable
89.9
93.9
20.4-113
Fall 2012
Acceptable
50.4
55.6
11.0-69.0
Spring 2013
Acceptable
1,2-Dichlorobenzene
<5
0
—
Fall 2010
Acceptable
< 10
0
—
Spring 2011
Acceptable
36.3
90
10.7 -108
Fall 2011
Acceptable
< 10
<3.00
0.00 - 3.00
Spring 2012
Acceptable
74.2
82.5
9.56-99.8
Fall 2012
Acceptable
< 10
<3.00
0.00 - 3.00
Spring 2013
Acceptable
1,3-Dichlorobenzene
30.3
32.1
4.73 - 40.0
Fall 2010
Acceptable
65.4
74.6
9.48 - 88.0
Spring 2011
Acceptable
17.6
48.2
6.53-58.2
Fall 2011
Acceptable
120
145
17.4 -168
Spring 2012
Acceptable
36.6
42.6
5.91-51.9
Fall 2012
Acceptable
29
32.5
4.78-40.5
Spring 2013
Acceptable
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
<5
0
—
Fall 2010
Acceptable
-------
A-232
Table A27. Performance Evaluation sample results returned by EPA Region 8
Laboratory for semi-volatile organic compounds, diesel range organic compounds,
and gasoline range organic compounds.
Reported Value
Assigned Value
Acceptance Limits
Performance Period
Performance
Evaluation
< 10
0
—
Spring 2011
Acceptable
<2.5
<3.00
0.00 - 3.00
Fall 2011
Acceptable
< 10
<3.00
0.00 - 3.00
Spring 2012
Acceptable
116
133
13.3-157
Fall 2012
Acceptable
< 10
<3.00
0.00 - 3.00
Spring 2013
Acceptable
2,3,4,6-Tetrachlorophenol
<5
0
...
Fall 2010
Acceptable
139
138
31.0-186
Spring 2011
Acceptable
87.5
121
42.2 -160
Fall 2011
Acceptable
42.2
43.7
15.2-57.8
Spring 2012
Acceptable
116
121
42.2 -160
Fall 2012
Acceptable
70.9
76.4
26.6-101
Spring 2013
Acceptable
2,4,5-Trichlorophenol
99.5
108
38.5 -138
Fall 2010
Acceptable
188
165
57.0 - 208
Spring 2011
Acceptable
129
175
60.3 - 221
Fall 2011
Acceptable
81
88.1
32.0-114
Spring 2012
Acceptable
108
112
39.8 -143
Fall 2012
Acceptable
97.8
111
39.5 -142
Spring 2013
Acceptable
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol
77.2
88.4
28.2-112
Fall 2010
Acceptable
< 10
0
...
Spring 2011
Acceptable
148
198
63.3 - 244
Fall 2011
Acceptable
89.4
93.1
29.7-118
Spring 2012
Acceptable
152
154
49.2-191
Fall 2012
Acceptable
96.4
99.7
31.8-126
Spring 2013
Acceptable
2,4-Dichlorophenol
69.2
77.6
24.2-97.8
Fall 2010
Acceptable
125
126
40.9 -155
Spring 2011
Acceptable
77.9
99.7
31.8-124
Fall 2011
Acceptable
77.3
82.3
25.8-103
Spring 2012
Acceptable
56.5
57.6
17.3-74.2
Fall 2012
Acceptable
44
47.5
13.8-62.3
Spring 2013
Acceptable
2,4-Dimethylphenol
145
144
31.8-188
Fall 2010
Acceptable
86.2
88.4
18.0-116
Spring 2011
Acceptable
86.7
111
23.6-146
Fall 2011
Acceptable
< 10
< 10.0
0.00 -10.0
Spring 2012
Acceptable
92.9
108
22.9 -142
Fall 2012
Acceptable
87.9
95.5
19.8-126
Spring 2013
Acceptable
-------
A-233
Table A27. Performance Evaluation sample results returned by EPA Region 8
Laboratory for semi-volatile organic compounds, diesel range organic compounds,
and gasoline range organic compounds.
Reported Value
Assigned Value
Acceptance Limits
Performance Period
Performance
Evaluation
2,4-Dinitrophenol
96.9
132
13.2-183
Fall 2010
Acceptable
103
103
10.3 -149
Spring 2011
Acceptable
112
166
16.6-222
Fall 2011
Acceptable
92.3
131
13.1-181
Spring 2012
Acceptable
<30
< 10.0
0.00 -10.0
Fall 2012
Acceptable
98.9
110
11.0-157
Spring 2013
Acceptable
2,4-Dinitrotoluene
95.1
116
43.3 -143
Fall 2010
Acceptable
102
127
47.7 -156
Spring 2011
Acceptable
48.6
62.4
22.1-79.5
Fall 2011
Acceptable
17.3
39.6
13.1-52.5
Spring 2012
Acceptable
< 10
<5.30
0.00 - 5.30
Fall 2012
Acceptable
66.4
77.1
27.9-96.9
Spring 2013
Acceptable
2,6-Dinitrotoluene
134
160
67.2 - 200
Fall 2010
Acceptable
68.4
88.1
36.2-110
Spring 2011
Acceptable
103
129
53.8-161
Fall 2011
Acceptable
< 10
<6.70
0.00 - 6.70
Spring 2012
Acceptable
< 10
<6.70
0.00 - 6.70
Fall 2012
Acceptable
< 10
<6.70
0.00 - 6.70
Spring 2013
Acceptable
2-Chloronaphthalene
35.2
38.3
11.1-47.4
Fall 2010
Acceptable
157
164
50.6 -197
Spring 2011
Acceptable
<2.5
<5.40
0.00 - 5.40
Fall 2011
Acceptable
18.8
28
7.91-35.2
Spring 2012
Acceptable
77.3
78.3
23.7-95.1
Fall 2012
Acceptable
82.7
89.4
27.2 -108
Spring 2013
Acceptable
2-Chlorophenol
69.4
76.8
23.1-97.1
Fall 2010
Acceptable
81
84.1
25.0 -106
Spring 2011
Acceptable
133
156
44.1-196
Fall 2011
Acceptable
95.2
99.6
29.2-125
Spring 2012
Acceptable
116
119
34.3 -150
Fall 2012
Acceptable
86.6
92.2
27.2-116
Spring 2013
Acceptable
2-Methylnaphthalene
118
115
23.0-132
Fall 2010
Acceptable
66.2
71.3
13.0-86.4
Spring 2011
Acceptable
47.8
64.2
11.4-79.0
Fall 2011
Acceptable
< 10
<3.50
0.00 - 3.50
Spring 2012
Acceptable
-------
A-234
Table A27. Performance Evaluation sample results returned by EPA Region 8
Laboratory for semi-volatile organic compounds, diesel range organic compounds,
and gasoline range organic compounds.
Reported Value
Assigned Value
Acceptance Limits
Performance Period
Performance
Evaluation
< 10
<3.50
0.00 - 3.50
Fall 2012
Acceptable
31.7
32.1
4.01-45.7
Spring 2013
Acceptable
2-Methylphenol
75.9
80.4
15.2 -100
Fall 2010
Acceptable
97.8
97.8
18.4-121
Spring 2011
Acceptable
92.9
114
21.5-141
Fall 2011
Acceptable
114
112
21.1-138
Spring 2012
Acceptable
67
67.4
12.8-84.6
Fall 2012
Acceptable
49.8
51.4
9.78-65.2
Spring 2013
Acceptable
2-Nitroaniline
<5
0
...
Fall 2010
Acceptable
< 10
0
...
Spring 2011
Acceptable
<2.5
< 10.0
0.00 -10.0
Fall 2011
Acceptable
< 10
< 10.0
0.00 -10.0
Spring 2012
Acceptable
< 10
< 10.0
0.00 -10.0
Fall 2012
Acceptable
< 10
< 10.0
0.00 -10.0
Spring 2013
Acceptable
2-Nitrophenol
75.7
88.6
23.2-114
Fall 2010
Acceptable
< 10
0
...
Spring 2011
Acceptable
61.2
80.5
21.8-103
Fall 2011
Acceptable
89.3
94.9
24.4 -122
Spring 2012
Acceptable
82.9
86.6
22.9-111
Fall 2012
Acceptable
54.2
57.5
17.6-72.1
Spring 2013
Acceptable
3,3'-Dichlorobenzidine
<5
0
...
Fall 2010
Acceptable
< 10
0
...
Spring 2011
Acceptable
<5.0
<60.0
0.00 - 60.0
Fall 2011
Acceptable
<20
< 10.0
0.00 -10.0
Spring 2012
Acceptable
< 10
< 10.0
0.00 -10.0
Fall 2012
Acceptable
< 10
< 10.0
0.00 -10.0
Spring 2013
Acceptable
3-Nitroaniline
<5
0
...
Fall 2010
Acceptable
< 10
0
...
Spring 2011
Acceptable
<2.5
< 10.0
0.00 -10.0
Fall 2011
Acceptable
<20
< 10.0
0.00 -10.0
Spring 2012
Acceptable
<30
< 10.0
0.00 -10.0
Fall 2012
Acceptable
<30
< 10.0
0.00 -10.0
Spring 2013
Acceptable
4,6-Dinitro-2-methylphenol
70.9
84.1
24.6-116
Fall 2010
Acceptable
190
193
71.6-278
Spring 2011
Acceptable
-------
A-235
Table A27. Performance Evaluation sample results returned by EPA Region 8
Laboratory for semi-volatile organic compounds, diesel range organic compounds,
and gasoline range organic compounds.
Reported Value
Assigned Value
Acceptance Limits
Performance Period
Performance
Evaluation
116
149
52.6-212
Fall 2011
Acceptable
73.3
82.6
23.9-114
Spring 2012
Acceptable
131
154
54.7 - 220
Fall 2012
Acceptable
172
195
72.4-281
Spring 2013
Acceptable
4-Bromophenyl-phenylether
197
191
60.6 - 253
Fall 2010
Acceptable
137
143
45.9 -190
Spring 2011
Acceptable
77.7
85.8
28.3-115
Fall 2011
Acceptable
< 10
<8.10
0.00-8.10
Spring 2012
Acceptable
163
157
50.2 - 209
Fall 2012
Acceptable
86.5
95.4
31.3-128
Spring 2013
Acceptable
4-Chloro-3-methylphenol
36.5
38.4
13.6-49.5
Fall 2010
Acceptable
52
55.8
20.7-71.8
Spring 2011
Acceptable
77.3
112
43.5 -144
Fall 2011
Acceptable
94.1
95.6
36.9-123
Spring 2012
Acceptable
171
175
69.2 - 225
Fall 2012
Acceptable
35.8
37.2
13.1-48.0
Spring 2013
Acceptable
4-Chloroaniline
<5
0
...
Fall 2010
Acceptable
< 10
0
...
Spring 2011
Acceptable
<5.0
< 10.0
0.00 -10.0
Fall 2011
Acceptable
<20
< 10.0
0.00 -10.0
Spring 2012
Acceptable
<30
< 10.0
0.00 -10.0
Fall 2012
Acceptable
<30
< 10.0
0.00 -10.0
Spring 2013
Acceptable
4-Chlorophenyl-phenylether
161
160
59.6-198
Fall 2010
Acceptable
< 10
0
...
Spring 2011
Acceptable
<2.5
<9.90
0.00 - 9.90
Fall 2011
Acceptable
64.2
98
36.8-122
Spring 2012
Acceptable
47.1
42
16.2 - 54.3
Fall 2012
Acceptable
174
177
65.9-218
Spring 2013
Acceptable
4-Methylphenol
64.2
62.2
6.22-82.6
Fall 2010
Acceptable
117
112
11.2-145
Spring 2011
Acceptable
151
184
18.4 - 236
Fall 2011
Acceptable
169
159
15.9 - 204
Spring 2012
Acceptable
<50
<5.00
0.00 - 5.00
Fall 2012
Acceptable
68.1
65.5
6.55 - 86.8
Spring 2013
Acceptable
-------
A-236
Table A27. Performance Evaluation sample results returned by EPA Region 8
Laboratory for semi-volatile organic compounds, diesel range organic compounds,
and gasoline range organic compounds.
Reported Value
Assigned Value
Acceptance Limits
Performance Period
Performance
Evaluation
4-Nitroaniline
<5
0
...
Fall 2010
Acceptable
< 10
0
...
Spring 2011
Acceptable
<2.5
< 10.0
0.00 -10.0
Fall 2011
Acceptable
< 10
< 10.0
0.00 -10.0
Spring 2012
Acceptable
<30
< 10.0
0.00 -10.0
Fall 2012
Acceptable
<30
< 10.0
0.00 -10.0
Spring 2013
Acceptable
4-Nitrophenol
91.5
106
10.6 -144
Fall 2010
Acceptable
149
177
17.7-237
Spring 2011
Acceptable
83.6
133
13.3-179
Fall 2011
Acceptable
76.9
116
11.6-157
Spring 2012
Acceptable
145
162
16.2-217
Fall 2012
Acceptable
103
125
12.5 -169
Spring 2013
Acceptable
Acenaphthene
69
75.4
30.3 - 90.4
Fall 2010
Acceptable
41.4
46.6
19.5-56.9
Spring 2011
Acceptable
78.7
108
42.6-128
Fall 2011
Acceptable
30.2
52.3
21.6-63.5
Spring 2012
Acceptable
65
66.6
27.0-80.1
Fall 2012
Acceptable
27.4
29.2
12.9-36.7
Spring 2013
Acceptable
Acenaphthylene
<5
0
...
Fall 2010
Acceptable
23.8
26.4
9.67-33.9
Spring 2011
Acceptable
81.3
106
42.2 -128
Fall 2011
Acceptable
23.6
41.1
15.7-51.4
Spring 2012
Acceptable
< 10
<3.00
0.00 - 3.00
Fall 2012
Acceptable
25
26.4
9.67-33.9
Spring 2013
Acceptable
Aniline
<5
0
...
Fall 2010
Acceptable
<20
0
...
Spring 2011
Acceptable
<5.0
< 10.0
0.00 -10.0
Fall 2011
Acceptable
< 10
< 10.0
0.00 -10.0
Spring 2012
Acceptable
< 10
< 10.0
0.00 -10.0
Fall 2012
Acceptable
< 10
< 10.0
0.00 -10.0
Spring 2013
Acceptable
Anthracene
109
105
44.2-131
Fall 2010
Acceptable
17.4
21.8
9.79-29.2
Spring 2011
Acceptable
89.3
109
45.8-136
Fall 2011
Acceptable
< 10
<4.90
0.00 - 4.90
Spring 2012
Acceptable
-------
A-237
Table A27. Performance Evaluation sample results returned by EPA Region 8
Laboratory for semi-volatile organic compounds, diesel range organic compounds,
and gasoline range organic compounds.
Reported Value
Assigned Value
Acceptance Limits
Performance Period
Performance
Evaluation
83.5
81.6
34.5 -102
Fall 2012
Acceptable
103
107
45.0-133
Spring 2013
Acceptable
Benzo(a)anthracene
62
68.7
31.1-87.3
Fall 2010
Acceptable
< 10
0
...
Spring 2011
Acceptable
<2.5
<3.90
0.00 - 3.90
Fall 2011
Acceptable
< 10
14.1
5.84-18.7
Spring 2012
Acceptable
36.3
38.3
17.0-49.1
Fall 2012
Acceptable
19.1
20.6
8.84-26.9
Spring 2013
Acceptable
Benzo(a)pyrene
33.3
40.8
12.4-53.6
Fall 2010
Acceptable
< 10
29.8
9.26-40.2
Spring 2011
Not Acceptable
<2.5
<6.40
0.00 - 6.40
Fall 2011
Acceptable
16.8
26.9
8.42 - 36.6
Spring 2012
Acceptable
23.8
26.3
8.25-35.9
Fall 2012
Acceptable
23.2
25.3
7.96-34.7
Spring 2013
Acceptable
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
31.9
36.4
12.5-50.3
Fall 2010
Acceptable
< 10
0
...
Spring 2011
Acceptable
<2.5
<5.80
0.00 - 5.80
Fall 2011
Acceptable
15.7
23.3
7.19-33.2
Spring 2012
Acceptable
< 10
<5.80
0.00 - 5.80
Fall 2012
Acceptable
23.8
24.6
7.71-34.9
Spring 2013
Acceptable
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
<5
0
...
Fall 2010
Acceptable
17.6
24.2
4.81-36.5
Spring 2011
Acceptable
<2.5
<2.90
0.00 - 2.90
Fall 2011
Acceptable
17.9
29.4
7.15-43.3
Spring 2012
Acceptable
< 10
<2.90
0.00 - 2.90
Fall 2012
Acceptable
< 10
<2.90
0.00 - 2.90
Spring 2013
Acceptable
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
34.6
40
9.17-60.6
Fall 2010
Acceptable
< 10
0
...
Spring 2011
Acceptable
59.8
75.4
18.5 -109
Fall 2011
Acceptable
23.7
35.2
7.90-54.0
Spring 2012
Acceptable
36.6
37.7
8.56-57.4
Fall 2012
Acceptable
< 10
<5.00
0.00 - 5.00
Spring 2013
Acceptable
Benzoic acid
<5
0
...
Fall 2010
Acceptable
<25
0
...
Spring 2011
Acceptable
-------
A-238
Table A27. Performance Evaluation sample results returned by EPA Region 8
Laboratory for semi-volatile organic compounds, diesel range organic compounds,
and gasoline range organic compounds.
Reported Value
Assigned Value
Acceptance Limits
Performance Period
Performance
Evaluation
<25
<30.0
0.00 - 30.0
Fall 2011
Acceptable
<25
<30.0
0.00 - 30.0
Spring 2012
Acceptable
<30
<30.0
0.00 - 30.0
Fall 2012
Acceptable
<30
<30.0
0.00 - 30.0
Spring 2013
Acceptable
Benzyl alcohol
<5
0
...
Fall 2010
Acceptable
<20
0
...
Spring 2011
Acceptable
<2.5
< 10.0
0.00 -10.0
Fall 2011
Acceptable
< 10
< 10.0
0.00 -10.0
Spring 2012
Acceptable
< 10
< 10.0
0.00 -10.0
Fall 2012
Acceptable
< 10
< 10.0
0.00 -10.0
Spring 2013
Acceptable
bis(2-Chloroethoxy)methane
<5
0
...
Fall 2010
Acceptable
102
119
47.0 -141
Spring 2011
Acceptable
46.2
61.3
24.0-73.7
Fall 2011
Acceptable
< 10
<3.60
0.00 - 3.60
Spring 2012
Acceptable
< 10
<3.60
0.00 - 3.60
Fall 2012
Acceptable
< 10
<3.60
0.00 - 3.60
Spring 2013
Acceptable
bis(2-Chloroethyl)ether
104
105
28.5 -128
Fall 2010
Acceptable
26.6
29.2
9.58-39.4
Spring 2011
Acceptable
16.9
21
7.53-29.8
Fall 2011
Acceptable
122
163
43.0 -196
Spring 2012
Acceptable
93.5
103
28.0 -126
Fall 2012
Acceptable
< 10
<4.80
0.00 - 4.80
Spring 2013
Acceptable
bis(2-Chloroisopropyl)ether
91
95.2
23.9-117
Fall 2010
Acceptable
45.4
47.6
13.4-61.1
Spring 2011
Acceptable
47.2
71.4
18.7 - 88.9
Fall 2011
Acceptable
56.1
70.8
18.6-88.2
Spring 2012
Acceptable
63.6
65.4
17.4-81.9
Fall 2012
Acceptable
37.8
37.6
11.2-49.4
Spring 2013
Acceptable
bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate
44
54.8
16.6-78.5
Fall 2010
Acceptable
41.8
48.6
14.9 - 70.4
Spring 2011
Acceptable
42.2
48.6
14.9 - 70.4
Fall 2011
Acceptable
55
85.4
25.4-118
Spring 2012
Acceptable
74.7
78.5
23.4 -109
Fall 2012
Acceptable
<20
<6.60
0.00 - 6.60
Spring 2013
Acceptable
-------
A-239
Table A27. Performance Evaluation sample results returned by EPA Region 8
Laboratory for semi-volatile organic compounds, diesel range organic compounds,
and gasoline range organic compounds.
Reported Value
Assigned Value
Acceptance Limits
Performance Period
Performance
Evaluation
Butylbenzylphthalate
141
150
30.8-212
Fall 2010
Acceptable
55.4
63.4
7.98-94.3
Spring 2011
Acceptable
86.4
113
21.0-161
Fall 2011
Acceptable
113
165
34.7 - 232
Spring 2012
Acceptable
103
106
19.2-152
Fall 2012
Acceptable
72
80.6
12.5-118
Spring 2013
Acceptable
Carbazole
<5
0
...
Fall 2010
Acceptable
< 10
0
...
Spring 2011
Acceptable
<2.5
< 10.0
0.00 -10.0
Fall 2011
Acceptable
< 10
< 10.0
0.00 -10.0
Spring 2012
Acceptable
<30
< 10.0
0.00 -10.0
Fall 2012
Acceptable
<30
< 10.0
0.00 -10.0
Spring 2013
Acceptable
Chrysene
20.3
24
10.5 - 34.2
Fall 2010
Acceptable
30.6
33.8
14.2-46.5
Spring 2011
Acceptable
28
36
15.1-49.3
Fall 2011
Acceptable
17.4
27
11.6-38.0
Spring 2012
Acceptable
40.9
41.7
17.2-56.4
Fall 2012
Acceptable
29.1
29.3
12.5-40.9
Spring 2013
Acceptable
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene
<5
0

Fall 2010
Acceptable
25
33.8
8.95-49.4
Spring 2011
Acceptable
21.8
28.2
7.33-41.9
Fall 2011
Acceptable
< 10
<4.90
0.00 - 4.90
Spring 2012
Acceptable
31.9
33.9
8.98-49.5
Fall 2012
Acceptable
27
25.1
6.43 - 37.7
Spring 2013
Acceptable
Dibenzofuran
38.1
39.7
15.0-52.6
Fall 2010
Acceptable
31.8
33.6
13.0-45.4
Spring 2011
Acceptable
29.8
35.8
13.8-48.0
Fall 2011
Acceptable
66.8
105
36.7 -130
Spring 2012
Acceptable
51.8
45.8
17.1-59.8
Fall 2012
Acceptable
< 10
< 11.0
0.00-11.0
Spring 2013
Acceptable
Diethylphthalate
120
119
22.0-163
Fall 2010
Acceptable
94.4
97.6
17.6-135
Spring 2011
Acceptable
94.6
114
21.0-156
Fall 2011
Acceptable
92.5
146
27.6-198
Spring 2012
Acceptable
-------
A-240
Table A27. Performance Evaluation sample results returned by EPA Region 8
Laboratory for semi-volatile organic compounds, diesel range organic compounds,
and gasoline range organic compounds.
Reported Value
Assigned Value
Acceptance Limits
Performance Period
Performance
Evaluation
97
94.9
17.0-132
Fall 2012
Acceptable
< 10
< 10.0
0.00 -10.0
Spring 2013
Acceptable
Dimethylphthalate
155
150
15.0-216
Fall 2010
Acceptable
149
157
15.7-225
Spring 2011
Acceptable
<2.5
< 10.0
0.00 -10.0
Fall 2011
Acceptable
< 10
< 10.0
0.00 -10.0
Spring 2012
Acceptable
< 10
< 10.0
0.00 -10.0
Fall 2012
Acceptable
< 10
< 10.0
0.00 -10.0
Spring 2013
Acceptable
Di-n-butylphthalate
<5
0
...
Fall 2010
Acceptable
< 10
0
...
Spring 2011
Acceptable
83.5
91.9
30.2-121
Fall 2011
Acceptable
58.9
86.8
28.7-115
Spring 2012
Acceptable
51.8
51.9
17.8-72.1
Fall 2012
Acceptable
< 10
< 14.0
0.00 -14.0
Spring 2013
Acceptable
Di-n-octylphthalate
41.3
51.3
15.5-78.0
Fall 2010
Acceptable
76
82
19.7-122
Spring 2011
Acceptable
107
123
25.2-181
Fall 2011
Acceptable
81.3
132
26.4 -194
Spring 2012
Acceptable
< 10
< 14.0
0.00 -14.0
Fall 2012
Acceptable
55.5
68.4
17.8 -103
Spring 2013
Acceptable
Fluoranthene
144
153
66.8-181
Fall 2010
Acceptable
51.2
55.7
25.5-69.9
Spring 2011
Acceptable
153
178
77.4-210
Fall 2011
Acceptable
75.9
113
49.8-135
Spring 2012
Acceptable
< 10
< 14.0
0.00 -14.0
Fall 2012
Acceptable
64.6
69.6
31.4-85.8
Spring 2013
Acceptable
Fluorene
104
104
45.1-124
Fall 2010
Acceptable
83.6
82.6
35.1-99.7
Spring 2011
Acceptable
116
138
61.1-162
Fall 2011
Acceptable
94.5
151
67.2 -176
Spring 2012
Acceptable
80.6
77.8
32.8-94.3
Fall 2012
Acceptable
64.8
67.2
27.9-82.5
Spring 2013
Acceptable
Hexachlorobenzene
78.7
80
34.5 - 99.0
Fall 2010
Acceptable
150
149
65.4-181
Spring 2011
Acceptable
-------
A-241
Table A27. Performance Evaluation sample results returned by EPA Region 8
Laboratory for semi-volatile organic compounds, diesel range organic compounds,
and gasoline range organic compounds.
Reported Value
Assigned Value
Acceptance Limits
Performance Period
Performance
Evaluation
95.5
107
46.6-131
Fall 2011
Acceptable
18.7
29.4
11.9-39.1
Spring 2012
Acceptable
59.7
59.7
25.5-75.0
Fall 2012
Acceptable
44.1
46.7
19.6-59.6
Spring 2013
Acceptable
Hexachlorobutadiene
65.9
67.8
6.78-83.9
Fall 2010
Acceptable
< 10
0
...
Spring 2011
Acceptable
<5.0
<5.00
0.00 - 5.00
Fall 2011
Acceptable
97.5
128
15.3-151
Spring 2012
Acceptable
102
112
13.0-133
Fall 2012
Acceptable
67.7
71.2
7.17-87.6
Spring 2013
Acceptable
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
<5
0
...
Fall 2010
Acceptable
< 10
152
15.2-196
Spring 2011
Not Acceptable
102
146
14.6 -189
Fall 2011
Acceptable
< 10
< 10.0
0.00 -10.0
Spring 2012
Acceptable
106
133
13.3-173
Fall 2012
Acceptable
< 10
< 10.0
0.00 -10.0
Spring 2013
Acceptable
Hexachloroethane
145
150
15.9-175
Fall 2010
Acceptable
134
150
15.9-175
Spring 2011
Acceptable
22.8
65.8
6.69 - 78.7
Fall 2011
Acceptable
97.4
115
12.1-135
Spring 2012
Acceptable
84.2
97.1
10.1-114
Fall 2012
Acceptable
83.4
120
12.6-141
Spring 2013
Acceptable
lndeno(l,2,3-cd)pyrene
<5
0
...
Fall 2010
Acceptable
32.6
40.7
8.06 - 56.4
Spring 2011
Acceptable
<2.5
<4.30
0.00 - 4.30
Fall 2011
Acceptable
< 10
<4.30
0.00 - 4.30
Spring 2012
Acceptable
< 10
<4.30
0.00 - 4.30
Fall 2012
Acceptable
28.9
33.7
5.60-48.2
Spring 2013
Acceptable
Isophorone
<5
0
...
Fall 2010
Acceptable
< 10
0
...
Spring 2011
Acceptable
90.3
115
44.9 -148
Fall 2011
Acceptable
43.1
63.3
25.3-82.4
Spring 2012
Acceptable
< 10
< 13.0
0.00 -13.0
Fall 2012
Acceptable
41.8
42.3
17.4-55.7
Spring 2013
Acceptable
-------
A-242
Table A27. Performance Evaluation sample results returned by EPA Region 8
Laboratory for semi-volatile organic compounds, diesel range organic compounds,
and gasoline range organic compounds.
Reported Value
Assigned Value
Acceptance Limits
Performance Period
Performance
Evaluation
Naphthalene
<5
0
...
Fall 2010
Acceptable
58
62.6
18.0-76.6
Spring 2011
Acceptable
<2.5
< 10.0
0.00 -10.0
Fall 2011
Acceptable
96.1
130
33.8-154
Spring 2012
Acceptable
160
169
43.0 -198
Fall 2012
Acceptable
101
112
29.6-133
Spring 2013
Acceptable
Nitrobenzene
<5
0
...
Fall 2010
Acceptable
< 10
0
...
Spring 2011
Acceptable
113
147
45.4 -177
Fall 2011
Acceptable
< 10
<7.20
0.00 - 7.20
Spring 2012
Acceptable
115
118
36.7 -143
Fall 2012
Acceptable
< 10
<7.20
0.00 - 7.20
Spring 2013
Acceptable
N-Nitrosodiethylamine
...
0
...
Fall 2010
Not Reported
...
0
...
Spring 2011
Not Reported
...
< 10.0
0.00 -10.0
Fall 2011
Not Reported
...
< 10.0
0.00 -10.0
Spring 2012
Not Reported
...
< 10.0
0.00 -10.0
Fall 2012
Not Reported
...
< 10.0
0.00 -10.0
Spring 2013
Not Reported
N-Nitrosodimethylamine
...
170
17.0-198
Fall 2010
Not Reported
81.4
97.3
9.73-116
Spring 2011
Acceptable
121
146
14.6-171
Fall 2011
Acceptable
145
156
15.6-183
Spring 2012
Acceptable
156
170
17.0-198
Fall 2012
Acceptable
82.7
94.7
9.47-113
Spring 2013
Acceptable
N-Nitroso-di-n-propylamine
117
131
40.6 -164
Fall 2010
Acceptable
111
125
38.5 -157
Spring 2011
Acceptable
80.9
121
37.1-152
Fall 2011
Acceptable
39.4
58.4
14.9 - 78.9
Spring 2012
Acceptable
< 10
<4.80
0.00 - 4.80
Fall 2012
Acceptable
< 10
<4.80
0.00 - 4.80
Spring 2013
Acceptable
Pentachlorophenol
54.5
64.4
14.1-89.0
Fall 2010
Acceptable
153
150
41.1-207
Spring 2011
Acceptable
131
193
54.6 - 267
Fall 2011
Acceptable
74.2
82.7
19.9-114
Spring 2012
Acceptable
-------
A-243
Table A27. Performance Evaluation sample results returned by EPA Region 8
Laboratory for semi-volatile organic compounds, diesel range organic compounds,
and gasoline range organic compounds.
Reported Value
Assigned Value
Acceptance Limits
Performance Period
Performance
Evaluation
133
137
37.0-189
Fall 2012
Acceptable
105
113
29.4-156
Spring 2013
Acceptable
Phenanthrene
40.4
40.5
20.2-51.8
Fall 2010
Acceptable
64.8
70.1
33.1-85.9
Spring 2011
Acceptable
<2.5
< 15.0
0.00 -15.0
Fall 2011
Acceptable
< 10
< 15.0
0.00 -15.0
Spring 2012
Acceptable
38.3
39
19.5 - 50.0
Fall 2012
Acceptable
48.1
51.3
24.9 - 64.2
Spring 2013
Acceptable
Phenol
<5
0
...
Fall 2010
Acceptable
139
137
13.7 -184
Spring 2011
Acceptable
83.6
111
11.1-150
Fall 2011
Acceptable
155
161
16.1-216
Spring 2012
Acceptable
128
136
13.6-183
Fall 2012
Acceptable
113
114
11.4-154
Spring 2013
Acceptable
Pyrene
67.2
73.3
24.2 -101
Fall 2010
Acceptable
41.2
43.8
14.2 - 62.9
Spring 2011
Acceptable
25.9
32.8
10.5-48.6
Fall 2011
Acceptable
27
41.2
13.4-59.5
Spring 2012
Acceptable
58.4
57.3
18.8-80.5
Fall 2012
Acceptable
71.6
76.4
25.2 -105
Spring 2013
Acceptable
Pyridine
...
0
...
Fall 2010
Not Reported
<25
0
...
Spring 2011
Acceptable
<2.5
< 10.0
0.00 -10.0
Fall 2011
Acceptable
< 10
< 10.0
0.00 -10.0
Spring 2012
Acceptable
< 10
< 10.0
0.00 -10.0
Fall 2012
Acceptable
< 10
< 10.0
0.00 -10.0
Spring 2013
Acceptable
-------
A-244
Table A28. Field QC Data for YSI Electrode Measurements.
Parameter
Electrode Reading
Acceptance Range
Performance Evaluation
September 2011
September 19, 2011 initial/ mid-day
Specific Conductance
7826
7630 - 8010
Acceptable
ORP
224.2
212 -242
Acceptable
PH
7.00
6.8-7.2
Acceptable
September 19, 2011 end of day
Specific Conductance
7921
7130 - 8010
Acceptable
ORP
221.6
212-242
Acceptable
PH
7.01
6.8-7.2
Acceptable
September 20, 2011 initial
Specific Conductance
8003
7630 - 8010
Acceptable
ORP
229.3
212-242
Acceptable
PH
7.01
6.8-7.2
Acceptable
September 20, 2011 mid-day
Specific Conductance
7996
7690 - 8080
Acceptable
ORP
245.9
204 - 254
Acceptable
PH
6.99
6.8-7.2
Acceptable
September 20, 2011 end of day
Specific Conductance
8043
7690 - 8080
Acceptable
ORP
233.4
204 - 234
Acceptable
PH
7.02
6.8-7.2
Acceptable
September 21, 2011 initial
Specific Conductance
8048
7690 - 8080
Acceptable
ORP
232.1
204 - 235
Acceptable
PH
6.98
6.8-7.2
Acceptable
September 21, 2011 mid-day
Specific Conductance
7994
7690 - 8080
Acceptable
ORP
233.8
204 - 234
Acceptable
PH
6.98
6.8-7.2
Acceptable
September 21, 2011 end of day
Specific Conductance
7924
7630 - 8010
Acceptable
ORP
225.6
212-242
Acceptable
PH
6.95
6.8-7.2
Acceptable
September 22, 2011 initial
Specific Conductance
7919
7630 - 8010
Acceptable
ORP
226.6
212-242
Acceptable
PH
6.96
6.8-7.2
Acceptable
September 22, 2011 mid-day
Specific Conductance
7829
7630 - 8010
Acceptable
ORP
230.6
212-242
Acceptable
PH
7.04
6.8-7.2
Acceptable
-------
A-245
Table A28. Field QC Data for YSI Electrode Measurements.
Parameter
Electrode Reading
Acceptance Range
Performance Evaluation
September 22, 2011 end day
Specific Conductance
7856
7690 - 8080
Acceptable
ORP
229.3
204 - 234
Acceptable
PH
7.01
6.8-7.2
Acceptable
March 2012
March 5, 2012 initial
Specific Conductance
7727
7600 - 7950
Acceptable
ORP
232.5
229-261
Acceptable
PH
6.97
6.8-7.2
Acceptable
March 5, 2012 mid-day
Specific Conductance
7856
7630 - 7970
Acceptable
ORP
223.5
222-252
Acceptable
PH
7.07
6.8-7.2
Acceptable
March 5, 2012 end day
Specific Conductance
7684
7630 - 8010
Acceptable
ORP
220.3
212-242
Acceptable
PH
7.07
6.8-7.2
Acceptable
March 6, 2012 initial
Specific Conductance
7865
7600 - 7950
Acceptable
ORP
241.1
229-261
Acceptable
PH
7.01
6.8-7.2
Acceptable
March 6, 2012 mid-day
Specific Conductance
7637
7630 - 7970
Acceptable
ORP
233.6
222-252
Acceptable
PH
7.05
6.8-7.2
Acceptable
March 6, 2012 end day
Specific Conductance
7703
7630 - 7970
Acceptable
ORP
231.6
222-252
Acceptable
PH
6.95
6.8-7.2
Acceptable
March 7, 2012 initial
Specific Conductance
7952
7630 - 7970
Acceptable
ORP
241.7
222-252
Acceptable
PH
7.02
6.8-7.2
Acceptable
March 7, 2012 mid-day
Specific Conductance
7892
7630 - 7970
Acceptable
ORP
239.8
222-252
Acceptable
PH
7.06
6.8-7.2
Acceptable
March 7, 2012 end day
Specific Conductance
7787
7630 - 7970
Acceptable
ORP
237.9
222-252
Acceptable
PH
7.06
6.8-7.2
Acceptable
-------
A-246
Table A28. Field QC Data for YSI Electrode Measurements.
Parameter
Electrode Reading
Acceptance Range
Performance Evaluation
March 8, 2012 initial
Specific Conductance
7667
7630 -7970
Acceptable
ORP
235.9
222-252
Acceptable
PH
7.04
6.8-7.2
Acceptable
March 8, 2012 end day
Specific Conductance
7786
7630 -7970
Acceptable
ORP
242.8
222-252
Acceptable
PH
7.06
6.8-7.2
Acceptable
September 2012
September 17, 2012 initial
Specific Conductance
8001
7630 - 8010
Acceptable
ORP
229.9
212-242
Acceptable
PH
7.06
6.8-7.2
Acceptable
September 17, 2012 mid-day
Specific Conductance
7995
7690 - 8080
Acceptable
ORP
214.4
204 - 234
Acceptable
PH
7.11
6.8-7.2
Acceptable
September 17, 2012 end day
Specific Conductance
7925
7690 - 8080
Acceptable
ORP
222.4
204 - 234
Acceptable
PH
7.07
6.8-7.2
Acceptable
December 2012
December 3, 2012 initial
Specific Conductance
7994
7630 - 8010
Acceptable
ORP
233.4
222-252
Acceptable
PH
6.96
6.8-7.2
Acceptable
December 3, 2012 mid-day
Specific Conductance
7977
7630 - 8010
Acceptable
ORP
230.5
212-242
Acceptable
PH
6.99
6.8-7.2
Acceptable
December 3, 2012 end day
Specific Conductance
7891
7630 - 8010
Acceptable
ORP
226.8
212 -242
Acceptable
PH
6.98
6.8-7.2
Acceptable
December 4, 2012 initial
Specific Conductance
8004
7630 - 8010
Acceptable
ORP
252.1
212-242
Acceptable
PH
6.99
6.8-7.2
Acceptable
December 4, 2012 mid-day
Specific Conductance
7910
7630 - 8010
Acceptable
-------
A-247
Table A28. Field QC Data for YSI Electrode Measurements.
Parameter
Electrode Reading
Acceptance Range
Performance Evaluation
ORP
233.5
212-242
Acceptable
PH
6.97
6.8-7.2
Acceptable
December 4, 2012 end day
Specific Conductance
7937
7630 - 8010
Acceptable
ORP
233.5
212 - 242
Acceptable
PH
6.96
6.8-7.2
Acceptable
December 5, 2012 initial
Specific Conductance
7662
7630 - 7970
Acceptable
ORP
235.4
222-252
Acceptable
PH
6.96
6.8-7.2
Acceptable
December 5, 2012 mid-day
Specific Conductance
7742
7630 - 7970
Acceptable
ORP
237.9
222-252
Acceptable
PH
6.98
6.8-7.2
Acceptable
December 5, 2012 end day
Specific Conductance
7705
7630 - 7970
Acceptable
ORP
236.0
222-252
Acceptable
PH
6.94
6.8-7.2
Acceptable
May 2013
May 28, 2013 initial
Specific Conductance
7817
7690 -8080
Acceptable
ORP
223.8
204 - 234
Acceptable
PH
6.96
6.8-7.2
Acceptable
May 28, 2013 end day
Specific Conductance
7741
7690 - 8080
Acceptable
ORP
223.4
204 - 234
Acceptable
PH
6.99
6.8-7.2
Acceptable
May 29, 2013 initial1
Specific Conductance2
7640
7630 - 8010
Acceptable
ORP3
237.5
212 - 242
Acceptable
PH4
7.09
6.8-7.2
Acceptable
May 29, 2013 initial
Specific Conductance
7684
7630 - 8080
Acceptable
ORP
229.4
212-242
Acceptable
PH
6.96
6.8-7.2
Acceptable
May 29, 2013 end day1
Specific Conductance
7730
7630 - 8010
Acceptable
ORP
220
212-242
Acceptable
PH
7.01
6.8-7.2
Acceptable
May 29, 2013 mid-day
Specific Conductance
7751
7690 - 8080
Acceptable
-------
A-248
Table A28. Field QC Data for YSI Electrode Measurements.
Parameter
Electrode Reading
Acceptance Range
Performance Evaluation
ORP
224.1
204 - 234
Acceptable
PH
7.03
6.8-7.2
Acceptable
May 29 , 2013 end day
Specific Conductance
7720
7690 -8080
Acceptable
ORP
223.7
204 - 234
Acceptable
PH
7.03
6.8-7.2
Acceptable
May 30, 2013 initial
Specific Conductance
7738
7630 - 8010
Acceptable
ORP
230.3
212-242
Acceptable
PH
6.98
6.8-7.2
Acceptable
May 30, 2013 end day
Specific Conductance
7754
7630 - 8010
Acceptable
ORP
228.9
212-242
Acceptable
PH
7.00
6.8-7.2
Acceptable
1YSI was not used to measure field parameters in the produced water sample to reduce possibility of cross contamination.
2Oakton Acorn Series CON 6 conductivity meter.
3Oakton pH 110 series meter with ORP electrode
4Oakton pH 110 series meter with pH electrode.
-------
A-249
Table A29. Tentatively Identified Compounds (TICs) for sVOCs.
Sample
Compound (CAS Number)
Estimated
Concentration
(M-g/L)
September 2011 Sampling Event
Field Blank 9/19/2011
2-nonanone (821-55-6)
0.40
2-undecanone (112-12-9)
1.64
Equipment Blank
9/19/2011
2-nonanone (821-55-6)
0.44
2-undecanone (112-12-9)
1.77
2.4-bis(l,l-dimethylethyl)phenol (96-76-4)
0.69
Diisobutyl phthalate (84-69-5)
3.35
Butylcyclohexyl phthalate (84-64-0)
0.44
WISETXGW06-092011
Diisobutyl phthalate (84-69-5)
1.56
WISETXGW07-092011
Diisobutyl phthalate (84-69-5)
0.71
WISETXGW08-092011
Butyl isobutyl phthalate (017851-53-5)
0.87
Equipment Blank
9/20/2011
2-undecanone (112-12-9)
1.25
2.4-bis(l,l-dimethylethyl)phenol (96-76-4)
1.49
4-(l,l,3,3-tetramethylbutyl) phenol (140-66-9)
0.26
Diisobutyl phthalate (84-69-5)
2.89
Tridecanoic acid (638-53-9)
0.83
Octadecanoic acid
0.36
WISETXGW02-092011
3-hexanone (589-38-8)
0.62
2-hexanone (591-78-6)
0.97
3-heptanone (106-35-4)
0.76
Acetophenone (983-86-2)
0.32
Diisobutyl phthalate (84-69-5)
0.50
WISETXGW03-092011
3-hexanone (589-38-8)
0.39
2-hexanone (591-78-6)
0.59
3-heptanone (106-35-4)
0.36
WISETXGW12-092011
Butyl isobutyl phthalate (017851-53-5)
1.01
Field Blank 9/21/2011
2-nonanone (821-55-6)
0.37
2-undecanone (112-12-9)
1.52
Equipment Blank
9/21/2011
2-nonanone (821-55-6)
0.45
2-undecanone (112-12-9)
1.49
2.4-bis(l,l-dimethylethyl)phenol (96-76-4)
1.45
WISETXGW05-092011
Butyl isobutyl phthalate (017851-53-5)
1.84
Butyl citrate (77-94-1)
0.94
WISETXGW09-092011
Butyl isobutyl phthalate (017851-53-5)
0.98
WISETXGW11-092011
Hexamethyl Cyclosiloxane (541-05-9)
0.66
Butyl isobutyl phthalate (017851-53-5)
0.60
WISETXSW01-092011
2,4-bis(l,l-dimethylethyl)phenol (96-76-4)
0.75
Pentadecanoic acid (001002-84-2)
0.30
-------
A-250
Table A29. Tentatively Identified Compounds (TICs) for sVOCs.


Estimated
Sample
Compound (CAS Number)
Concentration
(M-g/L)

1,3,5,7-cyclooctatetraene (629-20-9)
0.26
WISETXSW02-092011
2,4-bis(l,l-dimethylethyl)phenol (96-76-4)
0.63

Pentadecanoic acid (001002-84-2)
0.34
WISETXSW02-092011
DUP
Heptadecane (629-78-7)
0.26
2,4-bis(l,l-dimethylethyl)phenol (96-76-4)
0.78
n-hexadecanoic acid (57-10-3)
0.41

2-nonanone (821-55-6)
0.70
Field Blank 9/22/2011
2,4-bis(l,l-dimethylethyl)phenol (96-76-4)
0.78

n-hexadecanoic acid (57-10-3)
0.41

2-nonanone (821-55-6)
0.57
Equipment Blank
2-undecanone (112-12-9)
1.65
9/22/2011
2,4-bis(l,l-dimethylethyl)phenol (96-76-4)
1.04

Butyl isobutyl phthalate (017851-53-5)
0.27

2,4-bis(l,l-dimethylethyl)phenol (96-76-4)
0.72
WISETXSW03-092011
n-hexadecanoic acid (57-10-3)
0.31

Diisooctyl phthalate
0.29

3-Hexanone (589-39-8)
0.39

2- Hexanone (591-78-6)
0.75
Field Blank 9/20/2011
3-Heptanone (106-35-4)
0.62
2-Nonanone (821-55-6)
0.52

Decanal (112-12-9)
0.25

2-Undecanone (112-12-9)
2.07
March 2012 Sampling Event
WISETXGW01-032012
n-hexadecanoic acid (57-10-3)
1.66
Octadecanoic acid (57-11-4)
1.04
Field Blank 1 3/5/2012
2-undecanone (112-12-9)
1.07
Field Blank 2 3/6/2012
2-undecanone (112-12-9)
1.19
WISETXGW05-032012
Nonanal (124-19-6)
0.76
9Z-octadecenamide (301-02-0)
1.45
WISETXSW01-032012
2,6-dichlorobenzoic acid (50-30-6)
27.21
WISETXSW02-032012
2,6-dichlorobenzoic acid (50-30-6)
20.6
WISETXSW02-032012
DUP
2,6-dichlorobenzoic acid (50-30-6)
18.98
Field Blank 3 3/7/2012
2-undecanone (112-12-9)
1.09
WISETXSW03-032012
2,6-dichlorobenzoic acid (50-30-6)
29.52
Brassicasterol (474-67-9)
0.53
Field Blank 4 3/8/2012
2-undecanone (112-12-9)
1.61
WISETXGW07-032012
Decanal (112-31-2)
0.58
-------
A-251
Table A29. Tentatively Identified Compounds (TICs) for sVOCs.
Sample
Compound (CAS Number)
Estimated
Concentration
(M-g/L)
September 2012
No sVOC analysis this event
December 2012
Field Blank 1-122012
2-undecanone (112-12-9)
1.59
WISETXGW04-122012
Butyl citrate
0.100
WISETXSW04-122012
y-Sitosterol (83-47-6)
2.48
Trans-l,2-cyclohexanediol (1460-57-7)
10.3
(3-G)-cholest-5en-3-ol (57-88-5)
3.28
Cyclohexadecane (295-65-8)
2.96
2-hydroxy-cyclohexanone (533-60-8)
1.52
Phytol (150-86-7)
0.680
Stigmasterol (83-48-7)
3.04
WISETXSW04-122012
DUP
2-hydroxy-cyclohexanone (533-60-8)
1.76
y-Sitosterol (83-47-6)
4.88
(3-fc)- 3-hydroxy- 27-Norcholest-5-en-25-one (7494-34-0)
3.24
3,7,ll,15-Tetramethyl-2-Hexadecen-l-ol (102608-53-7)
1.56
cis-l,2-Cyclohexanediol (1792-81-0)
12.4
Hexadecane (544-76-3)
0.640
3,5-dedihydro-stigmastan-6,22-dien (107304-12-1)
2.92
Androst-5,15-dien-3-ol acetate (1000251-88-0)
1.24
Field Blank 2-122012
2-undecanone (112-12-9)
0.690

3,5-Di-tert-butyl-4-hydroxybenzaldehyde (1620-98-0)
0.180
Pump Equipment Blank
1-122012
2-nonanone (821-55-6)
0.350
2-undecanone (112-12-9)
1.41
WISETXGW08-122012
Tert-butyl-benzene (98-06-6
0.200
l-ethyl-3methyl-benzene
0.220
WISETXGW16-122012
1,2,3-Trichloro-l-propene (13116-57-9)
1.56
Field Blank 3-122012
2-undecanone (112-12-9)
0.730
3,5-di-tert-butyl-4-hydroxy-benzaldehyde (1620-98-0)
0.150
May 2013
No sVOC analysis this event
-------
A-252
Table A30. QA/QC Narrative Associated with the EPA Region 8 Laboratories
TSA.
Finding/Observation
QC Narrative
Response
Number, Type, and Frequency of
Field QA/QC Samples
The Region 8 laboratory would like
clarification on the field QA/QC
samples to expect. Table 9 of the
QAPP identifies a basic frequency,
but it is not completely clear to
which analytical methods the
frequency applies other than Trip
Blanks for VOCs and Dissolved
Gases.
Clarification was provided to the lab
and the QAPP will be revised to
make this more clear
Region VIII Laboratory QA/QC
Measurement Criteria
Table 14 of the QAPP differs in some
respects from the actual limits used
by the laboratory.
An updated table was provided by
the laboratory and the QAPP Table
14 will be revised.
-------
A-253
Table A31. QA/QC Narrative Associated with the RSKERC Laboratories TSA.
Finding/Observation
QC Narrative
Response
Calibration Check Gas Sources for
Dissolved Gases Analysis
The SOP (RSKSOP-194v4) includes
the use of a second source (SS) gas
standard, to be analyzed for each
target analyte after the first
continuing calibration check (CC)
standard is run. The laboratory has
two NIST traceable gas standards,
identified as 15DB (used for the
CCC) and 2DB (used as the SS).
These standards are used directly
from the cylinders, with no prior
dilution. However, the
concentrations of all analytes in
both calibration standards are
identical, based upon the
certification documents. The
laboratory personnel then asked if
the gas standards were from
separate lots and learned they were
not, and were from the same
source. The laboratory already had
on order new calibration standards
that are confirmed from separate
lots. This new source (separate lot)
will be used as an SS in the future.
Use of NIST certified gas standards
that are not diluted prior to use
ensures accuracy. However, a
second source should be procured
as an added level of quality
assurance.
Shaw received NIST certified gas
standards which contain analytes in
different concentrations and thus
different lots on August 2, 2011.
These standards were installed on
August 3, 2011 and are currently in
use as a Calibration Check Standard
and a Second Source Standard.
Pressure Gauge Check for the
Dissolved Gases Analysis
Section 11.a of the SOP used for
Dissolved Gas Preparation (RSKSOP-
175v5) includes the use of a
calibrated gauge that is certified
against a NIST standard annually.
Before using the gauge for each
queue (batch) of samples, it is
checked using helium gas supply set
at 20 psi to ensure it is within 5%.
This gauge check is performed by
the laboratory before each batch of
samples is analyzed. However, the
gauge reading is not routinely
recorded in the notebook. The
pressure check should be recorded
and included in the notebook with
Shaw staff started recording the
gauge reading routinely on August
2, 2011 in the analyst's laboratory
notebook preceding every batch of
samples analyzed according to
RSKSOP-175v5.
-------
A-254
Table A31. QA/QC Narrative Associated with the RSKERC Laboratories TSA.
Finding/Observation
QC Narrative
Response

the sample analytical data to
document this QA check.

-------
A-255
Table A32. QA/QC Narrative Associated with the Southwest Research Institute
(SwRI) Analytical Laboratory TSA.
Finding/Observation
QC Narrative
Response
True second source standards were
not used for t-butyl alcohol and
isopropyl alcohol.
A true second source standard had
not yet been purchased by the
laboratory for theRaton Basin
samples because of the short time
frame required between project
initiation and sample analysis. For
this reason the laboratory used the
same standard source as the
calibration, but the dilution from
the stock solution was prepared by
a different analyst. The laboratory
noted that they would purchase a
true second source for these
compounds for the remainder of
the project.
The QA Team will contact the
Project Officer to ensure that
appropriate standards have been
purchased and are in use. If the
same calibration curve is still in use
for VOAs, we will determine
whether it has been successfully
confirmed with a true second
source standard. SwRI was
contacted and they confirmed that
they have "true" second source
standards for t-butyl alcohol and
isopropyl alcohol. The calibration
curves for these compounds used
for the samples from Wise were
verified with these true second
source standards. The calibration
curves for these compounds which
were used for the samples from
Raton Basin were not directly
verified. However, the same
calibration standards were used to
prepare the curves in both
instances, so there is an
independent verification of the
calibration standards. In addition,
for the Raton Basin samples, a
second analyst independently
prepared a "second source" from
the calibration standards. VOC
analysis was not performed by SwRI
on the Sept 2011 data set. No
impact on VOC data quality.
VOC samples from Raton Basin
Round 3 were received above the
specified temperature.
Although one would normally
expect a shipping company to
deliver a shipment at its scheduled
time, there may be additional
measures that could be taken to
ensure that the integrity of a whole
batch of samples would not be
compromised due to a late delivery.
For follow-up with shipping
companies and laboratories: If the
lab does not notify the PI that a
shipment has arrived when
expected, the PI or a designee could
contact the lab for confirmation or
contact the shipping company to
determine if alternate delivery
arrangements can be made for a
more timely delivery. For
implementation in the spreadsheet
for effected data sets: All VOC
results for the Raton Basin Round 3
samples received at the elevated
-------
A-256
Table A32. QA/QC Narrative Associated with the Southwest Research Institute
(SwRI) Analytical Laboratory TSA.
Finding/Observation	QC Narrative	Response
temperature of 15 degrees C for
Raton Basin Round 3 should be
qualified with a J- to indicate the
potential low bias due to delivery at
elevated temperature. The affected
samples are: RBDW06-1112,
RBDW09-1112, RBDW10-1112,
RBDW10-1112 DUP, RBDW14-1112,
RBDW15-1112, RBEqBlk04-1112,
RBFBIk04-1112, and RBTripBlk04-
1112. Does not apply to the Wise
data set. No impact on data quality.
-------
A-257
Table A33. QA/QC Narrative Associated with the Wise Field TSA.
Finding/Observation
Field measurements for alkalinity,
ferrous iron, sulfide, and turbidity
did not include blanks and
duplicates at specific intervals as
described in the QAPP.
Pump Flow Control for Sample
WISETXGW01-0911,9/20/11: Per
the PI interview and the project
field notebook, an out-of-
specification wellhead configuration
was encountered at the well that
yielded sample ID WISETXGWL#01-
0911. The auditor was not present
during the sampling but understood
that despite several pre-
mobilization communications with
the well owner who indicated a
valve would be installed at the
wellhead for flow control and
sampling, no valve was installed,
and the well pump was only able to
be operated at an open discharge
flow rate of approximately 30
gallons per minute. The NRMRL
field team directed the discharge to
a 1 liter graduated cylinder to
collect the water used to then direct
into bottles for laboratory analysis
or field parameters.
QC Narrative
Blanks are to be performed at
beginning of the day, midday, and
end of day. Duplicate are to be
performed once a day or every 10th
sample.
Reasonable effort was made in
advance of mobilization to ensure
that the well was suitably
configured to meet project
objectives. Outside the control of
the NRMRL team, these conditions
were not encountered. The need to
collect samples in the 1 liter
graduated cylinder should be noted
with the data at this location.
Response
The PI will ensure the blanks and
duplicates are collected and
analyzed at required intervals.
The configuration of wells is outside
the control of the sampling team.
The property owner does not wish
to modify the well. The 2014 report
will note the deviation from the
sampling procedure in the
appropriate QA section.
-------
Appendix B Sample Results, Retrospective Case Study in Wise County, Texas
May 2015
Appendix B
Sample Results
Retrospective Case Study in Wise County, Texas
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Research and Development
Washington, DC
May 2015
EPA/600/R-14/090
B-l
-------
Appendix B Sample Results, Retrospective Case Study in Wise County, Texas
May 2015
Table of Contents
Tables
Table B-l	Sample Results - Field Parameters (Wise County, Texas)	B-6
Table B-2	Sample Results - Anions and Ammonia (Wise County, Texas)	B-13
Table B-3	Sample Results - Dissolved and Total Metals (Wise County, Texas)	B-20
Table B-4	Sample Results - Volatile Organic Compounds (Wise County, Texas)	B-44
Table B-5 Sample Results - Dissolved Gases, Diesel and Gasoline Range Organics, Glycols,
and Low Molecular Weight Acids (Wise County, Texas)	B-64
Table B-6 Sample Results - Semivolatile Organic Compounds
(Wise County, Texas)	B-73
Table B-7 Sample Results - Water Isotopes and Strontium Isotopes (Wise County, Texas)	B-103
B-2
-------
B-3
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.
fRound 3 - Due to extremely high concentrations of CI in the sample the analysis was conducted using RSKSOP-214v5(Lachat FIA & Standard Methods 4500-Br) D; MDL= 0.09
mg/L and QL= 0.50 mg/L for PW01 only.
§ Round 3 - Due to extremely high concentrations of CI the sample analysis was conducted
using RSKSOP-288v3; MDL= 0.16 mg/L and QL= 1.00 mg/L for PW01 only,
t Round 3 - Due to extremely high concentrations of CI the sample had to be diluted to a point
where the concentration of F could not be accurately obtained for PW01 only.
Table B-3 Rounds 1 and 2 - Data rejected because of known bromide interference on the Se mass analyzed.
Round 1.- Data rejected for Sb because of potential spectral (mass or emission) interference.
R. Rounds 1 and 2- Data rejected. 1,1,2-trichloroethane is subject to alkaline hydrolysis to 1,1-dichloroethene. This reaction could be supported by the
Table B-4 samp|g preservative (trisodium phosphate).
Table B-5 The method used for glycol analysis is under development.
Round 4 - R. Data rejected. Formate contamination in Field Blanks.
Table B-6 No matrix spike or matrix spike duplicate (MS/MSD) samples were collected and analyzed for the SVOC analytical suite for Round 2.
Table B-2
-------
Appendix B. Sample Results - Legend {Wise County, Texas)
Acronyms

Units

CAS
Chemical Abstracts Service
BTU
British thermal unit
DIC
Dissolved Inorganic Carbon
°C
Degrees Celsius
DO
Dissolved Oxygen
l^g/L
Micrograms per liter
DOC
Dissolved Organic Carbon
mg/L
Milligrams per liter
DRO
Diesel Range Organics
mS/cm
Millisiemens per centimeter at 25°C
GRO
Gasoline Range Organics
pCi/L
Picocuries per liter
NA
Not Applicable (See QAPP)


ND
Not Detected


NR
Not Reported by Laboratory or Field Sampling Team
Key

NS
Not Sampled
PW
Production Well
ORP
Oxidation reduction potential
GW
Ground water sample
SPC
Specific Conductance
SW
Surface water sample
TDS
Total Dissolved Solids
04
Sampling location
TKN
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen
d
Field Duplicate
TPH
Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons


Gross Alpha
Gross alpha particle activity


Gross Beta
Gross beta particle activity


-------
Appendix B. Sample Results. Legend (Wise County, Texas
Metals and Isotopes
Ag
Silver
Hg
Mercury
Sb
Al
Aluminum
K
Potassium
Se
As
Arsenic
Li
Lithium
Si
B
Boron
Mg
Magnesium
Sr
Ba
Barium
Mn
Manganese
Th
Be
Beryllium
Mo
Molybdenum
Ti
Ca
Calcium
Na
Sodium
Tl
Cd
Cadmium
Ni
Nickel
U
Co
Cobalt
P
Phosphorus
V
Cr
Chromium
Pb
Lead
Zn
Cu
Copper
Rb
Rubidium

Fe
Iron
S
Sulfur

B-5
Antimony
62H
Selenium
6lsO
Silicon

Strontium

Thorium

Titanium

Thallium

Uranium

Vanadium

Zinc

[(2H/H) Sample/(2H/H) Standard] * 1000
[(1S0/160) Sample/(ls0/160) Standard] * 1000
-------
B-6
Table B-l Sample Results - Field Parameters (Wise County, Texas)

Sample
GW01
GW01
GW01
GW01
GW01
GW02
GW02
GW02
GW02

Sample Date
9/20/11
3/5/12
9/20/12
12/3/12
5/28/13
9/20/11
3/5/12
12/3/12
5/28/13
Parameter
Unit
Round 1
Round 2
Round 3
Round 4
Round 5
Round 1
Round 2
Round 4
Round 5
Temperature
°c
20.7
20.7
20.7
20.7
20.7
23.8
19.0
20.4
21.5
SPC
mS/cm
3.096
6.556
2.579
6.614
6.542
0.986
0.955
1.045
1.004
TDS
mg/L
2012
4262
1675
4302
4252
641
621
679
653
DO
mg/L
2.28
3.31
1.90
2.96
2.37
2.20
0.15
0.50
0.62
PH

8.01
7.57
8.31
7.54
7.48
8.55
8.45
8.50
8.35
ORP
mV
-123
-99
-132.3
-82.2
-79.9
336
186
208.3
80.0
Turbidity
NTU
2.0
8.0
1.19
2.50
8.30
0.5
0.4
0.32
0.65
Alkalinity
mg CaC03/L
168
116
217
115
116
261
272
293
298
Ferrous Iron
mg Fe2+/L
0.06 J
0.25 J
<0.03 U
0.29 J
0.08 J
<0.03 U
<0.03 U
<0.03 U
<0.03 U
Hydrogen Sulfide
mg S/L
0.07 J
0.02 J
<0.01 U
<0.01 U
0.02 J
<0.01 U
<0.01 U
<0.01 U
<0.01 U
-------
B-7
Table B-l Sample Results - Field Parameters (Wise County, Texas)

Sample
GW03
GW03
GW03
GW04
GW04
GW04
GW04
GW05
GW05

Sample Date
9/20/11
3/5/12
12/3/12
9/22/11
3/6/12
12/4/12
5/29/13
9/22/11
3/6/12
Parameter
Unit
Round 1
Round 2
Round 4
Round 1
Round 2
Round 4
Round 5
Round 1
Round 2
Temperature
°c
22.8
20.7
21.1
20.5
19.4
20.0
21.0
19.5
19.9
SPC
mS/cm
0.859
0.756
0.759
0.730
0.718
0.744
0.712
1.245
0.889
TDS
mg/L
558
478
493
475
467
484
463
809
578
DO
mg/L
1.30
0.64
0.76
0.22
0.04
0.11
0.19
0.60
0.11
PH

8.14
8.12
8.09
8.79
8.83
8.76
8.42
7.09
7.38
ORP
mV
330
124
136.4
333
85
227.9
182.5
367
59
Turbidity
NTU
0.5
0.3
0.29
0.2
0.2
2.72
7.17
0.4
0.2
Alkalinity
mg CaC03/L
223
256
248
229
247
237
225
393
289
Ferrous Iron
mg Fe2+/L
<0.03 U
<0.03 U
<0.03 U
<0.03 U
<0.03 U
0.05 J
0.05 J
<0.03 U
<0.03 U
Hydrogen Sulfide
mg S/L
0.01 J
<0.01 U
<0.01 U
<0.01 U
<0.01 U
0.02 J
0.05 J
0.02 J
<0.01 U
-------
B-8
Table B-l Sample Results - Field Parameters (Wise County, Texas)

Sample
GW06
GW06
GW07
GW07
GW08
GW08
GW08
GW08
GW08

Sample Date
9/19/11
3/7/12
9/19/11
3/8/12
9/20/11
3/5/12
9/20/12
12/4/12
5/29/13
Parameter
Unit
Round 1
Round 2
Round 1
Round 2
Round 1
Round 2
Round 3
Round 4
Round 5
Temperature
°c
27.1
19.5
24.3
17.2
21.8
15.4
22.8
22.0
22.4
SPC
mS/cm
1.213
1.177
0.674
0.662
5.401
6.267
3.335
2.940
3.520
TDS
mg/L
789
765
438
430
3510
4074
2166
1910
2288
DO
mg/L
0.58
0.15
0.77
0.08
0.14
2.51
0.23
0.14
0.06
PH

6.87
6.82
7.02
6.91
8.27
8.10
8.38
8.15
8.49
ORP
mV
90
6
139
3
309
202
30.7
117.5
-263.1
Turbidity
NTU
3.2
14.1
17
11.7
0.9
1.0
1.39
1.46
1.57
Alkalinity
mg CaC03/L
327
366
251
281
214
231
270
247
268
Ferrous Iron
mg Fe2+/L
0.34 J
0.30 J
0.38 J
0.13 J
<0.03 U
<0.03 U
0.09 J
<0.03 U
<0.03 U
Hydrogen Sulfide
mg S/L
0.07 J
0.01 J
<0.01 U
0.04 J
<0.01 U
<0.01 U
0.01 J
0.01 J
0.02 J
-------
Table B-l Sample Results - Field Parameters (Wise County, Texas)

Sample
GW09
GW09
GW10
GW10
GW11
GW11
GW12

Sample Date
9/21/11
3/7/12
9/22/11
3/7/12
9/22/11
3/7/12
9/21/11
Parameter
Unit
Round 1
Round 2
Round 1
Round 2
Round 1
Round 2
Round 1
Temperature
°c
23.8
15.9
21.3
19.4
19.4
18.5
20.9
SPC
mS/cm
0.640
0.623
0.560
0.550
0.642
0.639
0.578
TDS
mg/L
416
405
364
358
417
415
376
DO
mg/L
0.55
0.44
0.07
0.06
0.14
0.13
0.40
PH

8.97
9.11
8.00
8.03
7.48
7.45
7.55
ORP
mV
333
121
284
-17
253
-32
201
Turbidity
NTU
0.7
0.4
0.1
0.8
0.2
0.4
0.5
Alkalinity
mg CaC03/L
242
259
241
243
278
27
232
Ferrous Iron
mg Fe2+/L
<0.03 U
<0.03 U
<0.03 U
<0.03 U
<0.03 U
<0.03 U
<0.03 U
Hydrogen Sulfide
mg S/L
<0.01 U
0.01 J
<0.01 U
0.01 J
<0.01 U
0.01 J
0.01 J
-------
B-10
Table B-l Sample Results - Field Parameters (Wise County, Texas)

Sample
GW13
GW13
GW13
GW14
GW14
GW14
GW15
GW15
GW15

Sample Date
3/5/12
12/3/12
5/28/13
3/5/12
12/5/12
5/28/13
3/6/12
12/5/12
5/30/13
Parameter
Unit
Round 2
Round 4
Round 5
Round 2
Round 4
Round 5
Round 2
Round 4
Round 5
Temperature
°c
20.2
20.3
20.5
20.8
20.6
21.3
18.8
20.0
21.6
SPC
mS/cm
0.779
0.792
0.744
0.786
0.767
0.768
0.881
0.874
0.946
TDS
mg/L
507
516
484
511
498
499
573
568
615
DO
mg/L
4.39
3.14
2.55
0.90
0.80
0.70
0.08
0.08
0.13
PH

8.81
8.75
8.23
8.76
8.79
8.41
8.81
8.68
8.61
ORP
mV
82
112.6
52.7
133
201.3
165.8
154
129.0
208.4
Turbidity
NTU
0.3
0.48
0.31
0.5
0.36
0.52
1.6
1.82
0.30
Alkalinity
mg CaC03/L
229
255
233
227
248
251
242
273
251
Ferrous Iron
mg Fe2+/L
<0.03 U
0.03 U
<0.03 U
<0.03 U
<0.03 U
<0.03 U
<0.03 U
<0.03 U
0.03 J
Hydrogen Sulfide
mg S/L
0.01 J
<0.01 U
<0.01 U
0.01 J
0.01 J
<0.01 U
<0.01 U
0.02 J
<0.01 U
-------
B-ll
Table B-l Sample Results - Field Parameters (Wise County, Texas)

Sample
GW16
GW16
GW16
PW01
PW02
PW03
SW01
SW01

Sample Date
3/6/12
12/5/12
5/30/13
9/20/12
5/29/13
5/29/13
9/21/11
3/6/12
Parameter
Unit
Round 2
Round 4
Round 5
Round 3
Round 5
Round 5
Round 1
Round 2
Temperature
°c
20.9
20.0
22.5
20.5
21.36
22.49
25.90
15.60
SPC
mS/cm
0.777
0.783
0.805
218.9
0.287
184.2
0.24
0.247
TDS
mg/L
505
509
525
142300
187
119730
156
160
DO
mg/L
0.21
0.22
0.25
0.62
6.28
1.19
10.30
9.55
PH

8.51
8.48
8.27
5.36
5.90
5.68
8.65
8.50
ORP
mV
149
250.2
172.8
-0.7
-69.4
75.0
339.00
144
Turbidity
NTU
0.2
0.10
0.10
28.6
199.00
269.00
2.0
2.2
Alkalinity
mg CaC03/L
268
245
264
81
74
96
81
101
Ferrous Iron
mg Fe2+/L
<0.03 U
<0.03 U
0.03 J
NA
1.82 J
3.30 J
<0.03 U
0.03 J
Hydrogen Sulfide
mg S/L
<0.01 U
0.01 U
0.02 J
NA
0.23 J
0.80 J
0.08 J
<0.01 U
-------
B-12
Table B-l Sample Results - Field Parameters (Wise County, Texas)

Sample
SW02
SW02
SW03
SW03
SW04
SW04

Sample Date
9/21/11
3/6/12
9/22/11
3/7/12
12/4/12
5/29/13
Parameter
Unit
Round 1
Round 2
Round 1
Round 2
Round 4
Round 5
Temperature
°c
26.10
15.60
24.20
15.50
16.29
24.43
SPC
mS/cm
0.24
0.246
0.24
0.252
0.34
0.328
TDS
mg/L
154
160
159
164
219
213
DO
mg/L
10.60
9.65
8.34
6.57
5.67
5.02
PH

8.63
8.65
8.47
8.44
7.89
7.43
ORP
mV
317.00
120
321.00
159
305.0
230.9
Turbidity
NTU
2.5
1.7
2.2
2.0
39.10
41.80
Alkalinity
mg CaC03/L
72
103
80
98
145
136
Ferrous Iron
mg Fe2+/L
<0.03 U
<0.03 U
<0.03 U
0.03 J
0.4 J
0.36 J
Hydrogen Sulfide
mg S/L
0.01 J
<0.01 U
<0.01 U
0.02 J
0.14 J
0.13 J
-------
B-13
Table B-2 Sample Results - Anions and Ammonia (Wise County, Texas)

Sample
GW01
GW01
GW01
GW01
GW01
GW02
GW02
GW02
GW02

Sample Date
9/20/11
3/5/12
9/20/12
12/3/12
5/28/13
9/20/11
3/5/12
12/3/12
5/28/13
Parameter
Unit
Round 1
Round 2
Round 3
Round 4
Round 5
Round 1
Round 2
Round 4
Round 5
Anion-Cation
Balance
%
2.98
3.1
0.061
0.2
1.1
2.05
1.4
0.3
0.4
DOC
mg/L
<0.50 U
0.43 B
0.77
<0.50 U
0.55
<0.50 U
0.32 B
<0.50 U
0.60
DIC
mg/L
50.1
29.4
55.5
29.5
28.8
67.6
67.6
70.5
70.4
Nitrate + Nitrite
mg N/L
0.01 J
<0.10 U
<0.10 U
<0.10 U
<0.10 U
0.10 J
0.27
0.15
0.11
Ammonia
mg N/L
1.77
3.62
1.56
3.51
3.65
0.78
0.55
0.63
0.66
Bromide
mg N/L
3.91 H
10.1
2.43
7.73
13.7
0.20 J,H
0.47 J
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
Chloride
mg/L
788
1950
553
1910
1970
59.2
67.4
62.5
65.5
Sulfate
mg/L
72.7
149
58.7
157
155
106
89.9
113
108
Fluoride
mg/L
<0.60 U
<0.20 U
0.34
<0.20 U
<0.20 U
<0.20 U
0.12 J
<0.20 U
0.11J
Iodide
Hg/L
NA
NA
96.1
343
368
NA
NA
19.5
20.0
-------
B-14
Table B-2 Sample Results - Anions and Ammonia (Wise County, Texas)

Sample
GW03
GW03
GW03
GW04
GW04
GW04
GW04
GW05
GW05

Sample Date
9/20/11
3/5/12
12/3/12
9/22/11
3/6/12
12/4/12
5/29/13
9/22/11
3/6/12
Parameter
Unit
Round 1
Round 2
Round 4
Round 1
Round 2
Round 4
Round 5
Round 1
Round 2
Anion-Cation
Balance
%
2.58
3.0
0.6
0.95
0.4
0.01
1.1
2.54
4.5
DOC
mg/L
<0.50 U
0.26 B
<0.50 U
<0.50 U
0.31 B
<0.50 U
0.47 J
0.96 B
0.38 B
DIC
mg/L
63.3
63.8
63.9
55.2
55.2
56.0
55.2
98.0
73.0
Nitrate + Nitrite
mg N/L
0.03 J
<0.10 U
0.02 J
<0.10 U
<0.10 U
0.01 J
0.02 J
0.10
<0.10 U
Ammonia
mg N/L
0.77
0.66
0.62
0.63
0.57
0.58
0.57
0.63
0.63
Bromide
mg N/L
0.32 J,H
0.38 J
<1.00 U
0.10 J,H
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
0.35 J,H
0.48 J
Chloride
mg/L
87.6
51.6
58.3
34.6
35.0
34.8
35.3
72.5
67.1
Sulfate
mg/L
29.5
24.8
25.3
67.3
64.2
66.3
64.8
147
61.2
Fluoride
mg/L
0.22
0.19 J
0.152 J
0.09 J
0.09 J
0.05 J
0.09 J
0.22
0.22
Iodide
Hg/L
NA
NA
20.9
NA
NA
15.1
17.6
NA
NA
-------
B-15
Table B-2 Sample Results - Anions and Ammonia (Wise County, Texas)

Sample
GW06
GW06
GW07
GW07
GW08
GW08
GW08
GW08
GW08

Sample Date
9/19/11
3/7/12
9/19/11
3/8/12
9/20/11
3/5/12
9/20/12
12/4/12
5/29/13
Parameter
Unit
Round 1
Round 2
Round 1
Round 2
Round 1
Round 2
Round 3
Round 4
Round 5
Anion-Cation
Balance
%
2.4
8.7
2.3
6.1
2.5
1.7
0.17
2.5
1.8
DOC
mg/L
0.77
0.59 B
0.85
0.74
<0.50 U
0.52 B
0.83
0.57
0.43 J
DIC
mg/L
111
105
75.6
78.1
58.5
60.6
64.8
63.8
63.4
Nitrate + Nitrite
mg N/L
<0.10 U
<0.10 U
0.03 J
<0.10 U
0.20
0.28
0.47
0.30
<0.10 U
Ammonia
mg N/L
0.10
0.11
<0.10 U
0.03 J
1.57
1.39
0.51
0.59
1.06
Bromide
mg N/L
0.17 J,H
<1.00 U
0.27 J,H
0.44 J
6.98 H
7.18
4.07
2.64 J
3.89 J
Chloride
mg/L
30.0
29.6
25.6
25.9
1480
1610
756
619
854
Sulfate
mg/L
214
224
24.1
25.4
183
206
152
143
151
Fluoride
mg/L
0.09 J
0.22
0.27
0.38
<0.20 U
0.10 J
0.14 J
0.070 J
<0.20 U
Iodide
Hg/L
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
124
119
160
-------
B-16
Table B-2 Sample Results - Anions and Ammonia (Wise County, Texas)

Sample
GW09
GW09
GW10
GW10
GW11
GW11
GW12

Sample Date
9/21/11
3/7/12
9/22/11
3/7/12
9/22/11
3/7/12
9/21/11
Parameter
Unit
Round 1
Round 2
Round 1
Round 2
Round 1
Round 2
Round 1
Anion-Cation
Balance
%
0.3
2.0
0.6
2.8
0.5
1.5
1.2
DOC
mg/L
<0.50 U
0.44 B
<0.50 U
0.36 B
<0.50 U
1.37 B
<0.50 U
DIC
mg/L
65.1
65.4
60.7
60.7
71.7
71.9
62.8
Nitrate + Nitrite
mg N/L
0.02 J
<0.10 U
<0.10 U
<0.10 U
0.04 J
<0.10 U
0.03 J
Ammonia
mg N/L
0.44
0.40
1.05
0.92
1.79
1.66
1.74
Bromide
mg N/L
<1.00 U,H
<1.00 U
<1.00 U,H
<1.00 U
<1.00 U,H
0.13 J
<1.00 U,H
Chloride
mg/L
4.62
4.56
5.53
5.66
7.07
6.98
6.19
Sulfate
mg/L
24.6
24.3
26.4
26.3
39.2
38.7
31.1
Fluoride
mg/L
0.13 J
0.09 J
0.10 J
<0.20 U
0.15 J
0.09 J
0.17 J
Iodide
Hg/L
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
-------
B-17
Table B-2 Sample Results - Anions and Ammonia (Wise County, Texas)

Sample
GW13
GW13
GW13
GW14
GW14
GW14
GW15
GW15
GW15

Sample Date
3/5/12
12/3/12
5/28/13
3/5/12
12/5/12
5/28/13
3/6/12
12/5/12
5/30/13
Parameter
Unit
Round 2
Round 4
Round 5
Round 2
Round 4
Round 5
Round 2
Round 4
Round 5
Anion-Cation
Balance
%
2.2
0.7
0.4
1.7
0.02
1.1
2.2
0.5
0.5
DOC
mg/L
0.44 B
0.78 B
0.75
0.34 B
<0.50 U
0.44 J
0.42 B
<0.50 U
0.49 J
DIC
mg/L
59.1
61.2
59.3
57.9
58.4
58.5
61.0
61.7
61.6
Nitrate + Nitrite
mg N/L
<0.10 U
<0.10 U
0.01 J
<0.10 U
0.07 J
0.07 J
<0.10 U
0.01 J
0.02 J
Ammonia
mg N/L
0.70
0.62
0.63
0.67
0.62
0.61
0.73
0.63
0.64
Bromide
mg N/L
0.26 J
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
0.28 J
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
0.65 J
<1.00 U
Chloride
mg/L
39.3
39.7
43.8
44.6
43.8
44.5
57.8
54.5
60.2
Sulfate
mg/L
67.0
69.6
61.0
65.5
65.4
64.6
91.0
84.3
106
Fluoride
mg/L
0.10 J
<0.20 U
0.06 J
0.11 J
<0.20 U
<0.20 U
0.10 J
0.100 J
0.05 J
Iodide
Hg/L
NA
16.5
19.0
NA
16.6
18.6
NA
16.7
18.3
-------
B-18
Table B-2 Sample Results - Anions and Ammonia (Wise County, Texas)

Sample
GW16
GW16
GW16
PW01
PW02
PW03
SW01
SW01

Sample Date
3/6/12
12/5/12
5/30/13
9/20/12
5/29/13
5/29/13
9/21/11
3/6/12
Parameter
Unit
Round 2
Round 4
Round 5
Round 3
Round 5
Round 5
Round 1
Round 2
Anion-Cation
Balance
%
1.4
0.3
0.4
1.72
6.1
24.7
4.1
7.5
DOC
mg/L
0.29 B
<0.50 U
0.29 J
45.7
40.0
236
6.90
6.33 B
DIC
mg/L
63.2
64.9
64.2
27.2
17.8
33.1
18.7
22.3
Nitrate + Nitrite
mg N/L
<0.10 U
0.03 J
0.03 J
<0.10 U
0.03 J
<0.10 U
0.03 J
<0.10 U
Ammonia
mg N/L
0.74
0.70
0.69
286
5.42
314
<0.10 U
<0.10 U
Bromide
mg N/L
0.27 J
<1.00 U
0.42 J
886+
2.85
903
<1.00 U,H
<1.00 U
Chloride
mg/L
68.1
67.6
70.5
143400
3.14
110100
11.1
7.24
Sulfate
mg/L
25.8
26.1
25.6
285 §
0.18 J
358
11.5
14.6
Fluoride
mg/L
0.14 J
0.14 J
0.13 J
<20 Ui
0.12 J
<0.20 U
0.16 J
0.06 J
Iodide
Hg/L
NA
21.5
24.9
57800
11.0
126000
NA
NA
-------
B-19
Table B-2 Sample Results - Anions and Ammonia (Wise County, Texas)

Sample
SW02
SW02
SW03
SW03
SW04
SW04

Sample Date
9/21/11
3/6/12
9/22/11
3/7/12
12/4/12
5/29/13
Parameter
Unit
Round 1
Round 2
Round 1
Round 2
Round 4
Round 5
Anion-Cation
Balance
%
4.7
7.2
4.1
7.9
2.0
0.8
DOC
mg/L
6.93
6.25 B
7.05
6.33 B
22.5
17.6
DIC
mg/L
17.3
22.1
18.4
22.4
35.6
33.3
Nitrate + Nitrite
mg N/L
<0.10 U
<0.10 U
0.03 J
<0.10 U
<0.10 U
0.04 J
Ammonia
mg N/L
<0.10 U
<0.10 U
<0.10 U
<0.10 U
0.08 J
0.98
Bromide
mg N/L
<1.00 U,H
<1.00 U
<1.00 U,H
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
Chloride
mg/L
10.9
7.25
11.4
7.03
7.34
10.7
Sulfate
mg/L
11.6
14.1
11.7
13.7
6.96
3.92
Fluoride
mg/L
0.14 J
0.09 J
0.17 J
0.08 J
0.07 J
0.14 J
Iodide
Hg/L
NA
NA
NA
NA
28.2
25.2
-------
B-20
Table B-3 Sample Results - Dissolved and Total Metals (Wise County, Texas)

Sample
GW01
GW01
GW01
GW01
GW01

Sample Date
9/20/11
3/5/12
9/20/12
12/3/12
5/28/13
Parameter
Unit
Round 1
Round 2
Round 3
Round 4
Round 5
Dissolved Ag
Hg/L
<14 U
<10 u
<10 u
<10 U
<10 u
Total Ag
Hg/L
<16 U
<10 u
<10 u
<10 u
<10 u
Dissolved Al
Hg/L
<494 U
122 J
<20 U
<20 U
<20 U
Total Al
Hg/L
<548 U
175 J
<20 U
32 *,J+
198
Dissolved As
Hg/L
<20 U
5.1
0.7
0.5
0.5
Total As
Hg/L
<22 U
4.8
0.8
0.6
0.7
Dissolved B
Hg/L
262 J
480
222
479
488
Total B
Hg/L
255 J
441
249
490
494
Dissolved Ba
Hg/L
64 J
132 J
39
115
110
Total Ba
Hg/L
64 J
124 J
41
114
116
Dissolved Be
Hg/L
<10 U
<5 U
<5 U
<5 U
<5 U
Total Be
Hg/L
<11 U
<5 U
<3 U
<3 U
<3 U
Dissolved Ca
mg/L
47.0
135
31.5
117
121
Total Ca
mg/L
47.8 J
128
35.4
116
116
Dissolved Cd
Hg/L
<4 U
<1.0 U
<0.20 U
<0.20 U
<0.2 U
Total Cd
Hg/L
<4 U
<1.0 U
<0.20 U
<0.20 U
<0.2 U
Dissolved Co
Hg/L
<4 U
<50 U
<5 U
<5 U
<5 U
Total Co
Hg/L
<4 U
<50 U
<3 U
<3 U
<3 U
Dissolved Cr
Hg/L
<7 U
<2.0 U
0.6 J
<2.0 U
<2 U
Total Cr
Hg/L
<8 U
<2.0 U
<2 U
<2.0 U
<2 U
Dissolved Cu
Hg/L
<20 U
<2.0 U
0.7
2.2
1.3 B
Total Cu
M^g/L
<22 U
<2.0 U
<0.5 U
0.92 *
1.0
Dissolved Fe
M^g/L
45 J
220 J-
112
228
273
Total Fe
M^g/L
115 J
259 J-
69
275
363 J+,*
Dissolved Hg
M^g/L
NA
NA
NA
<0.2 U
<0.2 U
Total Hg
Hg/L
NA
NA
NA
<0.2 U
<0.2 U
Dissolved K
mg/L
3.94 J
10.1
3.1
8.1
7.9
Total K
mg/L
4.11 J
9.25
3.4
8.2
8.1
Dissolved Li
M^g/L
NA
NR
56
152
152
Total Li
M^g/L
NA
NR
64
154
154
Dissolved Mg
mg/L
21.7
61.4
14.6
55.7
58.5
-------
B-21
Table B-3 Sample Results - Dissolved and Total Metals (Wise County, Texas)

Sample
GW02
GW02
GW02
GW02
GW03
GW03
GW03

Sample Date
9/20/11
3/5/12
12/3/12
5/28/13
9/20/11
3/5/12
12/3/12
Parameter
Unit
Round 1
Round 2
Round 4
Round 5
Round 1
Round 2
Round 4
Dissolved Ag
Hg/L
<14 U
<10 u
<10 U
<10 u
<14 U
<10 u
<10 U
Total Ag
Hg/L
<16 U
<10 u
<10 u
<10 u
<16 U
<10 u
<10 u
Dissolved Al
Hg/L
<494 U
<200 U
<20 U
<20 U
<494 U
<200 U
<20 U
Total Al
Hg/L
<548 U
<200 U
<20 U
<20 U
<548 U
<200 U
<20 U
Dissolved As
Hg/L
<20 U
<1.0 U
0.4
0.4
<20 U
1.6
0.9
Total As
Hg/L
<22 U
1.1
0.5
0.5
<22 U
1.5
1.0
Dissolved B
Hg/L
186 J
172
176
175
172 J
154
145
Total B
Hg/L
189 J
169
196
194
170 J
148
162
Dissolved Ba
Hg/L
23 J
<200 U
25.8
25
11J
<200 U
12
Total Ba
Hg/L
23 J
<200 U
25
25
11J
<200 U
12
Dissolved Be
Hg/L
<10 U
<5 U
<5 U
<5 U
<10 u
<5 U
<5 U
Total Be
Hg/L
<11 U
<5 U
<3 U
<3 U
<11 u
<5 U
<3 U
Dissolved Ca
mg/L
4.12
5.22
4.9
4.5
7.21
6.93
6.6
Total Ca
mg/L
4.29 J
5.25
4.9
4.4
7.48 J
6.78
6.68
Dissolved Cd
Hg/L
<4 U
<1.0 U
<0.20 U
<0.2 U
<4 U
<1.0 U
<0.20 U
Total Cd
Hg/L
<4 U
<1.0 U
<0.20 U
<0.2 U
<4 U
<1.0 U
<0.20 U
Dissolved Co
Hg/L
<4 U
<50 U
<5 U
<5 U
<4 U
<50 U
<5 U
Total Co
Hg/L
<4 U
<50 U
<3 U
<3 U
<4 U
<50 U
<3 U
Dissolved Cr
Hg/L
<7 U
<2.0 U
3.1
<2 U
<7 U
<2.0 U
2.3
Total Cr
Hg/L
<8 U
<2.0 U
<2.0 U
<2 U
<8 U
<2.0 U
<2.0 U
Dissolved Cu
Hg/L
<20 U
<2.0 U
0.7
0.5 J,B
<20 U
<2.0 U
1.6
Total Cu
M^g/L
<22 U
2.30
1.4 *
0.8
<22 U
<2.0 U
2.1 *
Dissolved Fe
M^g/L
<67 U
<100 U,J-
<100 U
<100 U
<67 U
<100 U,J-
<100 U
Total Fe
M^g/L
<74 U
<100 LU-
31J
<50 U
<74 U
<100 LU-
<50 U
Dissolved Hg
M^g/L
NA
NA
<0.2 U
<0.2 U
NA
NA
<0.2 U
Total Hg
Hg/L
NA
NA
<0.2 U
<0.2 U
NA
NA
<0.2 U
Dissolved K
mg/L
1.27 J
1.56 J
1.5
1.3
1.73 J
1.94 J
1.8
Total K
mg/L
1.37 J
1.49 J
1.4
1.3
1.83 J
1.85 J
1.8
Dissolved Li
M^g/L
NA
NR
60
58
NA
NR
29
Total Li
M^g/L
NA
NR
59
57
NA
NR
29
Dissolved Mg
mg/L
1.81
2.19 J
2.11
1.93
3.20
2.97 J
2.99
-------
B-22
Table B-3 Sample Results - Dissolved and Total Metals (Wise County, Texas)

Sample
GW04
GW04
GW04
GW04
GW05
GW05
GW06
GW06

Sample Date
9/22/11
3/6/12
12/4/12
5/29/13
9/22/11
3/6/12
9/19/11
3/7/12
Parameter
Unit
Round 1
Round 2
Round 4
Round 5
Round 1
Round 2
Round 1
Round 2
Dissolved Ag
Hg/L
<14 U
<10 u
<10 U
<10 u
<14 U
<10 u
<14 U
<10 u
Total Ag
Hg/L
<16 U
<10 u
<10 u
<10 u
<16 U
<10 u
<16 U
<10 u
Dissolved Al
Hg/L
<494 U
<200 U
<20 U
21
<494 U
<200 U
<494 U
123 J
Total Al
Hg/L
<548 U
<200 U
<20 U
337
<548 U
<200 U
<548 U
116 J
Dissolved As
Hg/L
<20 U
1.0
0.4
0.4
<20 U
1.9
<20 U
1.3
Total As
Hg/L
<22 U
1.1
0.5
0.5
<22 U
2.0
<22 U
<1.0 U
Dissolved B
Hg/L
194 J
180
171
167
229 J
194
<333 U
83 J
Total B
Hg/L
182 J
178
195
192
211J
185
<370 U
78 J
Dissolved Ba
Hg/L
16 J
<200 U
16
16
102 J
62 J
40 J
<200 U
Total Ba
Hg/L
15 J
<200 U
16
16
95 J
60 J
39 J
<200 U
Dissolved Be
Hg/L
<10 U
<5 U
<5 U
<5 U
<10 U
<5 U
<10 U
<5 U
Total Be
Hg/L
<11 U
<5 U
<3 U
<3 U
<11 U
<5 U
<11 U
<5 U
Dissolved Ca
mg/L
2.10
2.16 J
2.1
2.1
79.2
37.6
135
152
Total Ca
mg/L
2.13 J
2.16 J
2.18
2.2
81.6 J
37.2
138 J
143
Dissolved Cd
Hg/L
<4 U
<1.0 U
<0.20 U
<0.2 U
<4 U
<1.0 U
<4 U
<1.0 U
Total Cd
Hg/L
<4 U
<1.0 U
<0.20 U
<0.2 U
<4 U
<1.0 U
<4 U
<1.0 U
Dissolved Co
Hg/L
<4 U
<50 U
<5 U
<5 U
<4 U
<50 U
<4 U
<50 U
Total Co
Hg/L
<4 U
<50 U
<3 U
<3 U
<4 U
<50 U
<4 U
<50 U
Dissolved Cr
Hg/L
<7 U
<2.0 U
<2.0 U
<2 U
<7 U
<2.0 U
<7 U
<2.0 U
Total Cr
Hg/L
<8 U
<2.0 U
<2.0 U
<2 U
<8 U
<2.0 U
<8 U
<2.0 U
Dissolved Cu
Hg/L
<20 U
<2.0 U
<0.5 U
1.2
<20 U
<2.0 U
<20 U
<2.0 U
Total Cu
M^g/L
<22 U
<2.0 U
1.8 *
1.4
<22 U
<2.0 U
<22 U
<2.0 U
Dissolved Fe
M^g/L
<67 U
<100 U,J-
<100 U
<100 U
<67 U
<100 U,J-
154
403 J-
Total Fe
M^g/L
<74 U
<100 LU-
<50 U
114 J+,*
<74 U
<100 LU-
429 J
1380 J-
Dissolved Hg
M^g/L
NA
NA
<0.2 U
<0.2 U
NA
NA
NA
NA
Total Hg
Hg/L
NA
NA
<0.2 U
<0.2 U
NA
NA
NA
NA
Dissolved K
mg/L
0.93 J
1.09 J
1.0
1.1
2.08 J
2.53 J
3.66 J
4.33 J
Total K
mg/L
0.98 J
1.07 J
1.0
1.0
2.13 J
2.45 J
3.82 J
4.00 J
Dissolved Li
M^g/L
NA
NR
42
42
NA
NR
NA
NR
Total Li
M^g/L
NA
NR
43
41
NA
NR
NA
NR
Dissolved Mg
mg/L
0.79
<5.00 U
0.76
0.8
31.3
15.0
60.6
64.8
-------
B-23
Table B-3 Sample Results - Dissolved and Total Metals (Wise County, Texas)

Sample
GW07
GW07
GW08
GW08
GW08
GW08
GW08
GW09
GW09

Sample Date
9/19/11
3/8/12
9/20/11
3/5/12
9/20/12
12/4/12
5/29/13
9/21/11
3/7/12
Parameter
Unit
Round 1
Round 2
Round 1
Round 2
Round 3
Round 4
Round 5
Round 1
Round 2
Dissolved Ag
Hg/L
<14 U
<10 u
<14 U
<10 u
<10 u
<10 U
<10 u
<14 U
<10 u
Total Ag
Hg/L
<16 U
<10 u
<16 U
<10 u
<10 u
<10 u
<10 u
<16 U
<10 u
Dissolved Al
Hg/L
<494 U
62 J
<494 U
64 J
<20 U
<20 U
<20 U
<494 U
<200 U
Total Al
Hg/L
1360 J
400
<548 U
60 J
<20 U
<20 U
<20 U
<548 U
<200 U
Dissolved As
Hg/L
<20 U
<1.0 U
<20 U
3.9
0.5
0.6
0.4
<20 U
<1.0 U
Total As
Hg/L
<22 U
1.0
<22 U
4.3
0.7
0.6
0.6
<22 U
<1.0 U
Dissolved B
Hg/L
<333 U
78 J
603 J
642
374
358
427
125 J
123
Total B
Hg/L
<370 U
75 J
596 J
644
420
388
448
123 J
120
Dissolved Ba
Hg/L
58 J
60 J
14 J
<200 U
7.6
7.4
14
9 J
<200 U
Total Ba
Hg/L
60 J
62 J
14 J
<200 U
8.7
7.7
15
9 J
<200 U
Dissolved Be
Hg/L
<10 U
<5 U
<10 U
<5 U
<5 U
<5 U
<5 U
<10 U
<5 U
Total Be
Hg/L
<11 U
<5 U
<11 U
<5 U
<3 U
<3 U
<3 U
<11 U
<5 U
Dissolved Ca
mg/L
64.9
71.9
57.4
69.1
25.7
22
35
1.07
1.18 J
Total Ca
mg/L
67.9 J
74.4
59.2 J
70.8
28.6
22.8
34
1.13 J
1.20 J
Dissolved Cd
Hg/L
<4 U
<1.0 U
<4 U
<1.0 U
<0.20 U
<0.20 U
<0.2 U
<4 U
<1.0 U
Total Cd
Hg/L
<4 U
<1.0 U
<4 U
<1.0 U
<0.20 U
<0.20 U
0.3
<4 U
<1.0 U
Dissolved Co
Hg/L
<4 U
<50 U
<4 U
<50 U
<5 U
<5 U
<5 U
<4 U
<50 U
Total Co
Hg/L
<4 U
<50 U
<4 U
<50 U
<3 U
<3 U
<3 U
<4 U
<50 U
Dissolved Cr
Hg/L
<7 U
<2.0 U
<7 U
<2.0 U
0.5 J
2.9
<2 U
<7 U
<2.0 U
Total Cr
Hg/L
<8 U
0.54 J
<8 U
<2.0 U
<2 U
<2.0 U
<2 U
<8 U
<2.0 U
Dissolved Cu
Hg/L
<20 U
<2.0 U
<20 U
2.10
0.4 J
0.6
0.8
10 J
0.66 J
Total Cu
M^g/L
<22 U
3.40
<22 U
3.20
0.68
0.67 *
0.7
<22 U
<2.0 U
Dissolved Fe
M^g/L
133
166 J-
50 J
<100 U,J-
<100 U
<100 U
135
<67 U
<100 U,J-
Total Fe
M^g/L
589 J
484 J-
88 J
98 J-
146
37 J
203 J+,*
<74 U
<100 U,J-
Dissolved Hg
M^g/L
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
<0.2 U
<0.2 U
NA
NA
Total Hg
Hg/L
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
<0.2 U
<0.2 U
NA
NA
Dissolved K
mg/L
2.14 J
2.34 J
3.14 J
4.60 J
1.8
1.8
2.0
0.50 J
<5.00 U
Total K
mg/L
2.48 J
2.40 J
3.19 J
4.54 J
2.1
1.8
2.0
0.54 J
<5.00 U
Dissolved Li
M^g/L
NA
NR
NA
NR
77
76
85
NA
NR
Total Li
M^g/L
NA
NR
NA
NR
86
77
85
NA
NR
Dissolved Mg
mg/L
28.7
29.4
24.8
26.9
11.7
10.2
14.8
0.32
<5.00 U
-------
B-24
Table B-3 Sample Results - Dissolved and Total Metals (Wise County, Texas)

Sample
GW10
GW10
GW11
GW11
GW12
GW13
GW13
GW13

Sample Date
9/22/11
3/7/12
9/22/11
3/7/12
9/21/11
3/5/12
12/3/12
5/28/13
Parameter
Unit
Round 1
Round 2
Round 1
Round 2
Round 1
Round 2
Round 4
Round 5
Dissolved Ag
Hg/L
<14 U
<10 u
<14 U
<10 u
<14 U
<10 u
<10 U
<10 u
Total Ag
Hg/L
<16 U
<10 u
<16 U
<10 u
<16 U
<10 u
<10 u
<10 u
Dissolved Al
Hg/L
<494 U
<200 U
<494 U
<200 U
<494 U
<200 U
<20 U
<20 U
Total Al
Hg/L
<548 U
<200 U
<548 U
46 J
<548 U
<200 U
<20 U
<20 U
Dissolved As
Hg/L
<20 U
<1.0 U
<20 U
<1.0 U
<20 U
1.4
0.4
0.6
Total As
Hg/L
<22 U
<1.0 U
<22 U
<1.0 U
<22 U
1.3
0.5
0.7
Dissolved B
Hg/L
120 J
117
<333 U
86 J
107 J
195
174
169
Total B
Hg/L
112 J
119
<370 U
85 J
<370 U
181
203
187
Dissolved Ba
Hg/L
72 J
72 J
134 J
141J
83 J
<200 U
15
12
Total Ba
Hg/L
68 J
75 J
133 J
144 J
83 J
<200 U
14
12
Dissolved Be
Hg/L
<10 U
<5 U
<10 U
<5 U
<10 U
<5 U
<5 U
<5 U
Total Be
Hg/L
<11 U
<5 U
<11 U
<5 U
<11 U
<5 U
<3 U
<3 U
Dissolved Ca
mg/L
11.7
12.5
31.3
35.7
25.1
2.21 J
2.0
3.3
Total Ca
mg/L
11.8 J
13.0
32.2 J
36.5
26.2 J
2.15 J
2.0
3.3
Dissolved Cd
Hg/L
<4 U
<1.0 U
<4 U
<1.0 U
<4 U
<1.0 U
<0.20 U
<0.2 U
Total Cd
Hg/L
<4 U
<1.0 U
<4 U
<1.0 U
<4 U
<1.0 U
<0.20 U
<0.2 U
Dissolved Co
Hg/L
<4 U
<50 U
<4 U
<50 U
<4 U
<50 U
<5 U
<5 U
Total Co
Hg/L
<4 U
<50 U
<4 U
<50 U
<4 U
<50 U
<3 U
<3 U
Dissolved Cr
Hg/L
<7 U
<2.0 U
<7 U
<2.0 U
<7 U
<2.0 U
2.1
<2 U
Total Cr
Hg/L
<8 U
<2.0 U
<8 U
<2.0 U
<8 U
<2.0 U
<2.0 U
<2 U
Dissolved Cu
Hg/L
<20 U
2.50
<20 U
2.60
7 J
<2.0 U
<0.5 U
0.3 J,B
Total Cu
M^g/L
10 J
3.10
10 J
3.10
<22 U
<2.0 U
0.52 *
0.3 J
Dissolved Fe
M^g/L
<67 U
<100 U,J-
47 J
<100 U,J-
27 J
<100 U,J-
<100 U
<100 U
Total Fe
M^g/L
<74 U
<100 LU-
48 J
54 J-
<74 U
<100 LU-
<50 U
<50 U
Dissolved Hg
M^g/L
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
<0.2 U
<0.2 U
Total Hg
Hg/L
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
<0.2 U
<0.2 U
Dissolved K
mg/L
1.62 J
1.89 J
3.04 J
3.41 J
2.56 J
1.24 J
1.0
1.2
Total K
mg/L
1.71 J
1.93 J
3.24 J
3.45 J
2.71 J
1.08 J
1.0
1.2
Dissolved Li
M^g/L
NA
NR
NA
NR
NA
NR
44
39
Total Li
M^g/L
NA
NR
NA
NR
NA
NR
45
38
Dissolved Mg
mg/L
5.06
5.09
11.6
12.3
8.84
<5.00 U
0.75
1.43
-------
B-25
Table B-3 Sample Results - Dissolved and Total Metals (Wise County, Texas)

Sample
GW14
GW14
GW14
GW15
GW15
GW15
GW16
GW16
GW16

Sample Date
3/5/12
12/5/12
5/28/13
3/6/12
12/5/12
5/30/13
3/6/12
12/5/12
5/30/13
Parameter
Unit
Round 2
Round 4
Round 5
Round 2
Round 4
Round 5
Round 2
Round 4
Round 5
Dissolved Ag
Hg/L
<10 u
<10 U
<10 u
<10 u
<10 U
<10 u
<10 u
<10 U
<10 u
Total Ag
Hg/L
<10 u
<10 u
<10 u
<10 u
<10 u
<10 u
<10 u
<10 u
<10 u
Dissolved Al
Hg/L
<200 U
<20 U
<20 U
<200 U
<20 U
<20 U
<200 U
<20 U
<20 U
Total Al
Hg/L
<200 U
<20 U
<20 U
68 J
51 *,B,J+
<20 U
<200 U
<20 U
<20 U
Dissolved As
Hg/L
<1.0 U
0.3
0.4
1.0
0.5
0.4
1.3
0.7
0.7
Total As
Hg/L
<1.0 U
0.5
0.5
1.1
0.6
0.5
1.5
0.8
0.8
Dissolved B
Hg/L
189
173
178
196
180
187
183
167
171
Total B
Hg/L
179
200
195
170
205
212
167
191
191
Dissolved Ba
Hg/L
<200 U
18
17
<200 U
19
20
<200 U
16
16
Total Ba
Hg/L
<200 U
17
17
<200 U
20
20
<200 U
16
16
Dissolved Be
Hg/L
<5 U
<5 U
<5 U
<5 U
<5 U
<5 U
<5 U
<5 U
<5 U
Total Be
Hg/L
<5 U
<3 U
<3 U
<5 U
<3 U
<3 U
<5 U
<3 U
<3 U
Dissolved Ca
mg/L
2.53 J
2.4
2.4
2.61 J
2.4
2.6
3.53 J
3.5
3.6
Total Ca
mg/L
2.63 J
2.4
2.3
2.47 J
2.5
2.6
3.61 J
3.5
3.5
Dissolved Cd
Hg/L
<1.0 U
<0.20 U
<0.2 U
<1.0 U
<0.20 U
<0.2 U
<1.0 U
<0.20 U
<0.2 U
Total Cd
Hg/L
<1.0 U
<0.20 U
<0.2 U
<1.0 U
<0.20 U
<0.2 U
<1.0 U
<0.20 U
<0.2 U
Dissolved Co
Hg/L
<50 U
<5 U
<5 U
<50 U
<5 U
<5 U
<50 U
<5 U
<5 U
Total Co
Hg/L
<50 U
<3 U
<3 U
<50 U
<3 U
<3 U
<50 U
<3 U
<3 U
Dissolved Cr
Hg/L
<2.0 U
2.2
<2 U
<2.0 U
<2.0 U
<2 U
<2.0 U
2.3
<2 U
Total Cr
Hg/L
<2.0 U
<2.0 U
<2 U
<2.0 U
<2.0 U
<2 U
<2.0 U
<2.0 U
<2 U
Dissolved Cu
Hg/L
<2.0 U
<0.5 U
0.4 J,B
<2.0 U
<0.5 U
0.6
8.5
1.1
1.4
Total Cu
M^g/L
<2.0 U
1.2 *
1.0
<2.0 U
0.89 *
0.6
9.00
3.7 *
1.8
Dissolved Fe
M^g/L
<100 U,J-
<100 U
<100 U
<100 U,J-
<100 U
<100 U
<100 U,J-
<100 U
<100 U
Total Fe
M^g/L
<100 U,J-
<50 U
<50 U
34 J-
31J
<50 U
<100 U,J-
<50 U
<50 U
Dissolved Hg
M^g/L
NA
<0.2 U
<0.2 U
NA
<0.2 U
<0.2 U
NA
<0.2 U
<0.2 U
Total Hg
Hg/L
NA
<0.2 U
<0.2 U
NA
<0.2 U
<0.2 U
NA
<0.2 U
<0.2 U
Dissolved K
mg/L
1.26 J
1.1
1.1
1.36 J
1.1
1.1
1.62 J
1.4
1.4
Total K
mg/L
1.19 J
1.1
1.0
1.16 J
1.1
<0.3 U
1.47 J
1.4
1.3
Dissolved Li
M^g/L
NR
45
45
NR
46
50
NR
30
31
Total Li
M^g/L
NR
46
44
NR
47
51
NR
31
30
Dissolved Mg
mg/L
<5.00 U
0.93
0.95
1.12 J
1.13
1.21
1.01 J
1.01
1.07
-------
B-26
Table B-3 Sample Results - Dissolved and Total Metals (Wise County, Texas)

Sample
PW01
PW02
PW03
SW01
SW01
SW02
SW02

Sample Date
9/20/12
5/29/13
5/29/13
9/21/11
3/6/12
9/21/11
3/6/12
Parameter
Unit
Round 3
Round 5
Round 5
Round 1
Round 2
Round 1
Round 2
Dissolved Ag
Hg/L
<50 U
<10 u
<100 u
<14 U
<10 u
<14 U
<10 u
Total Ag
Hg/L
<100 U
<10 u
<50 U
<16 U
<10 u
<16 U
<10 u
Dissolved Al
Hg/L
<20000 U
<40 U
<2000 U
<494 U
49 J
<494 U
46 J
Total Al
Hg/L
<20000 U
97
<2000 U
<548 U
79 J
<548 U
79 J
Dissolved As
Hg/L
<40 U
0.4 J
2.1 J
<20 U
1.7
<20 U
1.7
Total As
Hg/L
<40 U
1.3
13
<22 U
1.7
<22 U
1.8
Dissolved B
Hg/L
27100
109
25800
<333 U
<100 U
<333 U
<100 U
Total B
Hg/L
27500
119
25300
<370 U
<100 U
<370 U
<100 U
Dissolved Ba
Hg/L
12300
82
8510
56 J
<200 U
53 J
48 J
Total Ba
Hg/L
11800
85
9430
58 J
<200 U
54 J
48 J
Dissolved Be
Hg/L
<25 U
<5 U
<50 U
<10 U
<5 U
<10 U
<5 U
Total Be
Hg/L
<15 U
<5 U
<50 U
<11 U
<5 U
<11 U
<5 U
Dissolved Ca
mg/L
21200
1.7
16200
27.8
42.3
26.0
43.7
Total Ca
mg/L
20400
1.8
15900
29.0 J
39.7
26.9 J
43.2
Dissolved Cd
Hg/L
<40 U
<0.4 U
<20 U
<4 U
<1.0 U
<4 U
<1.0 U
Total Cd
Hg/L
<40 U
0.5
<20 U
<4 U
<1.0 U
<4 U
<1.0 U
Dissolved Co
Hg/L
37
<5 U
<50 U
<4 U
<50 U
<4 U
<50 U
Total Co
Hg/L
22 J
<3 U
<50 U
<4 U
<50 U
<4 U
<50 U
Dissolved Cr
Hg/L
91J
<4 U
<200 U
<7 U
<2.0 U
<7 U
<2.0 U
Total Cr
Hg/L
<400 U
9
<2 U
<8 U
<2.0 U
<8 U
<2.0 U
Dissolved Cu
Hg/L
70 J
2.0
54
<20 U
<2.0 U
<20 U
<2.0 U
Total Cu
M^g/L
<100 U
47
45 J
<22 U
<2.0 U
<22 U
<2.0 U
Dissolved Fe
M^g/L
46600
47000
93200
<67 U
33 J-
<67 U
30 J-
Total Fe
M^g/L
41800
60900 J+,*
42700 J+,*
137 J
77 J-
<74 U
86 J-
Dissolved Hg
M^g/L
NA
<0.2 U
<0.2 U
NA
NA
NA
NA
Total Hg
Hg/L
NA
0.15 J
<0.2 U
NA
NA
NA
NA
Dissolved K
mg/L
1780
<0.5 U
928
6.51 J
4.99 J
6.43 J
5.13
Total K
mg/L
1640
<0.3 U
891
7.01 J
4.67 J
6.85 J
4.96 J
Dissolved Li
M^g/L
30100
<10 U
25900
NA
NR
NA
NR
Total Li
M^g/L
25000
<10 U
25000
NA
NR
NA
NR
Dissolved Mg
mg/L
2410
0.12
1860
3.63
2.96 J
3.55
3.10 J
-------
B-27
Table B-3 Sample Results - Dissolved and Total Metals (Wise County, Texas)

Sample
SW03
SW03
SW04
SW04

Sample Date
9/22/11
3/7/12
12/4/12
5/29/13
Parameter
Unit
Round 1
Round 2
Round 4
Round 5
Dissolved Ag
Hg/L
<14 U
<10 u
<10 U
<10 u
Total Ag
Hg/L
<16 U
<10 u
<10 u
<10 u
Dissolved Al
Hg/L
<494 U
48 J
97 *
477 *
Total Al
Hg/L
<548 U
88 J
976 *,J+
1170J+
Dissolved As
Hg/L
<20 U
1.8
2.6
3.7
Total As
Hg/L
<22 U
2.1
3.5
4.4
Dissolved B
Hg/L
<333 U
<100 U
45
<40 U
Total B
Hg/L
<370 U
<100 U
68
60.6
Dissolved Ba
Hg/L
54 J
<200 U
453
340
Total Ba
Hg/L
54 J
49 J
481
342
Dissolved Be
Hg/L
<10 U
<5 U
<5 U
<5 U
Total Be
Hg/L
<11 U
<5 U
<3 U
<3 U
Dissolved Ca
mg/L
27.2
42.4
46
43
Total Ca
mg/L
28.0 J
44.8
47
40
Dissolved Cd
Hg/L
<4 U
<1.0 U
<0.20 U
<0.2 U
Total Cd
Hg/L
<4 U
<1.0 U
<0.20 U
<0.2 U
Dissolved Co
Hg/L
<4 U
<50 U
2 J
<5 U
Total Co
Hg/L
<4 U
<50 U
2 J
<3 U
Dissolved Cr
Hg/L
<7 U
<2.0 U
<2.0 U
<2 U
Total Cr
Hg/L
<8 U
<2.0 U
<2.0 U
<2 U
Dissolved Cu
Hg/L
<20 U
<2.0 U
1.0
1.2
Total Cu
M^g/L
<22 U
<2.0 U
1.9 *
1.5
Dissolved Fe
M^g/L
<67 U
<100 U,J-
838 *
2180
Total Fe
M^g/L
<74 U
83 J-
1950
2520J+
Dissolved Hg
M^g/L
NA
NA
<0.2 U
<0.2 U
Total Hg
Hg/L
NA
NA
0.01 J
0.02 J
Dissolved K
mg/L
6.43 J
4.94 J
18.5
24
Total K
mg/L
6.97 J
5.09
18.7
23
Dissolved Li
M^g/L
NA
NR
<10 U
<10 U
Total Li
M^g/L
NA
NR
<5 U
<5 U
Dissolved Mg
mg/L
3.57
3.01 J
5.15
4.84
-------
B-28
Table B-3 Sample Results - Dissolved and Total Metals (Wise County, Texas)

Sample
GW01
GW01
GW01
GW01
GW01

Sample Date
9/20/11
3/5/12
9/20/12
12/3/12
5/28/13
Parameter
Unit
Round 1
Round 2
Round 3
Round 4
Round 5
Total Mg
mg/L
21.9 J
56.9
16.6
56.8
56.8
Dissolved Mn
Hg/L
62
93
36
84
82
Total Mn
Hg/L
62 J
88
40
87
84
Dissolved Mo
Hg/L
<17 U
<20 U
0.6
0.58
0.6
Total Mo
Hg/L
<19 U
<20 U
0.7
0.61
1.6
Dissolved Na
mg/L
506 J
1200
428
1130
1180
Total Na
mg/L
537 J
1120
461
1160
1140
Dissolved Ni
Hg/L
<84 U
<1.0 U
1.2
5.6
5.0
Total Ni
Hg/L
<93 U
<1.0 U
1.4 B
6.3 *
5.4
Dissolved P
mg/L
<0.06 U
NR
0.0375 J
0.97
0.41
Total P
mg/L
<0.07 U
NR
0.02 J
<0.03 U
<0.03 U
Dissolved Pb
Hg/L
<17 U
<1.0 U
<0.2 U
0.52
<0.20 U
Total Pb
Hg/L
<19 U
<1.0 U
<0.2 U
0.26
<0.20 U
Dissolved S
mg/L
28.0 J
66.7
NA
NA
NA
Total S
mg/L
26.4 J
63.7
NA
NA
NA
Dissolved Sb
Hg/L
R
<60 U
<0.2 U
<0.20 U
<0.2 U
Total Sb
Hg/L
R
<60 U
<0.2 U
<0.20 U
<0.2 U
Dissolved Se
Hg/L
<30 U
R
<2 U
<2 U
1.1 J
Total Se
Hg/L
<33 U
R
<2 U
0.8 J
<2 U
Dissolved Si
mg/L
7.22 J
6.05
6.1
5.4
5.4
Total Si
mg/L
6.86 J
5.70
6.7
5.7
5.79
Dissolved Sr
Hg/L
4850
13900
3320
12100
13100
Total Sr
Hg/L
4960 J
12900
3510
13200
13100
Dissolved Th
Hg/L
NA
NR
<0.2 U
<0.20 U
<0.2 U
Total Th
Hg/L
NA
NR
<0.2 U
<0.20 U
<0.2 U
Dissolved Ti
Hg/L
<7 U
12
<5 U
<5 U
<5 U
Total Ti
Hg/L
<8 U
12
<3 U
<3 U
<3 U
Dissolved TI
Hg/L
<17 U
<1.0 U
<0.2 U
<0.20 U
<0.20 U
Total TI
Hg/L
<19 U
<1.0 U
<0.2 U
<0.20 U
<0.20 U
Dissolved U
kig/L
16 J
<1.0 U
<0.2 U
<0.20 U
<0.20 U
Total U
Hg/L
<56 U
<1.0 U
<0.2 U
<0.20 U
<0.20 U
-------
B-29
Table B-3 Sample Results - Dissolved and Total Metals (Wise County, Texas)

Sample
GW02
GW02
GW02
GW02
GW03
GW03
GW03

Sample Date
9/20/11
3/5/12
12/3/12
5/28/13
9/20/11
3/5/12
12/3/12
Parameter
Unit
Round 1
Round 2
Round 4
Round 5
Round 1
Round 2
Round 4
Total Mg
mg/L
1.81 J
2.21 J
2.18
1.88
3.28 J
2.85 J
3.05
Dissolved Mn
Hg/L
6 J
8 J
7.4
7.1
8 J
6 J
7.2
Total Mn
Hg/L
7 J
8 J
7.8
7
9 J
6 J
7.3
Dissolved Mo
Hg/L
<17 U
<20 U
0.84
0.9
<17 U
<20 U
0.50
Total Mo
Hg/L
<19 U
<20 U
0.83
0.9
<19 U
<20 U
0.51
Dissolved Na
mg/L
203 J
200
222
222
166 J
162
159
Total Na
mg/L
213 J
200
227
227
173 J
156
162
Dissolved Ni
Hg/L
<84 U
<1.0 U
0.26
0.3 B
<84 U
0.42 J
0.60 B
Total Ni
Hg/L
<93 U
<1.0 U
0.57 *,B
0.3
<93 U
0.57 J
0.88 *,B
Dissolved P
mg/L
<0.06 U
NR
<0.05 U
0.05
<0.06 U
NR
<0.05 U
Total P
mg/L
<0.07 U
NR
<0.03 U
<0.03 U
<0.07 U
NR
<0.03 U
Dissolved Pb
Hg/L
<17 U
<1.0 U
0.23
0.2 B
<17 U
<1.0 U
0.23
Total Pb
Hg/L
<19 U
<1.0 U
0.60
0.26
<19 U
<1.0 U
0.14 J
Dissolved S
mg/L
35.1 J
29.7
NA
NA
10.3 J
9.63
NA
Total S
mg/L
32.8 J
29.4
NA
NA
9.32 J
9.49
NA
Dissolved Sb
Hg/L
R
<60 U
<0.20 U
<0.2 U
R
<60 U
<0.20 U
Total Sb
Hg/L
R
<60 U
<0.20 U
<0.2 U
R
<60 U
<0.20 U
Dissolved Se
Hg/L
<30 U
R
<2 U
0.4 J
<30 U
R
<2 U
Total Se
Hg/L
<33 U
R
<2 U
<2 U
<33 U
R
<2 U
Dissolved Si
mg/L
5.96 J
5.98
6.1
6.1
7.07 J
7.20
7.1
Total Si
mg/L
6.12 J
5.94
6.3
5.96
6.62 J
6.84
7.3
Dissolved Sr
Hg/L
491
599
581
540
585
475
475
Total Sr
Hg/L
501J
603
562
512
590 J
469
476
Dissolved Th
Hg/L
NA
NR
<0.20 U
<0.2 U
NA
NR
<0.20 U
Total Th
Hg/L
NA
NR
<0.20 U
<0.2 U
NA
NR
<0.20 U
Dissolved Ti
Hg/L
<7 U
<10 U
<5 U
<5 U
<7 U
<10 U
<5 U
Total Ti
Hg/L
<8 U
<10 U
<3 U
<3 U
<8 U
<10 U
<3 U
Dissolved TI
Hg/L
<17 U
<1.0 U
<0.20 U
<0.20 U
<17 U
<1.0 U
<0.20 U
Total TI
Hg/L
<19 U
<1.0 U
<0.20 U
<0.20 U
<19 U
<1.0 U
<0.20 U
Dissolved U
kig/L
<50 U
<1.0 U
<0.20 U
0.06 J
<50 U
<1.0 U
0.18 J
Total U
Hg/L
<56 U
<1.0 U
<0.20 U
0.06 J
<56 U
<1.0 U
0.16 J
-------
B-30
Table B-3 Sample Results - Dissolved and Total Metals (Wise County, Texas)

Sample
GW04
GW04
GW04
GW04
GW05
GW05
GW06
GW06

Sample Date
9/22/11
3/6/12
12/4/12
5/29/13
9/22/11
3/6/12
9/19/11
3/7/12
Parameter
Unit
Round 1
Round 2
Round 4
Round 5
Round 1
Round 2
Round 1
Round 2
Total Mg
mg/L
0.79 J
<5.00 U
0.81
0.86
31.6 J
14.7
61.0 J
61.0
Dissolved Mn
Hg/L
<14 U
4 J
4.2 J
5
22
34
61
75
Total Mn
Hg/L
<16 U
4 J
4.5
7.2
18 J
33
57 J
70
Dissolved Mo
Hg/L
<17 U
<20 U
0.73
0.7
<17 U
<20 U
<17 U
<20 U
Total Mo
Hg/L
<19 U
<20 U
0.67
0.6
<19 U
<20 U
<19 U
<20 U
Dissolved Na
mg/L
156 J
161
160
159
140 J
147
29.9 J
33.4
Total Na
mg/L
167 J
161
165
159
147 J
142
30.9 J
31.3
Dissolved Ni
Hg/L
<84 U
<1.0 U
0.11 B
<0.2 U
<84 U
0.29 J
<84 U
<1.0 U
Total Ni
Hg/L
<93 U
<1.0 U
0.38 *,B
0.3
<93 U
0.28 J
<93 U
<1.0 U
Dissolved P
mg/L
<0.06 U
NR
<0.05 U
<0.05 U
0.03 J
NR
<0.06 U
NR
Total P
mg/L
<0.07 U
NR
<0.03 U
<0.03 U
0.04 J
NR
<0.07 U
NR
Dissolved Pb
Hg/L
<17 U
<1.0 U
0.28
0.14 J
<17 U
<1.0 U
<17 U
<1.0 U
Total Pb
Hg/L
<19 U
<1.0 U
0.44
0.31
<19 U
<1.0 U
<19 U
<1.0 U
Dissolved S
mg/L
22.6 J
21.4
NA
NA
52.5 J
21.1
71.2 J
79.0
Total S
mg/L
19.9 J
21.7
NA
NA
45.9 J
21.2
68.3 J
74.5
Dissolved Sb
Hg/L
R
<60 U
<0.20 U
<0.2 U
R
<60 U
R
<60 U
Total Sb
Hg/L
R
<60 U
<0.20 U
<0.2 U
R
<60 U
R
<60 U
Dissolved Se
Hg/L
<30 U
R
<2 U
<2 U
<30 U
R
<30 U
R
Total Se
Hg/L
<33 U
R
<2 U
<2 U
<33 U
R
<33 U
R
Dissolved Si
mg/L
5.96 J
5.77
5.8
5.9
18.2 J
10.7
11.5 J
10.6
Total Si
mg/L
5.95 J
5.67
6.1
6.31
17.0 J
10.8
11.1 J
10.0
Dissolved Sr
Hg/L
243
245
238
223
3360
2120
6720
7280
Total Sr
Hg/L
244 J
249
249
236
3230 J
2110
6690 J
6900
Dissolved Th
Hg/L
NA
NR
<0.20 U
<0.2 U
NA
NR
NA
NR
Total Th
Hg/L
NA
NR
<0.20 U
<0.2 U
NA
NR
NA
NR
Dissolved Ti
Hg/L
<7 U
<10 U
<5 U
<5 U
<7 U
6 J
<7 U
11
Total Ti
Hg/L
<8 U
<10 U
<3 U
3 *
<8 U
5 J
<8 U
11
Dissolved TI
Hg/L
<17 U
<1.0 U
<0.20 U
<0.20 U
<17 U
<1.0 U
<17 U
<1.0 U
Total TI
Hg/L
<19 U
<1.0 U
<0.20 U
<0.20 U
<19 U
<1.0 U
<19 U
<1.0 U
Dissolved U
kig/L
<50 U
<1.0 U
<0.20 U
<0.20 U
19 J
2.00
20 J
<1.0 U
Total U
Hg/L
<56 U
<1.0 U
<0.20 U
<0.20 U
<56 U
2.00
24 J
<1.0 U
-------
B-31
Table B-3 Sample Results - Dissolved and Total Metals (Wise County, Texas)

Sample
GW07
GW07
GW08
GW08
GW08
GW08
GW08
GW09
GW09

Sample Date
9/19/11
3/8/12
9/20/11
3/5/12
9/20/12
12/4/12
5/29/13
9/21/11
3/7/12
Parameter
Unit
Round 1
Round 2
Round 1
Round 2
Round 3
Round 4
Round 5
Round 1
Round 2
Total Mg
mg/L
29.5 J
30.1
24.7 J
27.2
13.0
10.8
14.5
0.34 J
<5.00 U
Dissolved Mn
Hg/L
51
54
19
22
13
12
21
<14 U
<15 U
Total Mn
Hg/L
53 J
59
19 J
23
20
20
53
<16 U
<15 U
Dissolved Mo
Hg/L
<17 U
<20 U
<17 U
<20 U
1.0
0.85
0.8 B
<17 U
<20 U
Total Mo
Hg/L
<19 U
<20 U
<19 U
<20 U
1.2
0.90
0.8 B
<19 U
<20 U
Dissolved Na
mg/L
25.0 J
26.5
990 J
1170
632
576
708
144 J
153
Total Na
mg/L
26.2 J
27.1
1040 J
1190
668
575
680
152 J
154
Dissolved Ni
Hg/L
<84 U
<1.0 U
<84 U
0.26 J
1.2
1.2 B
1.5 B
<84 U
<1.0 U
Total Ni
Hg/L
<93 U
0.40 J
<93 U
<1.0 U
1.8 B
1.5 *,B
1.5 B
<93 U
<1.0 U
Dissolved P
mg/L
<0.06 U
NR
<0.06 U
NR
0.07
0.04 J
0.13
0.03 J
NR
Total P
mg/L
<0.07 U
NR
<0.07 U
NR
0.04
0.04
<0.03 U
0.04 J
NR
Dissolved Pb
Hg/L
<17 U
<1.0 U
<17 U
0.43 J
<0.2 U
0.14 J
<0.20 U
<17 U
0.33 J
Total Pb
Hg/L
<19 U
<1.0 U
<19 U
<1.0 U
0.3
0.28
0.32
<19 U
<1.0 U
Dissolved S
mg/L
7.56 J
9.39
70.2 J
80.6
NA
NA
NA
8.64 J
9.44
Total S
mg/L
6.89 J
10.0
66.1 J
83.9
NA
NA
NA
7.79 J
9.65
Dissolved Sb
Hg/L
R
<60 U
R
<60 U
0.12 J
0.11J
<0.2 U
R
<60 U
Total Sb
Hg/L
R
<60 U
R
<60 U
0.12 J
0.12 J
<0.2 U
R
<60 U
Dissolved Se
Hg/L
<30 U
R
<30 U
R
<2 U
<2 U
0.4 J
<30 U
R
Total Se
Hg/L
<33 U
R
<33 U
R
<2 U
<2 U
<2 U
<33 U
R
Dissolved Si
mg/L
12.2 J
10.5
5.90 J
5.61
5.1
5.6
5.8
4.85 J
4.93
Total Si
mg/L
15.7 J
11.4
5.47 J
5.39
5.7
6.0
5.69
4.8 J
4.89
Dissolved Sr
Hg/L
2500
2660
6400
7480
3020
312
3920
49
52
Total Sr
Hg/L
2530 J
2770
6610 J
7770
3250
2660
3880
51J
54
Dissolved Th
Hg/L
NA
NR
NA
NR
<0.2 U
<0.20 U
<0.2 U
NA
NR
Total Th
Hg/L
NA
NR
NA
NR
<0.2 U
<0.20 U
0.1 J
NA
NR
Dissolved Ti
Hg/L
<7 U
8 J
<7 U
8 J
<5 U
<5 U
<5 U
<7 U
<10 U
Total Ti
Hg/L
52
9 J
<8 U
9 J
<3 U
<3 U
<3 U
<8 U
<10 U
Dissolved TI
Hg/L
<17 U
<1.0 U
<17 U
<1.0 U
<0.2 U
<0.20 U
<0.20 U
<17 U
<1.0 U
Total TI
Hg/L
<19 U
<1.0 U
<19 U
<1.0 U
<0.2 U
<0.20 U
<0.20 U
<19 U
<1.0 U
Dissolved U
kig/L
<50 U
<1.0 U
21J
<1.0 U
<0.2 U
<0.20 U
0.06 J
<50 U
<1.0 U
Total U
Hg/L
<56 U
<1.0 U
19 J
<1.0 U
<0.2 U
<0.20 U
0.055 J
<56 U
<1.0 U
-------
B-32
Table B-3 Sample Results - Dissolved and Total Metals (Wise County, Texas)

Sample
GW10
GW10
GW11
GW11
GW12
GW13
GW13
GW13

Sample Date
9/22/11
3/7/12
9/22/11
3/7/12
9/21/11
3/5/12
12/3/12
5/28/13
Parameter
Unit
Round 1
Round 2
Round 1
Round 2
Round 1
Round 2
Round 4
Round 5
Total Mg
mg/L
4.98 J
5.24
11.8 J
12.5
8.90 J
<5.00 U
0.79
1.39
Dissolved Mn
Hg/L
16
18
25
27
20
8 J
7.0
<5 U
Total Mn
Hg/L
16 J
18
24 J
27
20 J
7 J
7.1
4.8
Dissolved Mo
Hg/L
<17 U
<20 U
<17 U
<20 U
<17 U
<20 U
0.70
0.7
Total Mo
Hg/L
<19 U
<20 U
<19 U
<20 U
<19 U
<20 U
0.65
0.6
Dissolved Na
mg/L
108 J
113
90.6 J
89.6
81.8 J
179
173
165
Total Na
mg/L
112 J
117
93.4 J
91.3
87.4 J
171
177
168
Dissolved Ni
Hg/L
<84 U
<1.0 U
<84 U
<1.0 U
<84 U
0.27 J
<0.20 U
0.3 B
Total Ni
Hg/L
<93 U
<1.0 U
<93 U
<1.0 U
<93 U
<1.0 U
1.0 *,B
0.2
Dissolved P
mg/L
<0.06 U
NR
<0.06 U
NR
<0.06 U
NR
<0.05 U
<0.05 U
Total P
mg/L
<0.07 U
NR
<0.07 U
NR
<0.07 U
NR
<0.03 U
<0.03 U
Dissolved Pb
Hg/L
<17 U
0.22 J
<17 U
0.64 J
<17 U
<1.0 U
<0.20 U
<0.20 U
Total Pb
Hg/L
<19 U
<1.0 U
<19 U
<1.0 U
<19 U
<1.0 U
<0.20 U
<0.20 U
Dissolved S
mg/L
9.36 J
9.97
13.8 J
13.9
10.8 J
23.5 *
NA
NA
Total S
mg/L
8.03 J
10.1
11.8 J
14.4
9.45 J
23.5 J-
NA
NA
Dissolved Sb
Hg/L
R
<60 U
R
<60 U
R
<60 U
<0.20 U
<0.2 U
Total Sb
Hg/L
R
<60 U
R
<60 U
R
<60 U
<0.20 U
<0.2 U
Dissolved Se
Hg/L
<30 U
R
<30 U
R
<30 U
R
<2 U
<2 U
Total Se
Hg/L
<33 U
R
<33 U
R
<33 U
R
<2 U
<2 U
Dissolved Si
mg/L
7.21 J
6.77
8.75 J
7.72
8.43 J
5.87
5.7
6.3
Total Si
mg/L
6.45 J
6.89
7.90 J
7.79
7.47 J
5.47
5.9
6.14
Dissolved Sr
Hg/L
649
667
1820
2020
1340
248
242
316
Total Sr
Hg/L
629 J
699
1840 J
2090
1360 J
256
250
328
Dissolved Th
Hg/L
NA
NR
NA
NR
NA
NR
<0.20 U
<0.2 U
Total Th
Hg/L
NA
NR
NA
NR
NA
NR
<0.20 U
<0.2 U
Dissolved Ti
Hg/L
<7 U
<10 U
2 J
5 J
<7 U
<10 U
<5 U
<5 U
Total Ti
Hg/L
<8 U
<10 U
<8 U
5 J
<8 U
<10 U
<3 U
<3 U
Dissolved TI
Hg/L
<17 U
<1.0 U
<17 U
<1.0 U
<17 U
<1.0 U
<0.20 U
<0.20 U
Total TI
Hg/L
<19 U
<1.0 U
<19 U
<1.0 U
<19 U
<1.0 U
<0.20 U
<0.20 U
Dissolved U
kig/L
<50 U
<1.0 U
<50 U
<1.0 U
<50 U
<1.0 U
<0.20 U
<0.20 U
Total U
Hg/L
<56 U
<1.0 U
<56 U
<1.0 U
<56 U
<1.0 U
<0.20 U
<0.20 U
-------
B-33
Table B-3 Sample Results - Dissolved and Total Metals (Wise County, Texas)

Sample
GW14
GW14
GW14
GW15
GW15
GW15
GW16
GW16
GW16

Sample Date
3/5/12
12/5/12
5/28/13
3/6/12
12/5/12
5/30/13
3/6/12
12/5/12
5/30/13
Parameter
Unit
Round 2
Round 4
Round 5
Round 2
Round 4
Round 5
Round 2
Round 4
Round 5
Total Mg
mg/L
<5.00 U
0.96
0.92
1.02 J
1.21
1.17
<5.00 U
1.06
1.05
Dissolved Mn
Hg/L
<15 U
4.0 J
<5 U
5 J
4.0 J
<5 U
8 J
7.2
7
Total Mn
Hg/L
<15 U
3.8
3.6
4 J
4.6
3.5
7 J
7.2
6.9
Dissolved Mo
Hg/L
<20 U
0.60
0.8
<20 U
0.64
0.8
<20 U
<0.5 U
0.5
Total Mo
Hg/L
<20 U
0.58
1.2
<20 U
0.58
0.6
<20 U
<0.5 U
0.7
Dissolved Na
mg/L
177
170
171
205
193
206
177
174
175
Total Na
mg/L
174
176
173
184
200
209
171
179
180
Dissolved Ni
Hg/L
0.49 J
0.14 J
0.2 B
<1.0 U
0.19 J
<0.2 U
0.24 J
0.25
0.2
Total Ni
Hg/L
<1.0 U
0.4 *,B
<0.2 U
<1.0 U
0.77 *,B
<0.2 U
<1.0 U
1.8 *,B
<0.2 U
Dissolved P
mg/L
NR
<0.05 U
0.05
NR
<0.05 U
0.06 B
NR
<0.05 U
<0.05 U
Total P
mg/L
NR
<0.03 U
<0.03 U
NR
<0.03 U
<0.03 U
NR
<0.03 U
<0.03 U
Dissolved Pb
Hg/L
<1.0 U
0.07 J
0.37 B
<1.0 U
<0.20 U
0.10 J
<1.0 U
0.16 J
0.26
Total Pb
Hg/L
<1.0 U
0.20 J
0.43
<1.0 U
<0.20 U
<0.20 U
<1.0 U
0.22
0.22
Dissolved S
mg/L
22.4 *
NA
NA
30.7 *
NA
NA
9.38 *
NA
NA
Total S
mg/L
24.0 J-
NA
NA
30.0
NA
NA
9.90
NA
NA
Dissolved Sb
Hg/L
<60 U
<0.20 U
<0.2 U
<60 U
<0.20 U
<0.2 U
<60 U
<0.20 U
<0.2 U
Total Sb
Hg/L
<60 U
<0.20 U
<0.2 U
<60 U
<0.20 U
<0.2 U
<60 U
<0.20 U
<0.2 U
Dissolved Se
Hg/L
R
<2 U
<2 U
R
<2 U
<2 U
R
<2 U
<2 U
Total Se
Hg/L
R
<2 U
<2 U
R
<2 U
<2 U
R
<2 U
<2 U
Dissolved Si
mg/L
5.90
5.8
5.8
6.58
6.0
5.9
6.59
6.5
6.6
Total Si
mg/L
5.67
6.0
5.67
5.90
6.5
5.67
6.32
6.8
6.42
Dissolved Sr
Hg/L
306
296
283
320
317
309
259
267
272
Total Sr
Hg/L
331
295
293
318
309
325
282
263
276
Dissolved Th
Hg/L
NR
<0.20 U
<0.2 U
NR
<0.20 U
<0.2 U
NR
<0.20 U
<0.2 U
Total Th
Hg/L
NR
<0.20 U
<0.2 U
NR
<0.20 U
<0.2 U
NR
<0.20 U
<0.2 U
Dissolved Ti
Hg/L
<10 U
<5 U
<5 U
<10 U
<5 U
<5 U
<10 U
<5 U
<5 U
Total Ti
Hg/L
<10 U
<3 U
<3 U
<10 U
<3 U
<3 U
<10 U
<3 U
<3 U
Dissolved TI
Hg/L
<1.0 U
<0.20 U
<0.20 U
<1.0 U
<0.20 U
<0.20 U
<1.0 U
<0.20 U
<0.20 U
Total TI
Hg/L
<1.0 U
<0.20 U
<0.20 U
<1.0 U
<0.20 U
<0.20 U
<1.0 U
<0.20 U
<0.20 U
Dissolved U
M^g/L
<1.0 U
<0.20 U
<0.20 U
<1.0 U
<0.20 U
0.06 J
<1.0 U
<0.20 U
<0.20 U
Total U
Hg/L
<1.0 U
<0.20 U
<0.20 U
<1.0 U
<0.20 U
0.06 J
<1.0 U
<0.20 U
<0.20 U
-------
B-34
Table B-3 Sample Results - Dissolved and Total Metals (Wise County, Texas)

Sample
PW01
PW02
PW03
SW01
SW01
SW02
SW02

Sample Date
9/20/12
5/29/13
5/29/13
9/21/11
3/6/12
9/21/11
3/6/12
Parameter
Unit
Round 3
Round 5
Round 5
Round 1
Round 2
Round 1
Round 2
Total Mg
mg/L
2330
0.14
1860
3.59 J
2.72 J
3.56 J
2.94 J
Dissolved Mn
Hg/L
3400
496
2560
6 J
8 J
5 J
8 J
Total Mn
Hg/L
3430
713
2650
21J
11J
20 J
12 J
Dissolved Mo
Hg/L
43 J
5
102
<17 U
<20 U
<17 U
<20 U
Total Mo
Hg/L
<100 U
1.6
<50 U
<19 U
<20 U
<19 U
<20 U
Dissolved Na
mg/L
60100
1.15
96400
10.9 J
6.53
10.7 J
6.71
Total Na
mg/L
59900
1.05
48100
11.5 J
5.93
11.3 J
6.47
Dissolved Ni
Hg/L
771
5.1
682
<84 U
0.86 J
<84 U
0.90 J
Total Ni
Hg/L
716
15.4
73.5
<93 U
0.68 J
<93 U
0.74 J
Dissolved P
mg/L
87
<0.05 U
145
<0.06 U
NR
<0.06 U
NR
Total P
mg/L
3.77
<0.05 U
268
<0.07 U
NR
<0.07 U
NR
Dissolved Pb
Hg/L
<40 U
353
<0.20 U
<17 U
<1.0 U
<17 U
<1.0 U
Total Pb
Hg/L
<40 U
1960
<20 U
<19 U
<1.0 U
<19 U
<1.0 U
Dissolved S
mg/L
NA
NA
NA
4.15 J
5.31 *
4.20 J
5.54 *
Total S
mg/L
NA
NA
NA
3.57 J
5.06 *
3.57 J
5.50 *
Dissolved Sb
Hg/L
<40 U
<0.4 U
<20 U
R
<60 U
R
<60 U
Total Sb
Hg/L
<40 U
0.4 J
<20 U
R
<60 U
R
<60 U
Dissolved Se
Hg/L
<400 U
<10 U
<100 U
<30 U
R
<30 U
R
Total Se
Hg/L
<400 U
<4 U
<100 U
<33 U
R
<33 U
R
Dissolved Si
mg/L
15
0.34
38
4.40 J
0.15
4.41 J
0.17
Total Si
mg/L
14
0.47
19
3.97 J
0.23
3.97 J
0.22
Dissolved Sr
Hg/L
752000
26
584000
435
314
427
327
Total Sr
Hg/L
689000
30.1
60400
442 J
300
432 J
327
Dissolved Th
Hg/L
<40 U
<0.4 U
<20 U
NA
NR
NA
NR
Total Th
Hg/L
<40 U
0.3 J
<20 U
NA
NR
NA
NR
Dissolved Ti
Hg/L
<25 U
<5 U
<50 U
<7 U
7 J
<7 U
7 J
Total Ti
Hg/L
<500 U
<5 U
<50 U
<8 U
7 J
<8 U
8 J
Dissolved TI
Hg/L
<40 U
<0.40 U
<20 U
<17 U
<1.0 U
<17 U
<1.0 U
Total TI
Hg/L
17.0 J
0.97
<20 U
<19 U
<1.0 U
<19 U
<1.0 U
Dissolved U
kig/L
<40 U
<0.4 U
<20 U
<50 U
0.57 J
<50 U
0.57 J
Total U
Hg/L
<40 U
<0.40 U
<20 U
<56 U
0.51 J
<56 U
0.59 J
-------
B-35
Table B-3 Sample Results - Dissolved and Total Metals (Wise County, Texas)

Sample
SW03
SW03
SW04
SW04

Sample Date
9/22/11
3/7/12
12/4/12
5/29/13
Parameter
Unit
Round 1
Round 2
Round 4
Round 5
Total Mg
mg/L
3.58 J
3.06 J
5.39
4.73
Dissolved Mn
Hg/L
7 J
4 J
227
433
Total Mn
Hg/L
18 J
11J
299
445
Dissolved Mo
Hg/L
<17 U
<20 U
0.79
0.6
Total Mo
Hg/L
<19 U
<20 U
0.81
0.8
Dissolved Na
mg/L
10.8 J
6.46
4.36
4.07
Total Na
mg/L
11.3 J
6.68
4.29
3.84
Dissolved Ni
Hg/L
<84 U
<1.0 U
2.4
3.2
Total Ni
Hg/L
<93 U
0.79 J
4.1 *,B
3.2
Dissolved P
mg/L
<0.06 U
NR
0.05 J
0.09
Total P
mg/L
<0.07 U
NR
0.22
0.2
Dissolved Pb
Hg/L
<17 U
<1.0 U
0.60 *
1.1
Total Pb
Hg/L
<19 U
<1.0 U
1.7
1.4
Dissolved S
mg/L
4.31 J
5.31 *
NA
NA
Total S
mg/L
3.61 J
5.63 *
NA
NA
Dissolved Sb
Hg/L
R
<60 U
0.13 J
<0.2 U
Total Sb
Hg/L
R
<60 U
0.14 J
<0.2 U
Dissolved Se
Hg/L
<30 U
R
<2 U
0.4 J
Total Se
Hg/L
<33 U
R
0.7 J
<2 U
Dissolved Si
mg/L
4.32 J
0.17
2.6
2.2 *
Total Si
mg/L
4.03 J
0.20
2.8
4.01
Dissolved Sr
Hg/L
429
318
233
205
Total Sr
Hg/L
429 J
338
243
205
Dissolved Th
Hg/L
NA
NR
<0.20 U
<0.2 U
Total Th
Hg/L
NA
NR
0.09 J
0.2 J
Dissolved Ti
Hg/L
<7 U
7 J
11
<5 U
Total Ti
Hg/L
<8 U
8 J
7
27 J,*
Dissolved TI
Hg/L
<17 U
<1.0 U
<0.20 U
<0.20 U
Total TI
Hg/L
<19 U
<1.0 U
<0.20 U
<0.20 U
Dissolved U
kig/L
<50 U
0.55 J
1.1
0.53
Total U
Hg/L
<56 U
0.59 J
1.2
0.58
-------
B-36
Table B-3 Sample Results - Dissolved and Total Metals (Wise County, Texas)

Sample
GW01
GW01
GW01
GW01
GW01

Sample Date
9/20/11
3/5/12
9/20/12
12/3/12
5/28/13
Parameter
Unit
Round 1
Round 2
Round 3
Round 4
Round 5
Dissolved V
Hg/L
<10 u
<5.0 U
0.06 J
0.25
0.19 J
Total V
Hg/L
<11 u
<5.0 U
<0.20 U
0.21
0.53 B
Dissolved Zn
Hg/L
<50 U
NR
1J
7.6
30
Total Zn
Hg/L
<56 U
NR
2 J
7 B
33
-------
B-37
Table B-3 Sample Results - Dissolved and Total Metals (Wise County, Texas)

Sample
GW02
GW02
GW02
GW02
GW03
GW03
GW03

Sample Date
9/20/11
3/5/12
12/3/12
5/28/13
9/20/11
3/5/12
12/3/12
Parameter
Unit
Round 1
Round 2
Round 4
Round 5
Round 1
Round 2
Round 4
Dissolved V
Hg/L
<10 u
<5.0 U
0.05 J
0.02 J
<10 u
<5.0 U
0.05 J
Total V
Hg/L
<11 u
<5.0 U
0.26
0.40 B
<11 u
<5.0 U
0.40
Dissolved Zn
Hg/L
<50 U
NR
13.2
7
<50 U
NR
<5 U
Total Zn
Hg/L
<56 U
NR
21 B
7
<56 U
NR
4 B
-------
B-38
Table B-3 Sample Results - Dissolved and Total Metals (Wise County, Texas)

Sample
GW04
GW04
GW04
GW04
GW05
GW05
GW06
GW06

Sample Date
9/22/11
3/6/12
12/4/12
5/29/13
9/22/11
3/6/12
9/19/11
3/7/12
Parameter
Unit
Round 1
Round 2
Round 4
Round 5
Round 1
Round 2
Round 1
Round 2
Dissolved V
Hg/L
<10 u
<5.0 U
0.02 J
0.02 J
<10 u
1.40 J
<10 u
<5.0 U
Total V
Hg/L
<11 u
<5.0 U
0.38 B
0.91 B
4 J
1.40 J
<11 u
<5.00 U
Dissolved Zn
Hg/L
<50 U
NR
<5 U
<5 U
<50 U
NR
26 J
NR
Total Zn
Hg/L
<56 U
NR
2 J
2 J
<56 U
NR
220 J
NR
-------
B-39
Table B-3 Sample Results - Dissolved and Total Metals (Wise County, Texas)

Sample
GW07
GW07
GW08
GW08
GW08
GW08
GW08
GW09
GW09

Sample Date
9/19/11
3/8/12
9/20/11
3/5/12
9/20/12
12/4/12
5/29/13
9/21/11
3/7/12
Parameter
Unit
Round 1
Round 2
Round 1
Round 2
Round 3
Round 4
Round 5
Round 1
Round 2
Dissolved V
Hg/L
<10 u
<5.0 U
<10 u
<5.0 U
0.13 J
0.25
0.22
<10 u
<5.0 U
Total V
Hg/L
<11 u
<5.0 U
<11 u
<5.0 U
0.26 J
0.33 B
0.58 B
<11 u
<5.0 U
Dissolved Zn
Hg/L
341
NR
<50 U
NR
2 J
4 J
17 B
32 J
NR
Total Zn
Hg/L
356 J
NR
<56 U
NR
9
9
9 B
41J
NR
-------
B-40
Table B-3 Sample Results - Dissolved and Total Metals (Wise County, Texas)

Sample
GW10
GW10
GW11
GW11
GW12
GW13
GW13
GW13

Sample Date
9/22/11
3/7/12
9/22/11
3/7/12
9/21/11
3/5/12
12/3/12
5/28/13
Parameter
Unit
Round 1
Round 2
Round 1
Round 2
Round 1
Round 2
Round 4
Round 5
Dissolved V
Hg/L
<10 u
<5.0 U
<10 u
<5.0 U
<10 u
<5.0 U
0.03 J
<0.2 U
Total V
Hg/L
<11 u
<5.0 U
<11 u
<5.0 U
<11 u
<5.0 U
0.5
0.5 B
Dissolved Zn
Hg/L
<50 U
NR
<50 U
NR
18 J
NR
<5 U
<5 U
Total Zn
Hg/L
<56 U
NR
<56 U
NR
<56 U
NR
<3 U
1J
-------
B-41
Table B-3 Sample Results - Dissolved and Total Metals (Wise County, Texas)

Sample
GW14
GW14
GW14
GW15
GW15
GW15
GW16
GW16
GW16

Sample Date
3/5/12
12/5/12
5/28/13
3/6/12
12/5/12
5/30/13
3/6/12
12/5/12
5/30/13
Parameter
Unit
Round 2
Round 4
Round 5
Round 2
Round 4
Round 5
Round 2
Round 4
Round 5
Dissolved V
Hg/L
<5.0 U
0.02 J
<0.2 U
<5.0 U
0.03 J
0.02 J
<5.0 U
0.04 J
0.02 J
Total V
Hg/L
<5.0 U
0.36 B
0.51 B
<5.0 U
0.44 B
0.48 B
<5.0 U
0.43 B
0.56 B
Dissolved Zn
Hg/L
NR
7
6
NR
<5 U
<5 U
NR
4 J
<5 U
Total Zn
Hg/L
NR
7
5
NR
<3 U
2 J
NR
5
4
-------
B-42
Table B-3 Sample Results - Dissolved and Total Metals (Wise County, Texas)

Sample
PW01
PW02
PW03
SW01
SW01
SW02
SW02

Sample Date
9/20/12
5/29/13
5/29/13
9/21/11
3/6/12
9/21/11
3/6/12
Parameter
Unit
Round 3
Round 5
Round 5
Round 1
Round 2
Round 1
Round 2
Dissolved V
Hg/L
14.4 J
<0.2 U
2.3 J
<10 u
<5.0 U
<10 u
<5.0 U
Total V
Hg/L
17.2 J
0.92 B
<10 U
<11 u
<5.0 U
<11 u
<5.0 U
Dissolved Zn
Hg/L
291
119
<500 U
<50 U
NR
<50 U
NR
Total Zn
Hg/L
312
191
<500 U
<56 U
NR
<56 U
NR
-------
B-43
Table B-3 Sample Results - Dissolved and Total Metals (Wise County, Texas)

Sample
SW03
SW03
SW04
SW04

Sample Date
9/22/11
3/7/12
12/4/12
5/29/13
Parameter
Unit
Round 1
Round 2
Round 4
Round 5
Dissolved V
Hg/L
<10 u
<5.0 U
1.3 *
1.5
Total V
Hg/L
<11 u
<5.0 U
3 B
2.8
Dissolved Zn
Hg/L
<50 U
NR
3 J
<5 U
Total Zn
Hg/L
<56 U
NR
7
3
-------
B-44
Table B-4 Sample Results - Volatile Organic Compounds (Wise County, Texas)

Sample
GW01
GW01
GW01
GW01
GW01

Sample Date
9/20/11
3/5/12
9/20/12
12/3/12
5/28/13
Parameter (CAS Number)
Unit
Round 1
Round 2
Round 3
Round 4
Round 5
ethanol (64-17-5)
Hg/L
<100 u
<100 u
NA
<100 u
<100 u
isopropanol (67-63-0)
Hg/L
<25.0 U
<25.0 U
NA
<10 u
<10 u
acrylonitrile (107-13-1)
Hg/L
NA
<25.0 U,J-
NA
<1 u
<1 u
styrene (100-42-5)
Hg/L
NA
<0.5 U
NA
NR
<0.5 U
acetone (67-64-1)
Hg/L
<1.0 U
<1.0 U
NA
<1 U
2.6 B
tert-butyl alcohol (75-65-0)
Hg/L
<5.0 U
<5.0 U
NA
<10 U
<10 U
methyl tert-butyl ether (1634-04-4)
Hg/L
<1.0 U
<1.0 U
NA
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
diisopropyl ether (108-20-3)
Hg/L
<1.0 U
<1.0 U
NA
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
ethyl tert-butyl ether (637-92-3)
Hg/L
<1.0 U
<1.0 U
NA
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
tert-amyl methyl ether (994-05-8)
Hg/L
<1.0 U
<1.0 U
NA
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
vinyl chloride (75-01-4)
Hg/L
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
NA
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
1,1-dichloroethene (75-35-4)
Hg/L
R
R
NA
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
carbon disulfide (75-15-0)
Hg/L
<0.5 U,J-
<0.5 U,J-
NA
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
methylene chloride (75-09-2)
Hg/L
<1.0 U
<1.0 U
NA
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
trans-l,2-dichloroethene (156-60-5)
M^g/L
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
NA
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
1,1-dichloroethane (75-34-3)
kig/L
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
NA
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
cis-l,2-dichoroethene (156-59-2)
kig/L
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
NA
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
chloroform (67-66-3)
Hg/L
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
NA
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
1,1,1-trichloroethane (71-55-6)
kig/L
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
NA
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
carbon tetrachloride (56-23-5)
kig/L
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
NA
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
benzene (71-43-2)
kig/L
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
NA
<0.5 U
0.12 J
1,2-dichloroethane (107-06-2)
kig/L
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
NA
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
trichloroethene (79-01-6)
Hg/L
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
NA
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
toluene (108-88-3)
kig/L
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
NA
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
1,1,2-trichloroethane (79-00-5)
kig/L
R
R
NA
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
tetrachloroethene (127-18-4)
kig/L
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
NA
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
chlorobenzene (108-90-7)
kig/L
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
NA
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
ethylbenzene (100-41-4)
Hg/L
<1.0 U
<1.0 U
NA
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
m+p xylene (108-38-3, 106-42-3 )
kig/L
<2.0 U
<2.0 U
NA
<1 U
0.25 J
o-xylene (95-47-6)
kig/L
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
NA
<0.5 U
0.09 J
isopropylbenzene (98-82-8)
kig/L
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
NA
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
1,3,5-trimethylbenzene (108-67-8)
kig/L
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
NA
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
-------
B-45
Table B-4 Sample Results - Volatile Organic Compounds (Wise County, Texas)

Sample
GW02
GW02
GW02
GW02
GW03
GW03
GW03

Sample Date
9/20/11
3/5/12
12/3/12
5/28/13
9/20/11
3/5/12
12/3/12
Parameter (CAS Number)
Unit
Round 1
Round 2
Round 4
Round 5
Round 1
Round 2
Round 4
ethanol (64-17-5)
Hg/L
<100 u
<100 u
<100 u
<100 u
<100 u
<100 u
<100 u
isopropanol (67-63-0)
Hg/L
<25.0 U
<25.0 U
<10 u
<10 u
<25.0 U
<25.0 U
<10 u
acrylonitrile (107-13-1)
Hg/L
NA
<25.0 U,J-
<1 u
<1 u
NA
<25.0 U,J-
<1 u
styrene (100-42-5)
Hg/L
NA
<0.5 U
NR
<0.5 U
NA
<0.5 U
NR
acetone (67-64-1)
Hg/L
<1.0 U
<1.0 U
<1 U
2.8 B
<1.0 U
<1.0 U
<1 U
tert-butyl alcohol (75-65-0)
Hg/L
<5.0 U
<5.0 U
<10 U
<10 U
<5.0 U
<5.0 U
<10 U
methyl tert-butyl ether (1634-04-4)
Hg/L
<1.0 U
<1.0 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<1.0 U
<1.0 U
<0.5 U
diisopropyl ether (108-20-3)
Hg/L
<1.0 U
<1.0 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<1.0 U
<1.0 U
<0.5 U
ethyl tert-butyl ether (637-92-3)
Hg/L
<1.0 U
<1.0 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<1.0 U
<1.0 U
<0.5 U
tert-amyl methyl ether (994-05-8)
Hg/L
<1.0 U
<1.0 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<1.0 U
<1.0 U
<0.5 U
vinyl chloride (75-01-4)
Hg/L
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
1,1-dichloroethene (75-35-4)
Hg/L
R
R
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
R
R
<0.5 U
carbon disulfide (75-15-0)
Hg/L
<0.5 U,J-
<0.5 U,J-
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U,J-
<0.5 U,J-
<0.5 U
methylene chloride (75-09-2)
Hg/L
<1.0 U
<1.0 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<1.0 U
<1.0 U
<0.5 U
trans-l,2-dichloroethene (156-60-5)
M^g/L
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
1,1-dichloroethane (75-34-3)
kig/L
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
cis-l,2-dichoroethene (156-59-2)
kig/L
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
chloroform (67-66-3)
Hg/L
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
1,1,1-trichloroethane (71-55-6)
kig/L
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
carbon tetrachloride (56-23-5)
kig/L
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
benzene (71-43-2)
kig/L
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
1,2-dichloroethane (107-06-2)
kig/L
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
trichloroethene (79-01-6)
Hg/L
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
toluene (108-88-3)
kig/L
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
0.80 B
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
1,1,2-trichloroethane (79-00-5)
kig/L
R
R
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
R
R
<0.5 U
tetrachloroethene (127-18-4)
kig/L
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
chlorobenzene (108-90-7)
kig/L
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
ethylbenzene (100-41-4)
Hg/L
<1.0 U
<1.0 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<1.0 U
<1.0 U
<0.5 U
m+p xylene (108-38-3, 106-42-3 )
kig/L
<2.0 U
<2.0 U
<1 U
<1.0 U
<2.0 U
<2.0 U
<1 U
o-xylene (95-47-6)
kig/L
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
isopropylbenzene (98-82-8)
kig/L
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
1,3,5-trimethylbenzene (108-67-8)
kig/L
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
-------
B-46
Table B-4 Sample Results - Volatile Organic Compounds (Wise County, Texas)

Sample
GW04
GW04
GW04
GW04
GW05
GW05

Sample Date
9/22/11
3/6/12
12/4/12
5/29/13
9/22/11
3/6/12
Parameter (CAS Number)
Unit
Round 1
Round 2
Round 4
Round 5
Round 1
Round 2
ethanol (64-17-5)
Hg/L
<100 u
<100 u
<100 u
<100 u
<100 u
<100 u
isopropanol (67-63-0)
Hg/L
<25.0 U
<25.0 U
<10 u
<10 u
<25.0 U
<25.0 U
acrylonitrile (107-13-1)
Hg/L
NA
<25.0 U,J-
<1 u
<1 u
NA
<25.0 U,J-
styrene (100-42-5)
Hg/L
NA
<0.5 U
NR
<0.5 U
NA
<0.5 U
acetone (67-64-1)
Hg/L
<1.0 U
<1.0 U
<1 U
2.1 B
<1.0 U
<1.0 U
tert-butyl alcohol (75-65-0)
Hg/L
<5.0 U
<5.0 U
<10 U
<10 U
<5.0 U
<5.0 U
methyl tert-butyl ether (1634-04-4)
Hg/L
<1.0 U
<1.0 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<1.0 U
<1.0 U
diisopropyl ether (108-20-3)
Hg/L
<1.0 U
<1.0 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<1.0 U
<1.0 U
ethyl tert-butyl ether (637-92-3)
Hg/L
<1.0 U
<1.0 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<1.0 U
<1.0 U
tert-amyl methyl ether (994-05-8)
Hg/L
<1.0 U
<1.0 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<1.0 U
<1.0 U
vinyl chloride (75-01-4)
Hg/L
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
1,1-dichloroethene (75-35-4)
Hg/L
R
R
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
R
R
carbon disulfide (75-15-0)
Hg/L
<0.5 U
<0.5 U,J-
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U,J-
methylene chloride (75-09-2)
Hg/L
<1.0 U
<1.0 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<1.0 U
<1.0 U
trans-l,2-dichloroethene (156-60-5)
M^g/L
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
1,1-dichloroethane (75-34-3)
kig/L
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
cis-l,2-dichoroethene (156-59-2)
kig/L
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
chloroform (67-66-3)
Hg/L
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
1,1,1-trichloroethane (71-55-6)
kig/L
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
carbon tetrachloride (56-23-5)
kig/L
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
benzene (71-43-2)
kig/L
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
0.62
1,2-dichloroethane (107-06-2)
kig/L
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
trichloroethene (79-01-6)
Hg/L
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
toluene (108-88-3)
kig/L
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
1,1,2-trichloroethane (79-00-5)
kig/L
R
R
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
R
R
tetrachloroethene (127-18-4)
kig/L
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
chlorobenzene (108-90-7)
kig/L
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
ethylbenzene (100-41-4)
Hg/L
<1.0 U
<1.0 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<1.0 U
<1.0 U
m+p xylene (108-38-3, 106-42-3 )
kig/L
<2.0 U
<2.0 U
<1 U
<1.0 U
<2.0 U
<2.0 U
o-xylene (95-47-6)
kig/L
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
isopropylbenzene (98-82-8)
kig/L
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
1,3,5-trimethylbenzene (108-67-8)
kig/L
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
-------
B-47
Table B-4 Sample Results - Volatile Organic Compounds (Wise County, Texas)

Sample
GW06
GW06
GW07
GW07

Sample Date
9/19/11
3/7/12
9/19/11
3/8/12
Parameter (CAS Number)
Unit
Round 1
Round 2
Round 1
Round 2
ethanol (64-17-5)
Hg/L
<100 u
<100 u
<100 u
<100 u
isopropanol (67-63-0)
Hg/L
<25.0 U
<25.0 U
<25.0 U
<25.0 U
acrylonitrile (107-13-1)
Hg/L
NA
<25.0 U,J-
NA
<25.0 U,J-
styrene (100-42-5)
Hg/L
NA
<0.5 U
NA
<0.5 U
acetone (67-64-1)
Hg/L
<1.0 U
<1.0 U,J-
<1.0 U
<1.0 U,J-
tert-butyl alcohol (75-65-0)
Hg/L
<5.0 U
<5.0 U
<5.0 U
<5.0 U
methyl tert-butyl ether (1634-04-4)
Hg/L
<1.0 U
<1.0 U
<1.0 U
<1.0 U
diisopropyl ether (108-20-3)
Hg/L
<1.0 U
<1.0 U
<1.0 U
<1.0 U
ethyl tert-butyl ether (637-92-3)
Hg/L
<1.0 U
<1.0 U
<1.0 U
<1.0 U
tert-amyl methyl ether (994-05-8)
Hg/L
<1.0 U
<1.0 U
<1.0 U
<1.0 U
vinyl chloride (75-01-4)
Hg/L
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
1,1-dichloroethene (75-35-4)
Hg/L
R
R
R
R
carbon disulfide (75-15-0)
Hg/L
<0.5 U
<0.5 U,J-
<0.5 U
<0.5 U,J-
methylene chloride (75-09-2)
Hg/L
<1.0 U
<1.0 U
<1.0 U
<1.0 U
trans-l,2-dichloroethene (156-60-5)
M^g/L
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
1,1-dichloroethane (75-34-3)
kig/L
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
cis-l,2-dichoroethene (156-59-2)
kig/L
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
chloroform (67-66-3)
Hg/L
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
1,1,1-trichloroethane (71-55-6)
kig/L
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
carbon tetrachloride (56-23-5)
kig/L
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
benzene (71-43-2)
kig/L
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
1,2-dichloroethane (107-06-2)
kig/L
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
trichloroethene (79-01-6)
Hg/L
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
toluene (108-88-3)
kig/L
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
1,1,2-trichloroethane (79-00-5)
kig/L
R
R
R
R
tetrachloroethene (127-18-4)
kig/L
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
chlorobenzene (108-90-7)
kig/L
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
ethylbenzene (100-41-4)
Hg/L
<1.0 U
<1.0 U
<1.0 U
<1.0 U
m+p xylene (108-38-3, 106-42-3 )
kig/L
<2.0 U
<2.0 U
<2.0 U
<2.0 U
o-xylene (95-47-6)
kig/L
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
isopropylbenzene (98-82-8)
kig/L
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
1,3,5-trimethylbenzene (108-67-8)
kig/L
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
-------
B-48
Table B-4 Sample Results - Volatile Organic Compounds (Wise County, Texas)

Sample
GW08
GW08
GW08
GW08
GW08
GW09
GW09

Sample Date
9/20/11
3/5/12
9/20/12
12/4/12
5/29/13
9/21/11
3/7/12
Parameter (CAS Number)
Unit
Round 1
Round 2
Round 3
Round 4
Round 5
Round 1
Round 2
ethanol (64-17-5)
Hg/L
<100 u
<100 u
NA
<100 u
<100 u
<100 u
<100 u
isopropanol (67-63-0)
Hg/L
<25.0 U
<25.0 U
NA
<10 u
<10 u
<25.0 U
<25.0 U
acrylonitrile (107-13-1)
Hg/L
NA
<25.0 U,J-
NA
<1 u
<1 u
NA
<25.0 U,J-
styrene (100-42-5)
Hg/L
NA
<0.5 U
NA
NR
<0.5 U
NA
<0.5 U
acetone (67-64-1)
Hg/L
<1.0 U
<1.0 U
NA
23 B
2.8 B
<1.0 U
<1.0 U,J-
tert-butyl alcohol (75-65-0)
Hg/L
<5.0 U
<5.0 U
NA
38
<10 U
<5.0 U
<5.0 U
methyl tert-butyl ether (1634-04-4)
Hg/L
<1.0 U
<1.0 U
NA
0.56
<0.5 U
<1.0 U
<1.0 U
diisopropyl ether (108-20-3)
Hg/L
<1.0 U
<1.0 U
NA
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<1.0 U
<1.0 U
ethyl tert-butyl ether (637-92-3)
Hg/L
<1.0 U
<1.0 U
NA
1.9
<0.5 U
<1.0 U
<1.0 U
tert-amyl methyl ether (994-05-8)
Hg/L
<1.0 U
<1.0 U
NA
0.076 J
<0.5 U
<1.0 U
<1.0 U
vinyl chloride (75-01-4)
Hg/L
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
NA
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
1,1-dichloroethene (75-35-4)
Hg/L
R
R
NA
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
R
R
carbon disulfide (75-15-0)
Hg/L
<0.5 U
<0.5 U,J-
NA
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U,J-
<0.5 U,J-
methylene chloride (75-09-2)
Hg/L
<1.0 U
<1.0 U
NA
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<1.0 U
<1.0 U
trans-l,2-dichloroethene (156-60-5)
M^g/L
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
NA
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
1,1-dichloroethane (75-34-3)
kig/L
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
NA
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
cis-l,2-dichoroethene (156-59-2)
kig/L
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
NA
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
chloroform (67-66-3)
Hg/L
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
NA
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
1,1,1-trichloroethane (71-55-6)
kig/L
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
NA
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
carbon tetrachloride (56-23-5)
kig/L
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
NA
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
benzene (71-43-2)
kig/L
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
NA
0.08 J
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
1,2-dichloroethane (107-06-2)
kig/L
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
NA
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
trichloroethene (79-01-6)
Hg/L
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
NA
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
toluene (108-88-3)
kig/L
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
NA
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
1,1,2-trichloroethane (79-00-5)
kig/L
R
R
NA
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
R
R
tetrachloroethene (127-18-4)
kig/L
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
NA
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
chlorobenzene (108-90-7)
kig/L
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
NA
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
ethylbenzene (100-41-4)
Hg/L
<1.0 U
<1.0 U
NA
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<1.0 U
<1.0 U
m+p xylene (108-38-3, 106-42-3 )
kig/L
<2.0 U
<2.0 U
NA
<1 U
<1.0 U
<2.0 U
<2.0 U
o-xylene (95-47-6)
kig/L
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
NA
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
isopropylbenzene (98-82-8)
kig/L
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
NA
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
1,3,5-trimethylbenzene (108-67-8)
kig/L
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
NA
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
-------
B-49
Table B-4 Sample Results - Volatile Organic Compounds (Wise County, Texas)

Sample
GW10
GW10
GW11
GW11
GW12

Sample Date
9/22/11
3/7/12
9/22/11
3/7/12
9/21/11
Parameter (CAS Number)
Unit
Round 1
Round 2
Round 1
Round 2
Round 1
ethanol (64-17-5)
Hg/L
<100 u
<100 u
<100 u
<100 u
<100 u
isopropanol (67-63-0)
Hg/L
<25.0 U
<25.0 U
<25.0 U
<25.0 U
<25.0 U
acrylonitrile (107-13-1)
Hg/L
NA
<25.0 U,J-
NA
<25.0 U,J-
NA
styrene (100-42-5)
Hg/L
NA
<0.5 U
NA
<0.5 U
NA
acetone (67-64-1)
Hg/L
<1.0 U
<1.0 U,J-
<1.0 U
<1.0 U,J-
<1.0 U
tert-butyl alcohol (75-65-0)
Hg/L
<5.0 U
<5.0 U
<5.0 U
<5.0 U
<5.0 U
methyl tert-butyl ether (1634-04-4)
Hg/L
<1.0 U
<1.0 U
<1.0 U
<1.0 U
<1.0 U
diisopropyl ether (108-20-3)
Hg/L
<1.0 U
<1.0 U
<1.0 U
<1.0 U
<1.0 U
ethyl tert-butyl ether (637-92-3)
Hg/L
<1.0 U
<1.0 U
<1.0 U
<1.0 U
<1.0 U
tert-amyl methyl ether (994-05-8)
Hg/L
<1.0 U
<1.0 U
<1.0 U
<1.0 U
<1.0 U
vinyl chloride (75-01-4)
Hg/L
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
1,1-dichloroethene (75-35-4)
Hg/L
R
R
R
R
R
carbon disulfide (75-15-0)
Hg/L
<0.5 U,J-
<0.5 U,J-
<0.5 U
<0.5 U,J-
<0.5 U,J-
methylene chloride (75-09-2)
Hg/L
<1.0 U
<1.0 U
<1.0 U
<1.0 U
<1.0 U
trans-l,2-dichloroethene (156-60-5)
M^g/L
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
1,1-dichloroethane (75-34-3)
kig/L
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
cis-l,2-dichoroethene (156-59-2)
kig/L
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
chloroform (67-66-3)
Hg/L
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
1,1,1-trichloroethane (71-55-6)
kig/L
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
carbon tetrachloride (56-23-5)
kig/L
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
benzene (71-43-2)
kig/L
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
1,2-dichloroethane (107-06-2)
kig/L
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
trichloroethene (79-01-6)
Hg/L
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
toluene (108-88-3)
kig/L
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
1,1,2-trichloroethane (79-00-5)
kig/L
R
R
R
R
R
tetrachloroethene (127-18-4)
kig/L
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
chlorobenzene (108-90-7)
kig/L
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
ethylbenzene (100-41-4)
Hg/L
<1.0 U
<1.0 U
<1.0 U
<1.0 U
<1.0 U
m+p xylene (108-38-3, 106-42-3 )
kig/L
<2.0 U
<2.0 U
<2.0 U
<2.0 U
<2.0 U
o-xylene (95-47-6)
kig/L
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
isopropylbenzene (98-82-8)
kig/L
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
1,3,5-trimethylbenzene (108-67-8)
kig/L
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
-------
B-50
Table B-4 Sample Results - Volatile Organic Compounds (Wise County, Texas)

Sample
GW13
GW13
GW13
GW14
GW14
GW14

Sample Date
3/5/12
12/3/12
5/28/13
3/5/12
12/5/12
5/28/13
Parameter (CAS Number)
Unit
Round 2
Round 4
Round 5
Round 2
Round 4
Round 5
ethanol (64-17-5)
Hg/L
<100 u
<100 u
<100 u
<100 u
<100 u
<100 u
isopropanol (67-63-0)
Hg/L
<25.0 U
<10 u
<10 u
<25.0 U
<10 u
<10 u
acrylonitrile (107-13-1)
Hg/L
<25.0 U,J-
<1 u
<1 u
<25.0 U,J-
<1 u
<1 u
styrene (100-42-5)
Hg/L
<0.5 U
NR
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
NR
<0.5 U
acetone (67-64-1)
Hg/L
<1.0 U
<1 U
2.7 B
<1.0 U
13 B
2.2 B
tert-butyl alcohol (75-65-0)
Hg/L
<5.0 U
<10 U
<10 U
<5.0 U
<10 U
<10 U
methyl tert-butyl ether (1634-04-4)
Hg/L
<1.0 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<1.0 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
diisopropyl ether (108-20-3)
Hg/L
<1.0 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<1.0 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
ethyl tert-butyl ether (637-92-3)
Hg/L
<1.0 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<1.0 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
tert-amyl methyl ether (994-05-8)
Hg/L
<1.0 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<1.0 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
vinyl chloride (75-01-4)
Hg/L
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
1,1-dichloroethene (75-35-4)
Hg/L
R
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
R
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
carbon disulfide (75-15-0)
Hg/L
<0.5 U,J-
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U,J-
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
methylene chloride (75-09-2)
Hg/L
<1.0 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<1.0 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
trans-l,2-dichloroethene (156-60-5)
M^g/L
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
1,1-dichloroethane (75-34-3)
kig/L
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
cis-l,2-dichoroethene (156-59-2)
kig/L
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
chloroform (67-66-3)
Hg/L
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
1,1,1-trichloroethane (71-55-6)
kig/L
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
carbon tetrachloride (56-23-5)
kig/L
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
benzene (71-43-2)
kig/L
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
1,2-dichloroethane (107-06-2)
kig/L
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
trichloroethene (79-01-6)
Hg/L
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
toluene (108-88-3)
kig/L
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
1,1,2-trichloroethane (79-00-5)
kig/L
R
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
R
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
tetrachloroethene (127-18-4)
kig/L
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
chlorobenzene (108-90-7)
kig/L
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
ethylbenzene (100-41-4)
Hg/L
<1.0 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<1.0 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
m+p xylene (108-38-3, 106-42-3 )
kig/L
<2.0 U
<1 U
<1.0 U
<2.0 U
<1 U
<1.0 U
o-xylene (95-47-6)
kig/L
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
isopropylbenzene (98-82-8)
kig/L
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
1,3,5-trimethylbenzene (108-67-8)
kig/L
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
-------
B-51
Table B-4 Sample Results - Volatile Organic Compounds (Wise County, Texas)

Sample
GW15
GW15
GW15
GW16
GW16
GW16
PW01

Sample Date
3/6/12
12/5/12
5/30/13
3/6/12
12/5/12
5/30/13
9/20/12
Parameter (CAS Number)
Unit
Round 2
Round 4
Round 5
Round 2
Round 4
Round 5
Round 3
ethanol (64-17-5)
Hg/L
<100 u
<100 u
<100 u
<100 u
<100 u
<100 u
NA
isopropanol (67-63-0)
Hg/L
<25.0 U
<10 u
<10 u
<25.0 U
<10 u
<10 u
NA
acrylonitrile (107-13-1)
Hg/L
<25.0 U,J-
<1 u
<1 u
<25.0 U,J-
<1 u
<1 u
NA
styrene (100-42-5)
Hg/L
<0.5 U
NR
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
NR
<0.5 U
NA
acetone (67-64-1)
Hg/L
<1.0 U
<1 U
2.3 B
<1.0 U
13 B
2.4 B
NA
tert-butyl alcohol (75-65-0)
Hg/L
<5.0 U
<10 U
<10 U
<5.0 U
<10 U
<10 U
NA
methyl tert-butyl ether (1634-04-4)
Hg/L
<1.0 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<1.0 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
NA
diisopropyl ether (108-20-3)
Hg/L
<1.0 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<1.0 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
NA
ethyl tert-butyl ether (637-92-3)
Hg/L
<1.0 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<1.0 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
NA
tert-amyl methyl ether (994-05-8)
Hg/L
<1.0 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<1.0 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
NA
vinyl chloride (75-01-4)
Hg/L
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
NA
1,1-dichloroethene (75-35-4)
Hg/L
R
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
R
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
NA
carbon disulfide (75-15-0)
Hg/L
<0.5 U,J-
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U,J-
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
NA
methylene chloride (75-09-2)
Hg/L
<1.0 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<1.0 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
NA
trans-l,2-dichloroethene (156-60-5)
M^g/L
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
NA
1,1-dichloroethane (75-34-3)
kig/L
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
NA
cis-l,2-dichoroethene (156-59-2)
kig/L
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
NA
chloroform (67-66-3)
Hg/L
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
NA
1,1,1-trichloroethane (71-55-6)
kig/L
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
NA
carbon tetrachloride (56-23-5)
kig/L
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
NA
benzene (71-43-2)
kig/L
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
NA
1,2-dichloroethane (107-06-2)
kig/L
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
NA
trichloroethene (79-01-6)
Hg/L
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
NA
toluene (108-88-3)
kig/L
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
NA
1,1,2-trichloroethane (79-00-5)
kig/L
R
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
R
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
NA
tetrachloroethene (127-18-4)
kig/L
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
NA
chlorobenzene (108-90-7)
kig/L
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
NA
ethylbenzene (100-41-4)
Hg/L
<1.0 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<1.0 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
NA
m+p xylene (108-38-3, 106-42-3 )
kig/L
<2.0 U
<1 U
<1.0 U
<2.0 U
<1 U
<1.0 U
NA
o-xylene (95-47-6)
kig/L
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
NA
isopropylbenzene (98-82-8)
kig/L
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
NA
1,3,5-trimethylbenzene (108-67-8)
kig/L
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
NA
-------
B-52
Table B-4 Sample Results - Volatile Organic Compounds (Wise County, Texas)

Sample
PW02
PW03
SW01
SW01
SW02
SW02

Sample Date
5/29/13
5/29/13
9/21/11
3/6/12
9/21/11
3/6/12
Parameter (CAS Number)
Unit
Round 5
Round 5
Round 1
Round 2
Round 1
Round 2
ethanol (64-17-5)
Hg/L
<2000 U
2200
<100 u
<100 u
<100 u
<100 u
isopropanol (67-63-0)
Hg/L
360
170
<25.0 U
<25.0 U
<25.0 U
<25.0 U
acrylonitrile (107-13-1)
Hg/L
<200 U
<100 U
NA
<25.0 U,J-
NA
<25.0 U,J-
styrene (100-42-5)
Hg/L
<100 U
<50 U
NA
<0.5 U
NA
<0.5 U
acetone (67-64-1)
Hg/L
880
770
<1.0 U
<1.0 U
<1.0 U
<1.0 U
tert-butyl alcohol (75-65-0)
Hg/L
<200 U
<200 U
<5.0 U
<5.0 U
<5.0 U
<5.0 U
methyl tert-butyl ether (1634-04-4)
Hg/L
<100 U
<50 U
<1.0 U
<1.0 U
<1.0 U
<1.0 U
diisopropyl ether (108-20-3)
Hg/L
<100 U
<50 U
<1.0 U
<1.0 U
<1.0 U
<1.0 U
ethyl tert-butyl ether (637-92-3)
Hg/L
<100 U
<50 U
<1.0 U
<1.0 U
<1.0 U
<1.0 U
tert-amyl methyl ether (994-05-8)
Hg/L
<100 U
<50 U
<1.0 U
<1.0 U
<1.0 U
<1.0 U
vinyl chloride (75-01-4)
Hg/L
<100 U
<50 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
1,1-dichloroethene (75-35-4)
Hg/L
<100 u
<50 U
R
R
R
R
carbon disulfide (75-15-0)
Hg/L
<100 u
<50 U
<0.5 U,J-
<0.5 U,J-
<0.5 U,J-
<0.5 U,J-
methylene chloride (75-09-2)
Hg/L
<100 u
<50 U
<1.0 U
<1.0 U
<1.0 U
<1.0 U
trans-l,2-dichloroethene (156-60-5)
M^g/L
<100 u
<50 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
1,1-dichloroethane (75-34-3)
kig/L
<100 u
<50 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
cis-l,2-dichoroethene (156-59-2)
kig/L
<100 u
<50 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
chloroform (67-66-3)
Hg/L
<100 u
<50 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
1,1,1-trichloroethane (71-55-6)
kig/L
<100 u
<50 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
carbon tetrachloride (56-23-5)
kig/L
<100 u
<50 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
benzene (71-43-2)
kig/L
3100
4300
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
1,2-dichloroethane (107-06-2)
kig/L
<100 u
<50 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
trichloroethene (79-01-6)
Hg/L
<100 u
<50 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
toluene (108-88-3)
kig/L
<100 u
<50 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
1,1,2-trichloroethane (79-00-5)
kig/L
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
R
R
R
R
tetrachloroethene (127-18-4)
kig/L
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
chlorobenzene (108-90-7)
kig/L
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
ethylbenzene (100-41-4)
Hg/L
720
350
<1.0 U
<1.0 U
<1.0 U
<1.0 U
m+p xylene (108-38-3, 106-42-3 )
kig/L
4800
5600
<2.0 U
<2.0 U
<2.0 U
<2.0 U
o-xylene (95-47-6)
kig/L
1500
1400
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
isopropylbenzene (98-82-8)
kig/L
55 J
46 J
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
1,3,5-trimethylbenzene (108-67-8)
kig/L
230
810
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
-------
B-53
Table B-4 Sample Results - Volatile Organic Compounds (Wise County, Texas)

Sample
SW03
SW03
SW04
SW04

Sample Date
9/22/11
3/7/12
12/4/12
5/29/13
Parameter (CAS Number)
Unit
Round 1
Round 2
Round 4
Round 5
ethanol (64-17-5)
Hg/L
<100 u
<100 u
<100 u
<100 u
isopropanol (67-63-0)
Hg/L
<25.0 U
<25.0 U
<10 u
<10 u
acrylonitrile (107-13-1)
Hg/L
NA
<25.0 U,J-
<1 u
<1 u
styrene (100-42-5)
Hg/L
NA
<0.5 U
NR
<0.5 U
acetone (67-64-1)
Hg/L
<1.0 U
<1.0 U,J-
9.8 B
3.1 B
tert-butyl alcohol (75-65-0)
Hg/L
<5.0 U
<5.0 U
<10 U
<10 U
methyl tert-butyl ether (1634-04-4)
Hg/L
<1.0 U
<1.0 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
diisopropyl ether (108-20-3)
Hg/L
<1.0 U
<1.0 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
ethyl tert-butyl ether (637-92-3)
Hg/L
<1.0 U
<1.0 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
tert-amyl methyl ether (994-05-8)
Hg/L
<1.0 U
<1.0 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
vinyl chloride (75-01-4)
Hg/L
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
1,1-dichloroethene (75-35-4)
Hg/L
R
R
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
carbon disulfide (75-15-0)
Hg/L
<0.5 U,J-
<0.5 U,J-
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
methylene chloride (75-09-2)
Hg/L
<1.0 U
<1.0 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
trans-l,2-dichloroethene (156-60-5)
M^g/L
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
1,1-dichloroethane (75-34-3)
kig/L
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
cis-l,2-dichoroethene (156-59-2)
kig/L
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
chloroform (67-66-3)
Hg/L
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
1,1,1-trichloroethane (71-55-6)
kig/L
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
carbon tetrachloride (56-23-5)
kig/L
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
benzene (71-43-2)
kig/L
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
1,2-dichloroethane (107-06-2)
kig/L
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
trichloroethene (79-01-6)
Hg/L
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
toluene (108-88-3)
kig/L
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
1,1,2-trichloroethane (79-00-5)
kig/L
R
R
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
tetrachloroethene (127-18-4)
kig/L
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
chlorobenzene (108-90-7)
kig/L
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
ethylbenzene (100-41-4)
Hg/L
<1.0 U
<1.0 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
m+p xylene (108-38-3, 106-42-3 )
kig/L
<2.0 U
<2.0 U
<1 U
<1.0 U
o-xylene (95-47-6)
kig/L
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
isopropylbenzene (98-82-8)
kig/L
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
1,3,5-trimethylbenzene (108-67-8)
kig/L
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
-------
B-54
Table B-4 Sample Results - Volatile Organic Compounds (Wise County, Texas)

Sample
GW01
GW01
GW01
GW01
GW01

Sample Date
9/20/11
3/5/12
9/20/12
12/3/12
5/28/13
Parameter (CAS Number)
Unit
Round 1
Round 2
Round 3
Round 4
Round 5
1,2,4-trimethylbenzene (95-63-6)
Hg/L
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
NA
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
1,3-dichlorobenzene (541-73-1)
Hg/L
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
NA
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
1,4-dichlorobenzene (106-46-7)
Hg/L
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
NA
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
1,2,3-trimethylbenzene (526-73-8)
Hg/L
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
NA
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
1,2-dichlorobenzene (95-50-1)
Hg/L
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
NA
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
naphthalene (91-20-3)
kig/L
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
NA
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
-------
B-55
Table B-4 Sample Results - Volatile Organic Compounds (Wise County, Texas)

Sample
GW02
GW02
GW02
GW02
GW03
GW03
GW03

Sample Date
9/20/11
3/5/12
12/3/12
5/28/13
9/20/11
3/5/12
12/3/12
Parameter (CAS Number)
Unit
Round 1
Round 2
Round 4
Round 5
Round 1
Round 2
Round 4
1,2,4-trimethylbenzene (95-63-6)
Hg/L
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
1,3-dichlorobenzene (541-73-1)
Hg/L
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
1,4-dichlorobenzene (106-46-7)
Hg/L
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
1,2,3-trimethylbenzene (526-73-8)
Hg/L
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
1,2-dichlorobenzene (95-50-1)
Hg/L
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
naphthalene (91-20-3)
kig/L
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
-------
B-56
Table B-4 Sample Results - Volatile Organic Compounds (Wise County, Texas)

Sample
GW04
GW04
GW04
GW04
GW05
GW05

Sample Date
9/22/11
3/6/12
12/4/12
5/29/13
9/22/11
3/6/12
Parameter (CAS Number)
Unit
Round 1
Round 2
Round 4
Round 5
Round 1
Round 2
1,2,4-trimethylbenzene (95-63-6)
Hg/L
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
1,3-dichlorobenzene (541-73-1)
Hg/L
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
1,4-dichlorobenzene (106-46-7)
Hg/L
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
1,2,3-trimethylbenzene (526-73-8)
Hg/L
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
1,2-dichlorobenzene (95-50-1)
Hg/L
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
naphthalene (91-20-3)
kig/L
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
-------
B-57
Table B-4 Sample Results - Volatile Organic Compounds (Wise County, Texas)

Sample
GW06
GW06
GW07
GW07

Sample Date
9/19/11
3/7/12
9/19/11
3/8/12
Parameter (CAS Number)
Unit
Round 1
Round 2
Round 1
Round 2
1,2,4-trimethylbenzene (95-63-6)
Hg/L
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
1,3-dichlorobenzene (541-73-1)
Hg/L
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
1,4-dichlorobenzene (106-46-7)
Hg/L
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
1,2,3-trimethylbenzene (526-73-8)
Hg/L
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
1,2-dichlorobenzene (95-50-1)
Hg/L
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
naphthalene (91-20-3)
kig/L
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
-------
B-58
Table B-4 Sample Results - Volatile Organic Compounds (Wise County, Texas)

Sample
GW08
GW08
GW08
GW08
GW08
GW09
GW09

Sample Date
9/20/11
3/5/12
9/20/12
12/4/12
5/29/13
9/21/11
3/7/12
Parameter (CAS Number)
Unit
Round 1
Round 2
Round 3
Round 4
Round 5
Round 1
Round 2
1,2,4-trimethylbenzene (95-63-6)
Hg/L
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
NA
0.074 J
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
1,3-dichlorobenzene (541-73-1)
Hg/L
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
NA
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
1,4-dichlorobenzene (106-46-7)
Hg/L
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
NA
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
1,2,3-trimethylbenzene (526-73-8)
Hg/L
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
NA
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
1,2-dichlorobenzene (95-50-1)
Hg/L
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
NA
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
naphthalene (91-20-3)
kig/L
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
NA
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
-------
B-59
Table B-4 Sample Results - Volatile Organic Compounds (Wise County, Texas)

Sample
GW10
GW10
GW11
GW11
GW12

Sample Date
9/22/11
3/7/12
9/22/11
3/7/12
9/21/11
Parameter (CAS Number)
Unit
Round 1
Round 2
Round 1
Round 2
Round 1
1,2,4-trimethylbenzene (95-63-6)
Hg/L
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
1,3-dichlorobenzene (541-73-1)
Hg/L
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
1,4-dichlorobenzene (106-46-7)
Hg/L
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
1,2,3-trimethylbenzene (526-73-8)
Hg/L
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
1,2-dichlorobenzene (95-50-1)
Hg/L
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
naphthalene (91-20-3)
kig/L
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
-------
B-60
Table B-4 Sample Results - Volatile Organic Compounds (Wise County, Texas)

Sample
GW13
GW13
GW13
GW14
GW14
GW14

Sample Date
3/5/12
12/3/12
5/28/13
3/5/12
12/5/12
5/28/13
Parameter (CAS Number)
Unit
Round 2
Round 4
Round 5
Round 2
Round 4
Round 5
1,2,4-trimethylbenzene (95-63-6)
Hg/L
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
1,3-dichlorobenzene (541-73-1)
Hg/L
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
1,4-dichlorobenzene (106-46-7)
Hg/L
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
1,2,3-trimethylbenzene (526-73-8)
Hg/L
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
1,2-dichlorobenzene (95-50-1)
Hg/L
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
naphthalene (91-20-3)
kig/L
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
-------
B-61
Table B-4 Sample Results - Volatile Organic Compounds (Wise County, Texas)

Sample
GW15
GW15
GW15
GW16
GW16
GW16
PW01

Sample Date
3/6/12
12/5/12
5/30/13
3/6/12
12/5/12
5/30/13
9/20/12
Parameter (CAS Number)
Unit
Round 2
Round 4
Round 5
Round 2
Round 4
Round 5
Round 3
1,2,4-trimethylbenzene (95-63-6)
Hg/L
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
NA
1,3-dichlorobenzene (541-73-1)
Hg/L
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
NA
1,4-dichlorobenzene (106-46-7)
Hg/L
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
NA
1,2,3-trimethylbenzene (526-73-8)
Hg/L
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
NA
1,2-dichlorobenzene (95-50-1)
Hg/L
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
NA
naphthalene (91-20-3)
kig/L
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
NA
-------
B-62
Table B-4 Sample Results - Volatile Organic Compounds (Wise County, Texas)

Sample
PW02
PW03
SW01
SW01
SW02
SW02

Sample Date
5/29/13
5/29/13
9/21/11
3/6/12
9/21/11
3/6/12
Parameter (CAS Number)
Unit
Round 5
Round 5
Round 1
Round 2
Round 1
Round 2
1,2,4-trimethylbenzene (95-63-6)
Hg/L
360
1200
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
1,3-dichlorobenzene (541-73-1)
Hg/L
<100 U
<50 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
1,4-dichlorobenzene (106-46-7)
Hg/L
<100 U
<50 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
1,2,3-trimethylbenzene (526-73-8)
Hg/L
99 J
200
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
1,2-dichlorobenzene (95-50-1)
Hg/L
<100 U
<50 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
naphthalene (91-20-3)
kig/L
150
25
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
-------
B-63
Table B-4 Sample Results - Volatile Organic Compounds (Wise County, Texas)

Sample
SW03
SW03
SW04
SW04

Sample Date
9/22/11
3/7/12
12/4/12
5/29/13
Parameter (CAS Number)
Unit
Round 1
Round 2
Round 4
Round 5
1,2,4-trimethylbenzene (95-63-6)
Hg/L
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
1,3-dichlorobenzene (541-73-1)
Hg/L
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
1,4-dichlorobenzene (106-46-7)
Hg/L
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
1,2,3-trimethylbenzene (526-73-8)
Hg/L
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
1,2-dichlorobenzene (95-50-1)
Hg/L
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
naphthalene (91-20-3)
kig/L
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
-------
B-64
Table B-5 Sample Results - Dissolved Gases, Diesel and Gasoline Range Organics, Glycols, and Low Molecular
Weight Acids (Wise County, Texas)

Sample
GW01
GW01
GW01
GW01
GW01

Sample Date
9/20/11
3/5/12
9/20/12
12/3/12
5/28/13
Parameter (CAS Number)
Unit
Round 1
Round 2
Round 3
Round 4
Round 5
Dissolved Gases

Methane (74-82-8)
mg/L
0.0093
0.0195
NA
0.0224
NA
Ethane (74-84-0)
mg/L
<0.0029 U
<0.0027 U
NA
<0.0028 U
NA
Propane (74-98-6)
mg/L
<0.0040 U
<0.0038 U
NA
<0.0038 U
NA
Butane (106-97-8)
mg/L
<0.0050 U
<0.0048 U
NA
<0.0048 U
NA
Diesel and Gas Range Organics

GRO/TPH
Hg/L
<20.0 U
<20.0 U
NA
<20.0 U
NA
DRO
Hg/L
<20.0 U
<20.0 U
NA
<20.0 U
NA
Glycols

2-butoxyethanol (111-76-2)
Hg/L
<10 U,H
<10 U,J-
NA
<25 U
NA
Diethylene glycol (111-46-6)
Hg/L
<50 U,H
<50 U
NA
<25 U
NA
Triethylene glycol (112-27-6)
Hg/L
<50 U,H
<50 U,J-
NA
<25 U
NA
Tetraethylene glycol (112-60-7)
Hg/L
<25 U,H
<25 U
NA
<25 U
NA
Low Molecular Weight Acids

Lactate (50-21-5)
mg/L
<0.10 U
<0.10 U
NA
<0.10 U
NA
Formate (64-18-6)
mg/L
<0.10 U
0.85 B
NA
R
NA
Acetate (64-19-7)
mg/L
<0.10 U
<0.10 U
NA
<0.10 U
NA
Propionate (79-09-4)
mg/L
<0.10 U
<0.10 U
NA
<0.10 U
NA
Butyrate (107-92-6)
mg/L
<0.10 U
<0.10 U
NA
<0.10 U
NA
-------
B-65
Table B-5 Sample Results - Dissolved Gases, Diesel and Gasoline Range Organics, Glycols, and Low Molecular
Weight Acids (Wise County, Texas)

Sample
GW02
GW02
GW02
GW02
GW03
GW03
GW03

Sample Date
9/20/11
3/5/12
12/3/12
5/28/13
9/20/11
3/5/12
12/3/12
Parameter (CAS Number)
Unit
Round 1
Round 2
Round 4
Round 5
Round 1
Round 2
Round 4
Dissolved Gases

Methane (74-82-8)
mg/L
<0.0014 U
0.0016
0.0013 J
NA
0.0023
0.0018
0.0014
Ethane (74-84-0)
mg/L
<0.0029 U
<0.0027 U
<0.0028 U
NA
<0.0029 U
<0.0027 U
<0.0028 U
Propane (74-98-6)
mg/L
<0.0040 U
<0.0038 U
<0.0038 U
NA
<0.0040 U
<0.0038 U
<0.0038 U
Butane (106-97-8)
mg/L
<0.0050 U
<0.0048 U
<0.0048 U
NA
<0.0050 U
<0.0048 U
<0.0048 U
Diesel and Gas Range Organics

GRO/TPH
Hg/L
<20.0 U
<20.0 U
<20.0 U
NA
<20.0 U
<20.0 U
<20.0 U
DRO
Hg/L
<20.0 U
<20.0 U
<20.0 U
NA
<20.0 U
<20.0 U
<20.0 U
Glycols

2-butoxyethanol (111-76-2)
Hg/L
<10 U,H
<10 U,J-
<25 U
NA
<10 U,H
<10 U,J-
<25 U
Diethylene glycol (111-46-6)
Hg/L
<50 U,H
<50 U
<25 U
NA
<50 U,H
<50 U
<25 U
Triethylene glycol (112-27-6)
Hg/L
<50 U,H
<50 U,J-
<25 U
NA
<50 U,H
<50 U,J-
<25 U
Tetraethylene glycol (112-60-7)
Hg/L
<25 U,H
<25 U
<25 U
NA
<25 U,H
<25 U
<25 U
Low Molecular Weight Acids

Lactate (50-21-5)
mg/L
<0.10 U
<0.10 U
<0.10 U
NA
<0.10 U
<0.10 U
<0.10 U
Formate (64-18-6)
mg/L
<0.10 U
0.41 B
R
NA
<0.10 U
0.43 B
R
Acetate (64-19-7)
mg/L
<0.10 U
<0.10 U
<0.10 U
NA
0.17 B
0.07 J
<0.10 U
Propionate (79-09-4)
mg/L
<0.10 U
<0.10 U
<0.10 U
NA
<0.10 U
<0.10 U
<0.10 U
Butyrate (107-92-6)
mg/L
<0.10 U
<0.10 U
<0.10 U
NA
<0.10 U
<0.10 U
<0.10 U
-------
B-66
Table B-5 Sample Results - Dissolved Gases, Diesel and Gasoline Range Organics, Glycols, and Low Molecular
Weight Acids (Wise County, Texas)

Sample
GW04
GW04
GW04
GW04
GW05
GW05
GW06
GW06

Sample Date
9/22/11
3/6/12
12/4/12
5/29/13
9/22/11
3/6/12
9/19/11
3/7/12
Parameter (CAS Number)
Unit
Round 1
Round 2
Round 4
Round 5
Round 1
Round 2
Round 1
Round 2
Dissolved Gases

Methane (74-82-8)
mg/L
<0.0014 U
0.0015
<0.0014 U
NA
<0.0014 U
0.0019
<0.0014 U
<0.0014 U
Ethane (74-84-0)
mg/L
0.0017 J
<0.0027 U
<0.0028 U
NA
<0.0029 U
<0.0027 U
<0.0029 U
<0.0027 U
Propane (74-98-6)
mg/L
0.0034 J
<0.0038 U
<0.0038 U
NA
<0.0040 U
<0.0038 U
<0.0040 U
<0.0038 U
Butane (106-97-8)
mg/L
0.0015 J
<0.0048 U
<0.0048 U
NA
<0.0050 U
<0.0048 U
<0.0050 U
<0.0048 U
Diesel and Gas Range Organics

GRO/TPH
Hg/L
<20.0 U
<20.0 U
<20.0 U
NA
<20.0 U
<20.0 U
<20.0 U
<20.0 U
DRO
Hg/L
<20.0 U
<20.0 U
<20.0 U
NA
<20.0 U
<20.0 U
<20.0 U
<20.0 U
Glycols

2-butoxyethanol (111-76-2)
Hg/L
<10 U,H
<10 U,J-
<25 U
NA
<10 U,H
<10 U,J-
<10 U,H
<10 U,J-
Diethylene glycol (111-46-6)
Hg/L
<50 U
<50 U
<25 U
NA
<50 U
<50 U
<50 U
<50 U
Triethylene glycol (112-27-6)
Hg/L
<50 U
<50 U,J-
<25 U
NA
<50 U
<50 U,J-
<50 U
<50 U,J-
Tetraethylene glycol (112-60-7)
Hg/L
<25 U
<25 U
<25 U
NA
<25 U
<25 U
<25 U
<25 U
Low Molecular Weight Acids

Lactate (50-21-5)
mg/L
<0.10 U
<0.10 U
<0.10 U
NA
<0.10 U
0.08 J
<0.10 U
<0.10 U
Formate (64-18-6)
mg/L
<0.10 U
0.44
R
NA
<0.10 U
0.52
<0.10 U
0.16 B
Acetate (64-19-7)
mg/L
0.16 B
<0.10 U
<0.10 U
NA
0.19 B
0.07 J
0.14 B
<0.10 U
Propionate (79-09-4)
mg/L
<0.10 U
<0.10 U
<0.10 U
NA
<0.10 U
<0.10 U
<0.10 U
<0.10 U
Butyrate (107-92-6)
mg/L
<0.10 U
<0.10 U
<0.10 U
NA
<0.10 U
<0.10 U
<0.10 U
<0.10 U
-------
B-67
Table B-5 Sample Results - Dissolved Gases, Diesel and Gasoline Range Organics, Glycols, and Low Molecular
Weight Acids (Wise County, Texas)

Sample
GW07
GW07
GW08
GW08
GW08
GW08
GW08

Sample Date
9/19/11
3/8/12
9/20/11
3/5/12
9/20/12
12/4/12
5/29/13
Parameter (CAS Number)
Unit
Round 1
Round 2
Round 1
Round 2
Round 3
Round 4
Round 5
Dissolved Gases

Methane (74-82-8)
mg/L
0.0188
0.0242
0.0121
0.0147
NA
<0.0014 U
NA
Ethane (74-84-0)
mg/L
<0.0029 U
<0.0027 U
<0.0029 U
<0.0027 U
NA
<0.0028 U
NA
Propane (74-98-6)
mg/L
<0.0040 U
<0.0038 U
<0.0040 U
<0.0038 U
NA
<0.0038 U
NA
Butane (106-97-8)
mg/L
<0.0050 U
<0.0048 U
<0.0050 U
<0.0048 U
NA
<0.0048 U
NA
Diesel and Gas Range Organics

GRO/TPH
Hg/L
<20.0 U
<20.0 U
<20.0 U
<20.0 U
NA
20.4
NA
DRO
Hg/L
<20.0 U
<20.0 U
<20.0 U
<20.0 U
NA
<20.0 U
NA
Glycols

2-butoxyethanol (111-76-2)
Hg/L
<10 U,H
<10 U,J-
<10 U,H
<10 U,J-
NA
<25 U
NA
Diethylene glycol (111-46-6)
Hg/L
<50 U
<50 U
<50 U,H
<50 U
NA
<25 U
NA
Triethylene glycol (112-27-6)
Hg/L
<50 U
<50 U,J-
<50 U,H
<50 U,J-
NA
<25 U
NA
Tetraethylene glycol (112-60-7)
Hg/L
<25 U
<25 U
<25 U,H
<25 U
NA
<25 U
NA
Low Molecular Weight Acids

Lactate (50-21-5)
mg/L
<0.10 U
<0.10 U
<0.10 U
<0.10 U
NA
<0.10 U
NA
Formate (64-18-6)
mg/L
<0.10 U
0.22 B
0.29
0.20
NA
R
NA
Acetate (64-19-7)
mg/L
0.16 B
<0.10 U
0.23 B
<0.10 U
NA
<0.10 U
NA
Propionate (79-09-4)
mg/L
<0.10 U
<0.10 U
<0.10 U
<0.10 U
NA
<0.10 U
NA
Butyrate (107-92-6)
mg/L
<0.10 U
<0.10 U
<0.10 U
<0.10 U
NA
<0.10 U
NA
-------
B-68
Table B-5 Sample Results - Dissolved Gases, Diesel and Gasoline Range Organics, Glycols, and Low Molecular
Weight Acids (Wise County, Texas)

Sample
GW09
GW09
GW10
GW10
GW11
GW11
GW12

Sample Date
9/21/11
3/7/12
9/22/11
3/7/12
9/22/11
3/7/12
9/21/11
Parameter (CAS Number)
Unit
Round 1
Round 2
Round 1
Round 2
Round 1
Round 2
Round 1
Dissolved Gases

Methane (74-82-8)
mg/L
<0.0014 U
0.0009 J
<0.0014 U
<0.0014 U
<0.0014 U
0.0007 J
<0.0014 U
Ethane (74-84-0)
mg/L
<0.0029 U
<0.0027 U
<0.0029 U
<0.0027 U
<0.0029 U
<0.0027 U
<0.0029 U
Propane (74-98-6)
mg/L
<0.0040 U
<0.0038 U
<0.0040 U
<0.0038 U
<0.0040 U
<0.0038 U
<0.0040 U
Butane (106-97-8)
mg/L
<0.0050 U
<0.0048 U
<0.0050 U
<0.0048 U
<0.0050 U
<0.0048 U
<0.0050 U
Diesel and Gas Range Organics

GRO/TPH
Hg/L
<20.0 U
<20.0 U
<20.0 U
<20.0 U
<20.0 U
<20.0 U
<20.0 U
DRO
Hg/L
<20.0 U
<20.0 U
<20.0 U
<20.0 U
<20.0 U
<20.0 U
<20.0 U
Glycols

2-butoxyethanol (111-76-2)
Hg/L
<10 U,H
<10 U,J-
<10 U,H
<10 U,J-
<10 U,H
<10 U,J-
<10 U,H
Diethylene glycol (111-46-6)
Hg/L
<50 U,H
<50 U
<50 U
<50 U
<50 U
<50 U
<50 U,H
Triethylene glycol (112-27-6)
Hg/L
<50 U,H
<50 U,J-
<50 U
<50 U,J-
<50 U
<50 U,J-
<50 U,H
Tetraethylene glycol (112-60-7)
Hg/L
<25 U,H
<25 U
<25 U
<25 U
<25 U
<25 U
<25 U,H
Low Molecular Weight Acids

Lactate (50-21-5)
mg/L
<0.10 U
<0.10 U
<0.10 U
<0.10 U
<0.10 U
<0.10 U
<0.10 U
Formate (64-18-6)
mg/L
0.11
0.29 B
<0.10 U
0.28 B
<0.10 U
0.22 B
<0.10 U
Acetate (64-19-7)
mg/L
0.23 B
<0.10 U
0.22 B
<0.10 U
<0.10 U
<0.10 U
<0.10 U
Propionate (79-09-4)
mg/L
<0.10 U
<0.10 U
<0.10 U
<0.10 U
<0.10 U
<0.10 U
<0.10 U
Butyrate (107-92-6)
mg/L
<0.10 U
<0.10 U
<0.10 U
<0.10 U
<0.10 U
<0.10 U
<0.10 U
-------
B-69
Table B-5 Sample Results - Dissolved Gases, Diesel and Gasoline Range Organics, Glycols, and Low Molecular
Weight Acids (Wise County, Texas)

Sample
GW13
GW13
GW13
GW14
GW14
GW14

Sample Date
3/5/12
12/3/12
5/28/13
3/5/12
12/5/12
5/28/13
Parameter (CAS Number)
Unit
Round 2
Round 4
Round 5
Round 2
Round 4
Round 5
Dissolved Gases

Methane (74-82-8)
mg/L
0.0018
0.00143
NA
0.0016
<0.0014 U
NA
Ethane (74-84-0)
mg/L
<0.0027 U
<0.0028 U
NA
<0.0027 U
<0.0028 U
NA
Propane (74-98-6)
mg/L
<0.0038 U
<0.0038 U
NA
<0.0038 U
<0.0038 U
NA
Butane (106-97-8)
mg/L
<0.0048 U
<0.0048 U
NA
<0.0048 U
<0.0048 U
NA
Diesel and Gas Range Organics

GRO/TPH
Hg/L
<20.0 U
<20.0 U
NA
<20.0 U
<20.0 U
NA
DRO
Hg/L
<20.0 U
<20.0 U
NA
<20.0 U
<20.0 U
NA
Glycols

2-butoxyethanol (111-76-2)
Hg/L
<10 U,J-
<25 U
NA
<10 U,J-
<25 U
NA
Diethylene glycol (111-46-6)
Hg/L
<50 U
<25 U
NA
<50 U
<25 U
NA
Triethylene glycol (112-27-6)
Hg/L
<50 U,J-
<25 U
NA
<50 U,J-
<25 U
NA
Tetraethylene glycol (112-60-7)
Hg/L
<25 U
<25 U
NA
<25 U
<25 U
NA
Low Molecular Weight Acids

Lactate (50-21-5)
mg/L
<0.10 U
<0.10 U
NA
<0.10 U
<0.10 U
NA
Formate (64-18-6)
mg/L
0.46 B
R
NA
0.40 B
R
NA
Acetate (64-19-7)
mg/L
<0.10 U
<0.10 U
NA
<0.10 U
<0.10 U
NA
Propionate (79-09-4)
mg/L
<0.10 U
<0.10 U
NA
<0.10 U
<0.10 U
NA
Butyrate (107-92-6)
mg/L
<0.10 U
<0.10 U
NA
<0.10 U
<0.10 U
NA
-------
B-70
Table B-5 Sample Results - Dissolved Gases, Diesel and Gasoline Range Organics, Glycols, and Low Molecular
Weight Acids (Wise County, Texas)

Sample
GW15
GW15
GW15
GW16
GW16
GW16

Sample Date
3/6/12
12/5/12
5/30/13
3/6/12
12/5/12
5/30/13
Parameter (CAS Number)
Unit
Round 2
Round 4
Round 5
Round 2
Round 4
Round 5
Dissolved Gases

Methane (74-82-8)
mg/L
0.0014
0.0012 J
NA
0.0013 J
0.0021
NA
Ethane (74-84-0)
mg/L
<0.0027 U

NA
<0.0027 U
<0.0028 U
NA
Propane (74-98-6)
mg/L
<0.0038 U
<0.0038 U
NA
<0.0038 U
<0.0038 U
NA
Butane (106-97-8)
mg/L
<0.0048 U
<0.0048 U
NA
<0.0048 U
<0.0048 U
NA
Diesel and Gas Range Organics

GRO/TPH
Hg/L
<20.0 U
<20.0 U
NA
<20.0 U
<20.0 U
NA
DRO
Hg/L
<20.0 U
<20.0 U
29.0 B
<20.0 U
<20.0 U
NA
Glycols

2-butoxyethanol (111-76-2)
Hg/L
<10 U,J-
<25 U
NA
<10 U,J-
<25 U
NA
Diethylene glycol (111-46-6)
Hg/L
<50 U
<25 U
NA
<50 U
<25 U
NA
Triethylene glycol (112-27-6)
Hg/L
<50 U,J-
<25 U
NA
<50 U,J-
<25 U
NA
Tetraethylene glycol (112-60-7)
Hg/L
<25 U
<25 U
NA
<25 U
<25 U
NA
Low Molecular Weight Acids

Lactate (50-21-5)
mg/L
<0.10 U
<0.10 U
NA
<0.10 U
<0.10 U
NA
Formate (64-18-6)
mg/L
0.41
R
NA
0.39
R
NA
Acetate (64-19-7)
mg/L
<0.10 U
<0.10 U
NA
<0.10 U
<0.10 U
NA
Propionate (79-09-4)
mg/L
<0.10 U
<0.10 U
NA
<0.10 U
<0.10 U
NA
Butyrate (107-92-6)
mg/L
<0.10 U
<0.10 U
NA
<0.10 U
<0.10 U
NA
-------
B-71
Table B-5 Sample Results - Dissolved Gases, Diesel and Gasoline Range Organics, Glycols, and Low Molecular
Weight Acids (Wise County, Texas)

Sample
PW01
PW02
PW03
SW01
SW01
SW02
SW02

Sample Date
9/20/12
5/29/13
5/29/13
9/21/11
3/6/12
9/21/11
3/6/12
Parameter (CAS Number)
Unit
Round 3
Round 5
Round 5
Round 1
Round 2
Round 1
Round 2
Dissolved Gases

Methane (74-82-8)
mg/L
NA
NA
NA
0.0131
0.0022
0.0096
0.0082
Ethane (74-84-0)
mg/L
NA
NA
NA
<0.0029 U
<0.0027 U
<0.0029 U
<0.0027 U
Propane (74-98-6)
mg/L
NA
NA
NA
<0.0040 U
<0.0038 U
<0.0040 U
<0.0038 U
Butane (106-97-8)
mg/L
NA
NA
NA
<0.0050 U
<0.0048 U
<0.0050 U
<0.0048 U
Diesel and Gas Range Organics

GRO/TPH
Hg/L
NA
NA
NA
<20.0 U
<20.0 U
<20.0 U
<20.0 U
DRO
Hg/L
NA
NA
NA
218 J-
106 J+
243 J-
105 J+
Glycols

2-butoxyethanol (111-76-2)
Hg/L
NA
NA
NA
<10 U,H
<10 U,J-
<10 U,H
<10 U,J-
Diethylene glycol (111-46-6)
Hg/L
NA
NA
NA
<50 U,H
<50 U
<50 U,H
<50 U
Triethylene glycol (112-27-6)
Hg/L
NA
NA
NA
<50 U,H
<50 U,J-
<50 U,H
<50 U,J-
Tetraethylene glycol (112-60-7)
Hg/L
NA
NA
NA
<25 U,H
<25 U
<25 U,H
<25 U
Low Molecular Weight Acids

Lactate (50-21-5)
mg/L
NA
NA
NA
<0.10 U
<0.10 U
<0.10 U
<0.10 U
Formate (64-18-6)
mg/L
NA
NA
NA
<0.10 U
0.14
<0.10 U
0.12
Acetate (64-19-7)
mg/L
NA
NA
NA
0.35 B
0.06 J
0.24 B
0.07 J
Propionate (79-09-4)
mg/L
NA
NA
NA
<0.10 U
<0.10 U
<0.10 U
<0.10 U
Butyrate (107-92-6)
mg/L
NA
NA
NA
<0.10 U
<0.10 U
<0.10 U
<0.10 U
-------
B-72
Table B-5 Sample Results - Dissolved Gases, Diesel and Gasoline Range Organics, Glycols, and Low Molecular
Weight Acids (Wise County, Texas)

Sample
SW03
SW03
SW04
SW04

Sample Date
9/22/11
3/7/12
12/4/12
5/29/13
Parameter (CAS Number)
Unit
Round 1
Round 2
Round 4
Round 5
Dissolved Gases

Methane (74-82-8)
mg/L
0.0124
0.0063
0.132
NA
Ethane (74-84-0)
mg/L
<0.0029 U
<0.0027 U
<0.0028 U
NA
Propane (74-98-6)
mg/L
<0.0040 U
<0.0038 U
<0.0038 U
NA
Butane (106-97-8)
mg/L
<0.0050 U
<0.0048 U
<0.0048 U
NA
Diesel and Gas Range Organics

GRO/TPH
Hg/L
<20.0 U
<20.0 U
<20.0 U
NA
DRO
Hg/L
212 J-
150 J+
770
NA
Glycols

2-butoxyethanol (111-76-2)
Hg/L
<10 U,H
<10 U,J-
<25 U
NA
Diethylene glycol (111-46-6)
Hg/L
<50 U
<50 U
<25 U
NA
Triethylene glycol (112-27-6)
Hg/L
<50 U
<50 U,J-
<25 U
NA
Tetraethylene glycol (112-60-7)
Hg/L
<25 U
<25 U
<25 U
NA
Low Molecular Weight Acids

Lactate (50-21-5)
mg/L
<0.10 U
<0.10 U
<0.10 U
NA
Formate (64-18-6)
mg/L
<0.10 U
0.12 B
R
NA
Acetate (64-19-7)
mg/L
0.30 B
0.06 J
0.33
NA
Propionate (79-09-4)
mg/L
<0.10 U
<0.10 U
<0.10 U
NA
Butyrate (107-92-6)
mg/L
<0.10 U
<0.10 U
<0.10 U
NA
-------
B-73
Table B-6 Sample Results - Semivolatile Organic Compounds (Wise County, Texas)

Sample
GW01
GW01
GW01
GW01
GW01

Sample Date
9/20/11
3/5/12
9/20/12
12/3/12
5/28/13
Parameter (CAS Number)
Unit
Round 1
Round 2
Round 3
Round 4
Round 5
R-(+)-limonene (5989-27-5)
Hg/L
<0.50 U,J-
<1.00 u
NA
<1.00 U,J-
NA
1,2,4-trichlorobenzene (120-82-1)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
NA
<1.00 u
NA
1,2-dichlorobenzene (95-50-1)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
NA
<1.00 u
NA
1,2-dinitrobenzene (528-29-0)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
NA
<1.00 u
NA
1,3-dichlorobenzene (541-73-1)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
NA
<1.00 u
NA
1,3-dimethyladamantane (702-79-4)
Hg/L
<0.50 U,J-
<1.00 u
NA
<1.00 U,J-
NA
1,3 -dinitrobenzene (99-65-0)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
NA
<1.00 u
NA
1,4-dichlorobenzene (106-46-7)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
NA
<1.00 u
NA
1,4-dinitrobenzene (100-25-4)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
NA
<1.00 u
NA
1-methylnaphthalene (90-12-0)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
NA
<1.00 u
NA
2,3,4,6-tetrachlorophenol (58-90-2)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<2.00 U
NA
<2.00 U
NA
2,3,5,6-tetrachlorophenol (935-95-5)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<2.00 U
NA
<2.00 U
NA
2,4,5-trichlorophenol (95-95-4)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<2.00 U
NA
<2.00 U
NA
2,4,6-trichlorophenol (88-06-2)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<2.00 U
NA
<2.00 U
NA
2,4-dichlorophenol (120-83-2)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<2.00 U
NA
<2.00 U
NA
2,4-dimethylphenol (105-67-9)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<2.00 U
NA
<2.00 U
NA
2,4-dinitrophenol (51-28-5)
Hg/L
<5.00 U
<3.00 U
NA
<3.00 U
NA
2,4-dinitrotoluene (121-14-2)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 U
NA
<1.00 U
NA
2,6-dinitrotoluene (606-20-2)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 U
NA
<1.00 U
NA
2-butoxyethanol (111-76-2)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
NA
<1.00 U
NA
2-chloronaphthalene (91-58-7)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
NA
<1.00 u
NA
2-chlorophenol (95-57-8)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<2.00 U
NA
<2.00 U
NA
2-methylnaphthalene (91-57-6)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
NA
<1.00 U
NA
2-methylphenol (95-48-7)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<2.00 U
NA
<2.00 U
NA
2-nitroaniline (88-74-4)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 U
NA
<1.00 U
NA
2-nitrophenol (88-75-5)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<2.00 U
NA
<2.00 U
NA
3&4-methylphenol (108-39-4 & 106-44-5)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<5.00 U
NA
<5.00 U
NA
3,3'-dichlorobenzidine (91-94-1)
Hg/L
NR
<1.00 U
NA
<1.00 U
NA
3-nitroaniline (99-09-2)
Hg/L
NR
<3.00 U
NA
<3.00 U
NA
4,6-dinitro-2-methylphenol (534-52-1)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<2.00 U
NA
<2.00 U
NA
4-bromophenyl phenyl ether (101-55-3)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 U
NA
<1.00 U
NA
4-chloro-3-methylphenol (59-50-7)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<2.00 U
NA
<2.00 U
NA
-------
B-74
Table B-6 Sample Results - Semivolatile Organic Compounds (Wise County, Texas)

Sample
GW02
GW02
GW02
GW02
GW03
GW03
GW03

Sample Date
9/20/11
3/5/12
12/3/12
5/28/13
9/20/11
3/5/12
12/3/12
Parameter (CAS Number)
Unit
Round 1
Round 2
Round 4
Round 5
Round 1
Round 2
Round 4
R-(+)-limonene (5989-27-5)
Hg/L
<0.50 U,J-
<1.00 u
<1.00 U,J-
NA
<0.50 U,J-
<1.00 u
<1.00 U,J-
1,2,4-trichlorobenzene (120-82-1)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<1.00 u
NA
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<1.00 u
1,2-dichlorobenzene (95-50-1)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<1.00 u
NA
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<1.00 u
1,2-dinitrobenzene (528-29-0)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<1.00 u
NA
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<1.00 u
1,3-dichlorobenzene (541-73-1)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<1.00 u
NA
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<1.00 u
1,3-dimethyladamantane (702-79-4)
Hg/L
<0.50 U,J-
<1.00 u
<1.00 U,J-
NA
<0.50 U,J-
<1.00 u
<1.00 U,J-
1,3 -dinitrobenzene (99-65-0)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<1.00 u
NA
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<1.00 u
1,4-dichlorobenzene (106-46-7)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<1.00 u
NA
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<1.00 u
1,4-dinitrobenzene (100-25-4)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<1.00 u
NA
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<1.00 u
1-methylnaphthalene (90-12-0)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<1.00 u
NA
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<1.00 u
2,3,4,6-tetrachlorophenol (58-90-2)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
NA
<0.50 U
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
2,3,5,6-tetrachlorophenol (935-95-5)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
NA
<0.50 U
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
2,4,5-trichlorophenol (95-95-4)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
NA
<0.50 U
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
2,4,6-trichlorophenol (88-06-2)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
NA
<0.50 U
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
2,4-dichlorophenol (120-83-2)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
NA
<0.50 U
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
2,4-dimethylphenol (105-67-9)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
NA
<0.50 U
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
2,4-dinitrophenol (51-28-5)
Hg/L
<5.00 U
<3.00 U
<3.00 U
NA
<5.00 U
<3.00 U
<3.00 U
2,4-dinitrotoluene (121-14-2)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
NA
<0.50 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
2,6-dinitrotoluene (606-20-2)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
NA
<0.50 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
2-butoxyethanol (111-76-2)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<1.00 U
NA
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<1.00 U
2-chloronaphthalene (91-58-7)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<1.00 u
NA
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<1.00 u
2-chlorophenol (95-57-8)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
NA
<0.50 U
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
2-methylnaphthalene (91-57-6)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<1.00 U
NA
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<1.00 U
2-methylphenol (95-48-7)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
NA
<0.50 U
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
2-nitroaniline (88-74-4)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
NA
<0.50 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
2-nitrophenol (88-75-5)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
NA
<0.50 U
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
3&4-methylphenol (108-39-4 & 106-44-5)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<5.00 U
<5.00 U
NA
<0.50 U
<5.00 U
<5.00 U
3,3'-dichlorobenzidine (91-94-1)
Hg/L
NR
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
NA
NR
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
3-nitroaniline (99-09-2)
Hg/L
NR
<3.00 U
<3.00 U
NA
NR
<3.00 U
<3.00 U
4,6-dinitro-2-methylphenol (534-52-1)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
NA
<0.50 U
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
4-bromophenyl phenyl ether (101-55-3)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
NA
<0.50 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
4-chloro-3-methylphenol (59-50-7)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
NA
<0.50 U
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
-------
B-75
Table B-6 Sample Results - Semivolatile Organic Compounds (Wise County, Texas)

Sample
GW04
GW04
GW04
GW04
GW05
GW05

Sample Date
9/22/11
3/6/12
12/4/12
5/29/13
9/22/11
3/6/12
Parameter (CAS Number)
Unit
Round 1
Round 2
Round 4
Round 5
Round 1
Round 2
R-(+)-limonene (5989-27-5)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<1.00 U,J-
NA
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
1,2,4-trichlorobenzene (120-82-1)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<1.00 u
NA
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
1,2-dichlorobenzene (95-50-1)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<1.00 u
NA
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
1,2-dinitrobenzene (528-29-0)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<1.00 u
NA
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
1,3-dichlorobenzene (541-73-1)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<1.00 u
NA
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
1,3-dimethyladamantane (702-79-4)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<1.00 U,J-
NA
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
1,3 -dinitrobenzene (99-65-0)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<1.00 u
NA
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
1,4-dichlorobenzene (106-46-7)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<1.00 u
NA
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
1,4-dinitrobenzene (100-25-4)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<1.00 u
NA
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
1-methylnaphthalene (90-12-0)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<1.00 u
NA
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
2,3,4,6-tetrachlorophenol (58-90-2)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
NA
<0.50 U
<2.00 U
2,3,5,6-tetrachlorophenol (935-95-5)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
NA
<0.50 U
<2.00 U
2,4,5-trichlorophenol (95-95-4)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
NA
<0.50 U
<2.00 U
2,4,6-trichlorophenol (88-06-2)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
NA
<0.50 U
<2.00 U
2,4-dichlorophenol (120-83-2)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
NA
<0.50 U
<2.00 U
2,4-dimethylphenol (105-67-9)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
NA
<0.50 U
<2.00 U
2,4-dinitrophenol (51-28-5)
Hg/L
<5.00 U
<3.00 U
<3.00 U
NA
<5.00 U
<3.00 U
2,4-dinitrotoluene (121-14-2)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
NA
<0.50 U
<1.00 U
2,6-dinitrotoluene (606-20-2)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
NA
<0.50 U
<1.00 U
2-butoxyethanol (111-76-2)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<1.00 U
NA
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
2-chloronaphthalene (91-58-7)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<1.00 u
NA
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
2-chlorophenol (95-57-8)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
NA
<0.50 U
<2.00 U
2-methylnaphthalene (91-57-6)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<1.00 U
NA
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
2-methylphenol (95-48-7)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
NA
<0.50 U
<2.00 U
2-nitroaniline (88-74-4)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
NA
<0.50 U
<1.00 U
2-nitrophenol (88-75-5)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
NA
<0.50 U
<2.00 U
3&4-methylphenol (108-39-4 & 106-44-5)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<5.00 U
<5.00 U
NA
<0.50 U
<5.00 U
3,3'-dichlorobenzidine (91-94-1)
Hg/L
NR
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
NA
NR
<1.00 U
3-nitroaniline (99-09-2)
Hg/L
NR
<3.00 U
<3.00 U
NA
NR
<3.00 U
4,6-dinitro-2-methylphenol (534-52-1)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
NA
<0.50 U
<2.00 U
4-bromophenyl phenyl ether (101-55-3)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
NA
<0.50 U
<1.00 U
4-chloro-3-methylphenol (59-50-7)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
NA
<0.50 U
<2.00 U
-------
B-76
Table B-6 Sample Results - Semivolatile Organic Compounds (Wise County, Texas)

Sample
GW06
GW06
GW07
GW07

Sample Date
9/19/11
3/7/12
9/19/11
3/8/12
Parameter (CAS Number)
Unit
Round 1
Round 2
Round 1
Round 2
R-(+)-limonene (5989-27-5)
Hg/L
<0.50 U,J-
<1.00 u
<0.50 U,J-
<1.00 u
1,2,4-trichlorobenzene (120-82-1)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
1,2-dichlorobenzene (95-50-1)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
1,2-dinitrobenzene (528-29-0)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
1,3-dichlorobenzene (541-73-1)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
1,3-dimethyladamantane (702-79-4)
Hg/L
<0.50 U,J-
<1.00 u
<0.50 U,J-
<1.00 u
1,3 -dinitrobenzene (99-65-0)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
1,4-dichlorobenzene (106-46-7)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
1,4-dinitrobenzene (100-25-4)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
1-methylnaphthalene (90-12-0)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
2,3,4,6-tetrachlorophenol (58-90-2)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<2.00 U
<0.50 U
<2.00 U
2,3,5,6-tetrachlorophenol (935-95-5)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<2.00 U
<0.50 U
<2.00 U
2,4,5-trichlorophenol (95-95-4)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<2.00 U
<0.50 U
<2.00 U
2,4,6-trichlorophenol (88-06-2)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<2.00 U
<0.50 U
<2.00 U
2,4-dichlorophenol (120-83-2)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<2.00 U
<0.50 U
<2.00 U
2,4-dimethylphenol (105-67-9)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<2.00 U
<0.50 U
<2.00 U
2,4-dinitrophenol (51-28-5)
Hg/L
<5.00 U
<3.00 U
<5.00 U
<3.00 U
2,4-dinitrotoluene (121-14-2)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 U
<0.50 U
<1.00 U
2,6-dinitrotoluene (606-20-2)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 U
<0.50 U
<1.00 U
2-butoxyethanol (111-76-2)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
2-chloronaphthalene (91-58-7)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
2-chlorophenol (95-57-8)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<2.00 U
<0.50 U
<2.00 U
2-methylnaphthalene (91-57-6)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
2-methylphenol (95-48-7)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<2.00 U
<0.50 U
<2.00 U
2-nitroaniline (88-74-4)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 U
<0.50 U
<1.00 U
2-nitrophenol (88-75-5)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<2.00 U
<0.50 U
<2.00 U
3&4-methylphenol (108-39-4 & 106-44-5)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<5.00 U
<0.50 U
<5.00 U
3,3'-dichlorobenzidine (91-94-1)
Hg/L
NR
<1.00 U
NR
<1.00 U
3-nitroaniline (99-09-2)
Hg/L
NR
<3.00 U
NR
<3.00 U
4,6-dinitro-2-methylphenol (534-52-1)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<2.00 U
<0.50 U
<2.00 U
4-bromophenyl phenyl ether (101-55-3)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 U
<0.50 U
<1.00 U
4-chloro-3-methylphenol (59-50-7)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<2.00 U
<0.50 U
<2.00 U
-------
B-77
Table B-6 Sample Results - Semivolatile Organic Compounds (Wise County, Texas)

Sample
GW08
GW08
GW08
GW08
GW08
GW09
GW09

Sample Date
9/20/11
3/5/12
9/20/12
12/4/12
5/29/13
9/21/11
3/7/12
Parameter (CAS Number)
Unit
Round 1
Round 2
Round 3
Round 4
Round 5
Round 1
Round 2
R-(+)-limonene (5989-27-5)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
NA
<1.00 U,J-
NA
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
1,2,4-trichlorobenzene (120-82-1)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
NA
<1.00 u
NA
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
1,2-dichlorobenzene (95-50-1)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
NA
<1.00 u
NA
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
1,2-dinitrobenzene (528-29-0)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
NA
<1.00 u
NA
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
1,3-dichlorobenzene (541-73-1)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
NA
<1.00 u
NA
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
1,3-dimethyladamantane (702-79-4)
Hg/L
<0.50 U,J-
<1.00 u
NA
<1.00 U,J-
NA
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
1,3 -dinitrobenzene (99-65-0)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
NA
<1.00 u
NA
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
1,4-dichlorobenzene (106-46-7)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
NA
<1.00 u
NA
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
1,4-dinitrobenzene (100-25-4)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
NA
<1.00 u
NA
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
1-methylnaphthalene (90-12-0)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
NA
<1.00 u
NA
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
2,3,4,6-tetrachlorophenol (58-90-2)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<2.00 U
NA
<2.00 U
NA
<0.50 U
<2.00 U
2,3,5,6-tetrachlorophenol (935-95-5)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<2.00 U
NA
<2.00 U
NA
<0.50 U
<2.00 U
2,4,5-trichlorophenol (95-95-4)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<2.00 U
NA
<2.00 U
NA
<0.50 U
<2.00 U
2,4,6-trichlorophenol (88-06-2)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<2.00 U
NA
<2.00 U
NA
<0.50 U
<2.00 U
2,4-dichlorophenol (120-83-2)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<2.00 U
NA
<2.00 U
NA
<0.50 U
<2.00 U
2,4-dimethylphenol (105-67-9)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<2.00 U
NA
<2.00 U
NA
<0.50 U
<2.00 U
2,4-dinitrophenol (51-28-5)
Hg/L
<5.00 U
<3.00 U
NA
<3.00 U
NA
<5.00 U
<3.00 U
2,4-dinitrotoluene (121-14-2)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 U
NA
<1.00 U
NA
<0.50 U
<1.00 U
2,6-dinitrotoluene (606-20-2)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 U
NA
<1.00 U
NA
<0.50 U
<1.00 U
2-butoxyethanol (111-76-2)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
NA
<1.00 U
NA
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
2-chloronaphthalene (91-58-7)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
NA
<1.00 u
NA
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
2-chlorophenol (95-57-8)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<2.00 U
NA
<2.00 U
NA
<0.50 U
<2.00 U
2-methylnaphthalene (91-57-6)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
NA
<1.00 U
NA
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
2-methylphenol (95-48-7)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<2.00 U
NA
<2.00 U
NA
<0.50 U
<2.00 U
2-nitroaniline (88-74-4)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 U
NA
<1.00 U
NA
<0.50 U
<1.00 U
2-nitrophenol (88-75-5)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<2.00 U
NA
<2.00 U
NA
<0.50 U
<2.00 U
3&4-methylphenol (108-39-4 & 106-44-5)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<5.00 U
NA
<5.00 U
NA
<0.50 U
<5.00 U
3,3'-dichlorobenzidine (91-94-1)
Hg/L
NR
<1.00 U
NA
<1.00 U
NA
NR
<1.00 U
3-nitroaniline (99-09-2)
Hg/L
NR
<3.00 U
NA
<3.00 U
NA
NR
<3.00 U
4,6-dinitro-2-methylphenol (534-52-1)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<2.00 U
NA
<2.00 U
NA
<0.50 U
<2.00 U
4-bromophenyl phenyl ether (101-55-3)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 U
NA
<1.00 U
NA
<0.50 U
<1.00 U
4-chloro-3-methylphenol (59-50-7)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<2.00 U
NA
<2.00 U
NA
<0.50 U
<2.00 U
-------
B-78
Table B-6 Sample Results - Semivolatile Organic Compounds (Wise County, Texas)

Sample
GW10
GW10
GW11
GW11
GW12

Sample Date
9/22/11
3/7/12
9/22/11
3/7/12
9/21/11
Parameter (CAS Number)
Unit
Round 1
Round 2
Round 1
Round 2
Round 1
R-(+)-limonene (5989-27-5)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<0.50 U,J-
1,2,4-trichlorobenzene (120-82-1)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<0.50 U
1,2-dichlorobenzene (95-50-1)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<0.50 U
1,2-dinitrobenzene (528-29-0)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<0.50 U
1,3-dichlorobenzene (541-73-1)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<0.50 U
1,3-dimethyladamantane (702-79-4)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<0.50 U,J-
1,3 -dinitrobenzene (99-65-0)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<0.50 U
1,4-dichlorobenzene (106-46-7)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<0.50 U
1,4-dinitrobenzene (100-25-4)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<0.50 U
1-methylnaphthalene (90-12-0)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<0.50 U
2,3,4,6-tetrachlorophenol (58-90-2)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<2.00 U
<0.50 U
<2.00 U
<0.50 U
2,3,5,6-tetrachlorophenol (935-95-5)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<2.00 U
<0.50 U
<2.00 U
<0.50 U
2,4,5-trichlorophenol (95-95-4)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<2.00 U
<0.50 U
<2.00 U
<0.50 U
2,4,6-trichlorophenol (88-06-2)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<2.00 U
<0.50 U
<2.00 U
<0.50 U
2,4-dichlorophenol (120-83-2)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<2.00 U
<0.50 U
<2.00 U
<0.50 U
2,4-dimethylphenol (105-67-9)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<2.00 U
<0.50 U
<2.00 U
<0.50 U
2,4-dinitrophenol (51-28-5)
Hg/L
<5.00 U
<3.00 U
<5.00 U
<3.00 U
<5.00 U
2,4-dinitrotoluene (121-14-2)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 U
<0.50 U
<1.00 U
<0.50 U
2,6-dinitrotoluene (606-20-2)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 U
<0.50 U
<1.00 U
<0.50 U
2-butoxyethanol (111-76-2)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<0.50 U
2-chloronaphthalene (91-58-7)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<0.50 U
2-chlorophenol (95-57-8)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<2.00 U
<0.50 U
<2.00 U
<0.50 U
2-methylnaphthalene (91-57-6)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<0.50 U
2-methylphenol (95-48-7)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<2.00 U
<0.50 U
<2.00 U
<0.50 U
2-nitroaniline (88-74-4)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 U
<0.50 U
<1.00 U
<0.50 U
2-nitrophenol (88-75-5)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<2.00 U
<0.50 U
<2.00 U
<0.50 U
3&4-methylphenol (108-39-4 & 106-44-5)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<5.00 U
<0.50 U
<5.00 U
<0.50 U
3,3'-dichlorobenzidine (91-94-1)
Hg/L
NR
<1.00 U
NR
<1.00 U
NR
3-nitroaniline (99-09-2)
Hg/L
NR
<3.00 U
NR
<3.00 U
NR
4,6-dinitro-2-methylphenol (534-52-1)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<2.00 U
<0.50 U
<2.00 U
<0.50 U
4-bromophenyl phenyl ether (101-55-3)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 U
<0.50 U
<1.00 U
<0.50 U
4-chloro-3-methylphenol (59-50-7)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<2.00 U
<0.50 U
<2.00 U
<0.50 U
-------
B-79
Table B-6 Sample Results - Semivolatile Organic Compounds (Wise County, Texas)

Sample
GW13
GW13
GW13
GW14
GW14
GW14

Sample Date
3/5/12
12/3/12
5/28/13
3/5/12
12/5/12
5/28/13
Parameter (CAS Number)
Unit
Round 2
Round 4
Round 5
Round 2
Round 4
Round 5
R-(+)-limonene (5989-27-5)
Hg/L
<1.00 u
<1.00 U,J-
NA
<1.00 u
<1.00 U,J-
NA
1,2,4-trichlorobenzene (120-82-1)
Hg/L
<1.00 u
<1.00 u
NA
<1.00 u
<1.00 u
NA
1,2-dichlorobenzene (95-50-1)
Hg/L
<1.00 u
<1.00 u
NA
<1.00 u
<1.00 u
NA
1,2-dinitrobenzene (528-29-0)
Hg/L
<1.00 u
<1.00 u
NA
<1.00 u
<1.00 u
NA
1,3-dichlorobenzene (541-73-1)
Hg/L
<1.00 u
<1.00 u
NA
<1.00 u
<1.00 u
NA
1,3-dimethyladamantane (702-79-4)
Hg/L
<1.00 u
<1.00 U,J-
NA
<1.00 u
<1.00 U,J-
NA
1,3 -dinitrobenzene (99-65-0)
Hg/L
<1.00 u
<1.00 u
NA
<1.00 u
<1.00 u
NA
1,4-dichlorobenzene (106-46-7)
Hg/L
<1.00 u
<1.00 u
NA
<1.00 u
<1.00 u
NA
1,4-dinitrobenzene (100-25-4)
Hg/L
<1.00 u
<1.00 u
NA
<1.00 u
<1.00 u
NA
1-methylnaphthalene (90-12-0)
Hg/L
<1.00 u
<1.00 u
NA
<1.00 u
<1.00 u
NA
2,3,4,6-tetrachlorophenol (58-90-2)
Hg/L
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
NA
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
NA
2,3,5,6-tetrachlorophenol (935-95-5)
Hg/L
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
NA
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
NA
2,4,5-trichlorophenol (95-95-4)
Hg/L
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
NA
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
NA
2,4,6-trichlorophenol (88-06-2)
Hg/L
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
NA
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
NA
2,4-dichlorophenol (120-83-2)
Hg/L
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
NA
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
NA
2,4-dimethylphenol (105-67-9)
Hg/L
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
NA
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
NA
2,4-dinitrophenol (51-28-5)
Hg/L
<3.00 U
<3.00 U
NA
<3.00 U
<3.00 U
NA
2,4-dinitrotoluene (121-14-2)
Hg/L
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
NA
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
NA
2,6-dinitrotoluene (606-20-2)
Hg/L
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
NA
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
NA
2-butoxyethanol (111-76-2)
Hg/L
<1.00 u
<1.00 U
NA
<1.00 u
<1.00 U
NA
2-chloronaphthalene (91-58-7)
Hg/L
<1.00 u
<1.00 u
NA
<1.00 u
<1.00 u
NA
2-chlorophenol (95-57-8)
Hg/L
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
NA
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
NA
2-methylnaphthalene (91-57-6)
Hg/L
<1.00 u
<1.00 U
NA
<1.00 u
<1.00 U
NA
2-methylphenol (95-48-7)
Hg/L
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
NA
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
NA
2-nitroaniline (88-74-4)
Hg/L
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
NA
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
NA
2-nitrophenol (88-75-5)
Hg/L
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
NA
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
NA
3&4-methylphenol (108-39-4 & 106-44-5)
Hg/L
<5.00 U
<5.00 U
NA
<5.00 U
<5.00 U
NA
3,3'-dichlorobenzidine (91-94-1)
Hg/L
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
NA
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
NA
3-nitroaniline (99-09-2)
Hg/L
<3.00 U
<3.00 U
NA
<3.00 U
<3.00 U
NA
4,6-dinitro-2-methylphenol (534-52-1)
Hg/L
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
NA
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
NA
4-bromophenyl phenyl ether (101-55-3)
Hg/L
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
NA
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
NA
4-chloro-3-methylphenol (59-50-7)
Hg/L
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
NA
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
NA
-------
B-80
Table B-6 Sample Results - Semivolatile Organic Compounds (Wise County, Texas)

Sample
GW15
GW15
GW15
GW16
GW16
GW16

Sample Date
3/6/12
12/5/12
5/30/13
3/6/12
12/5/12
5/30/13
Parameter (CAS Number)
Unit
Round 2
Round 4
Round 5
Round 2
Round 4
Round 5
R-(+)-limonene (5989-27-5)
Hg/L
<1.00 u
<1.00 U,J-
NA
<1.00 u
<1.00 U,J-
NA
1,2,4-trichlorobenzene (120-82-1)
Hg/L
<1.00 u
<1.00 u
NA
<1.00 u
<1.00 u
NA
1,2-dichlorobenzene (95-50-1)
Hg/L
<1.00 u
<1.00 u
NA
<1.00 u
<1.00 u
NA
1,2-dinitrobenzene (528-29-0)
Hg/L
<1.00 u
<1.00 u
NA
<1.00 u
<1.00 u
NA
1,3-dichlorobenzene (541-73-1)
Hg/L
<1.00 u
<1.00 u
NA
<1.00 u
<1.00 u
NA
1,3-dimethyladamantane (702-79-4)
Hg/L
<1.00 u
<1.00 U,J-
NA
<1.00 u
<1.00 U,J-
NA
1,3 -dinitrobenzene (99-65-0)
Hg/L
<1.00 u
<1.00 u
NA
<1.00 u
<1.00 u
NA
1,4-dichlorobenzene (106-46-7)
Hg/L
<1.00 u
<1.00 u
NA
<1.00 u
<1.00 u
NA
1,4-dinitrobenzene (100-25-4)
Hg/L
<1.00 u
<1.00 u
NA
<1.00 u
<1.00 u
NA
1-methylnaphthalene (90-12-0)
Hg/L
<1.00 u
<1.00 u
NA
<1.00 u
<1.00 u
NA
2,3,4,6-tetrachlorophenol (58-90-2)
Hg/L
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
NA
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
NA
2,3,5,6-tetrachlorophenol (935-95-5)
Hg/L
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
NA
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
NA
2,4,5-trichlorophenol (95-95-4)
Hg/L
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
NA
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
NA
2,4,6-trichlorophenol (88-06-2)
Hg/L
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
NA
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
NA
2,4-dichlorophenol (120-83-2)
Hg/L
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
NA
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
NA
2,4-dimethylphenol (105-67-9)
Hg/L
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
NA
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
NA
2,4-dinitrophenol (51-28-5)
Hg/L
<3.00 U
<3.00 U
NA
<3.00 U
<3.00 U
NA
2,4-dinitrotoluene (121-14-2)
Hg/L
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
NA
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
NA
2,6-dinitrotoluene (606-20-2)
Hg/L
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
NA
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
NA
2-butoxyethanol (111-76-2)
Hg/L
<1.00 u
<1.00 U
NA
<1.00 u
<1.00 U
NA
2-chloronaphthalene (91-58-7)
Hg/L
<1.00 u
<1.00 u
NA
<1.00 u
<1.00 u
NA
2-chlorophenol (95-57-8)
Hg/L
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
NA
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
NA
2-methylnaphthalene (91-57-6)
Hg/L
<1.00 u
<1.00 U
NA
<1.00 u
<1.00 U
NA
2-methylphenol (95-48-7)
Hg/L
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
NA
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
NA
2-nitroaniline (88-74-4)
Hg/L
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
NA
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
NA
2-nitrophenol (88-75-5)
Hg/L
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
NA
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
NA
3&4-methylphenol (108-39-4 & 106-44-5)
Hg/L
<5.00 U
<5.00 U
NA
<5.00 U
<5.00 U
NA
3,3'-dichlorobenzidine (91-94-1)
Hg/L
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
NA
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
NA
3-nitroaniline (99-09-2)
Hg/L
<3.00 U
<3.00 U
NA
<3.00 U
<3.00 U
NA
4,6-dinitro-2-methylphenol (534-52-1)
Hg/L
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
NA
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
NA
4-bromophenyl phenyl ether (101-55-3)
Hg/L
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
NA
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
NA
4-chloro-3-methylphenol (59-50-7)
Hg/L
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
NA
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
NA
-------
B-81
Table B-6 Sample Results - Semivolatile Organic Compounds (Wise County, Texas)

Sample
PW01
PW02
PW03
SW01
SW01
SW02
SW02

Sample Date
9/20/12
5/29/13
5/29/13
9/21/11
3/6/12
9/21/11
3/6/12
Parameter (CAS Number)
Unit
Round 3
Round 5
Round 5
Round 1
Round 2
Round 1
Round 2
R-(+)-limonene (5989-27-5)
Hg/L
NA
NA
NA
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
1,2,4-trichlorobenzene (120-82-1)
Hg/L
NA
NA
NA
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
1,2-dichlorobenzene (95-50-1)
Hg/L
NA
NA
NA
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
1,2-dinitrobenzene (528-29-0)
Hg/L
NA
NA
NA
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
1,3-dichlorobenzene (541-73-1)
Hg/L
NA
NA
NA
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
1,3-dimethyladamantane (702-79-4)
Hg/L
NA
NA
NA
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
1,3 -dinitrobenzene (99-65-0)
Hg/L
NA
NA
NA
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
1,4-dichlorobenzene (106-46-7)
Hg/L
NA
NA
NA
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
1,4-dinitrobenzene (100-25-4)
Hg/L
NA
NA
NA
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
1-methylnaphthalene (90-12-0)
Hg/L
NA
NA
NA
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
2,3,4,6-tetrachlorophenol (58-90-2)
Hg/L
NA
NA
NA
<0.50 U
<2.00 U
<0.50 U
<2.00 U
2,3,5,6-tetrachlorophenol (935-95-5)
Hg/L
NA
NA
NA
<0.50 U
<2.00 U
<0.50 U
<2.00 U
2,4,5-trichlorophenol (95-95-4)
Hg/L
NA
NA
NA
<0.50 U
<2.00 U
<0.50 U
<2.00 U
2,4,6-trichlorophenol (88-06-2)
Hg/L
NA
NA
NA
<0.50 U
<2.00 U
<0.50 U
<2.00 U
2,4-dichlorophenol (120-83-2)
Hg/L
NA
NA
NA
<0.50 U
<2.00 U
<0.50 U
<2.00 U
2,4-dimethylphenol (105-67-9)
Hg/L
NA
NA
NA
<0.50 U
<2.00 U
<0.50 U
<2.00 U
2,4-dinitrophenol (51-28-5)
Hg/L
NA
NA
NA
<5.00 U
<3.00 U
<5.00 U
<3.00 U
2,4-dinitrotoluene (121-14-2)
Hg/L
NA
NA
NA
<0.50 U
<1.00 U
<0.50 U
<1.00 U
2,6-dinitrotoluene (606-20-2)
Hg/L
NA
NA
NA
<0.50 U
<1.00 U
<0.50 U
<1.00 U
2-butoxyethanol (111-76-2)
Hg/L
NA
NA
NA
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
2-chloronaphthalene (91-58-7)
Hg/L
NA
NA
NA
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
2-chlorophenol (95-57-8)
Hg/L
NA
NA
NA
<0.50 U
<2.00 U
<0.50 U
<2.00 U
2-methylnaphthalene (91-57-6)
Hg/L
NA
NA
NA
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
2-methylphenol (95-48-7)
Hg/L
NA
NA
NA
<0.50 U
<2.00 U
<0.50 U
<2.00 U
2-nitroaniline (88-74-4)
Hg/L
NA
NA
NA
<0.50 U
<1.00 U
<0.50 U
<1.00 U
2-nitrophenol (88-75-5)
Hg/L
NA
NA
NA
<0.50 U
<2.00 U
<0.50 U
<2.00 U
3&4-methylphenol (108-39-4 & 106-44-5)
Hg/L
NA
NA
NA
<0.50 U
<5.00 U
<0.50 U
<5.00 U
3,3'-dichlorobenzidine (91-94-1)
Hg/L
NA
NA
NA
NR
<1.00 U
NR
<1.00 U
3-nitroaniline (99-09-2)
Hg/L
NA
NA
NA
NR
<3.00 U
NR
<3.00 U
4,6-dinitro-2-methylphenol (534-52-1)
Hg/L
NA
NA
NA
<0.50 U
<2.00 U
<0.50 U
<2.00 U
4-bromophenyl phenyl ether (101-55-3)
Hg/L
NA
NA
NA
<0.50 U
<1.00 U
<0.50 U
<1.00 U
4-chloro-3-methylphenol (59-50-7)
Hg/L
NA
NA
NA
<0.50 U
<2.00 U
<0.50 U
<2.00 U
-------
B-82
Table B-6 Sample Results - Semivolatile Organic Compounds (Wise County, Texas)

Sample
SW03
SW03
SW04
SW04

Sample Date
9/22/11
3/7/12
12/4/12
5/29/13
Parameter (CAS Number)
Unit
Round 1
Round 2
Round 4
Round 5
R-(+)-limonene (5989-27-5)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<4.00 U,J-
NA
1,2,4-trichlorobenzene (120-82-1)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<4.00 U
NA
1,2-dichlorobenzene (95-50-1)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<4.00 U
NA
1,2-dinitrobenzene (528-29-0)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<4.00 U
NA
1,3-dichlorobenzene (541-73-1)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<4.00 U
NA
1,3-dimethyladamantane (702-79-4)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<4.00 U,J-
NA
1,3 -dinitrobenzene (99-65-0)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<4.00 U
NA
1,4-dichlorobenzene (106-46-7)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<4.00 U
NA
1,4-dinitrobenzene (100-25-4)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<4.00 U
NA
1-methylnaphthalene (90-12-0)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<4.00 U
NA
2,3,4,6-tetrachlorophenol (58-90-2)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<2.00 U
<8.00 U
NA
2,3,5,6-tetrachlorophenol (935-95-5)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<2.00 U
<8.00 U
NA
2,4,5-trichlorophenol (95-95-4)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<2.00 U
<8.00 U
NA
2,4,6-trichlorophenol (88-06-2)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<2.00 U
<8.00 U
NA
2,4-dichlorophenol (120-83-2)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<2.00 U
<8.00 U
NA
2,4-dimethylphenol (105-67-9)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<2.00 U
<8.00 U
NA
2,4-dinitrophenol (51-28-5)
Hg/L
<5.00 U
<3.00 U
<12.0 U
NA
2,4-dinitrotoluene (121-14-2)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 U
<4.00 U
NA
2,6-dinitrotoluene (606-20-2)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 U
<4.00 U
NA
2-butoxyethanol (111-76-2)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<4.00 U
NA
2-chloronaphthalene (91-58-7)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<4.00 U
NA
2-chlorophenol (95-57-8)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<2.00 U
<8.00 U
NA
2-methylnaphthalene (91-57-6)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<4.00 U
NA
2-methylphenol (95-48-7)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<2.00 U
<8.00 U
NA
2-nitroaniline (88-74-4)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 U
<4.00 U
NA
2-nitrophenol (88-75-5)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<2.00 U
<8.00 U
NA
3&4-methylphenol (108-39-4 & 106-44-5)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<5.00 U
<20.0 U
NA
3,3'-dichlorobenzidine (91-94-1)
Hg/L
NR
<1.00 U
<4.00 U,J-
NA
3-nitroaniline (99-09-2)
Hg/L
NR
<3.00 U
<12.0 U,J-
NA
4,6-dinitro-2-methylphenol (534-52-1)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<2.00 U
<8.00 U
NA
4-bromophenyl phenyl ether (101-55-3)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 U
<4.00 U
NA
4-chloro-3-methylphenol (59-50-7)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<2.00 U
<8.00 U
NA
-------
B-83
Table B-6 Sample Results - Semivolatile Organic Compounds (Wise County, Texas)

Sample
GW01
GW01
GW01
GW01
GW01
Sample Date
9/20/11
3/5/12
9/20/12
12/3/12
5/28/13
Parameter (CAS Number)
Unit
Round 1
Round 2
Round 3
Round 4
Round 5
4-chloroaniline (106-47-8)
Hg/L
NR
<3.00 U
NA
<3.00 U
NA
4-chlorophenyl phenyl ether (7005-72-3)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 U
NA
<1.00 U
NA
4-nitroaniline (100-01-6)
Hg/L
NR
<3.00 U
NA
<3.00 U
NA
4-nitrophenol (100-02-7)
Hg/L
<2.50 U
<3.00 U
NA
<3.00 U
NA
Acenaphthene (83-32-9)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 U
NA
<1.00 U
NA
Acenaphthylene (208-96-8)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 U
NA
<1.00 U
NA
Adamantane (281-23-2)
Hg/L
<0.50 U,J-
<1.00 U
NA
<1.00 U,J-
NA
Aniline (62-53-3)
Hg/L
NR
<1.00 U
NA
<1.00 U
NA
Anthracene (120-12-7)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
NA
<1.00 u
NA
Azobenzene (103-33-3)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
NA
<1.00 u
NA
Benzo(a)anthracene (56-55-3)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
NA
<1.00 u
NA
Benzo(a)pyrene (50-32-8)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 U,J-
NA
<1.00 u
NA
Benzo(b)fluoranthene (205-99-2)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
NA
<1.00 u
NA
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene (191-24-2)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
NA
<1.00 u
NA
Benzo(k)fluoranthene (207-08-9)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
NA
<1.00 u
NA
Benzoic Acid (65-85-0)
Hg/L
<5.00 U
<3.00 U
NA
<3.00 U
NA
Benzyl alcohol (100-51-6)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
NA
<1.00 u
NA
Bis-(2-chloroethoxy)methane (111-91-1)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
NA
<1.00 u
NA
Bis-(2-chloroethyl)ether (111-44-4)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
NA
<1.00 u
NA
Bis-(2-chloroisopropyl)ether (108-60-1)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
NA
<1.00 u
NA
Bis-(2-ethylhexyl) adipate (103-23-1)
Hg/L
<1.00 U
<1.00 u
NA
<1.00 u
NA
Bis-(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (117-81-7)
Hg/L
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
NA
<2.00 U
NA
Butyl benzyl phthalate (85-68-7)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
NA
<1.00 u
NA
Carbazole (86-74-8)
Hg/L
NR
<3.00 U
NA
<3.00 U
NA
Chrysene (218-01-9)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 U,J-
NA
<1.00 u
NA
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene (53-70-3)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
NA
<1.00 u
NA
Dibenzofuran (132-64-9)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
NA
<1.00 u
NA
Diethyl phthalate (84-66-2)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
NA
<1.00 u
NA
Dimethyl phthalate (131-11-3)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
NA
<1.00 u
NA
Di-n-butyl phthalate (84-74-2)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
NA
<1.00 u
NA
Di-n-octyl phthalate (117-84-0)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
NA
<1.00 u
NA
Diphenylamine (122-39-4)
Hg/L
<0.50 U,J-
<1.00 u
NA
<1.00 u
NA
-------
B-84
Table B-6 Sample Results - Semivolatile Organic Compounds (Wise County, Texas)

Sample
GW02
GW02
GW02
GW02
GW03
GW03
GW03

Sample Date
9/20/11
3/5/12
12/3/12
5/28/13
9/20/11
3/5/12
12/3/12
Parameter (CAS Number)
Unit
Round 1
Round 2
Round 4
Round 5
Round 1
Round 2
Round 4
4-chloroaniline (106-47-8)
Hg/L
NR
<3.00 U
<3.00 U
NA
NR
<3.00 U
<3.00 U
4-chlorophenyl phenyl ether (7005-72-3)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
NA
<0.50 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
4-nitroaniline (100-01-6)
Hg/L
NR
<3.00 U
<3.00 U
NA
NR
<3.00 U
<3.00 U
4-nitrophenol (100-02-7)
Hg/L
<2.50 U
<3.00 U
<3.00 U
NA
<2.50 U
<3.00 U
<3.00 U
Acenaphthene (83-32-9)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
NA
<0.50 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
Acenaphthylene (208-96-8)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
NA
<0.50 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
Adamantane (281-23-2)
Hg/L
<0.50 U,J-
<1.00 U
<1.00 U,J-
NA
<0.50 U,J-
<1.00 U
<1.00 U,J-
Aniline (62-53-3)
Hg/L
NR
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
NA
NR
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
Anthracene (120-12-7)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<1.00 u
NA
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<1.00 u
Azobenzene (103-33-3)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<1.00 u
NA
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<1.00 u
Benzo(a)anthracene (56-55-3)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<1.00 u
NA
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<1.00 u
Benzo(a)pyrene (50-32-8)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 U,J-
<1.00 u
NA
<0.50 U
<1.00 U,J-
<1.00 u
Benzo(b)fluoranthene (205-99-2)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<1.00 u
NA
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<1.00 u
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene (191-24-2)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<1.00 u
NA
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<1.00 u
Benzo(k)fluoranthene (207-08-9)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<1.00 u
NA
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<1.00 u
Benzoic Acid (65-85-0)
Hg/L
<5.00 U
<3.00 U
<3.00 U
NA
<5.00 U
<3.00 U
<3.00 U
Benzyl alcohol (100-51-6)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<1.00 u
NA
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<1.00 u
Bis-(2-chloroethoxy)methane (111-91-1)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<1.00 u
NA
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<1.00 u
Bis-(2-chloroethyl)ether (111-44-4)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<1.00 u
NA
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<1.00 u
Bis-(2-chloroisopropyl)ether (108-60-1)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<1.00 u
NA
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<1.00 u
Bis-(2-ethylhexyl) adipate (103-23-1)
Hg/L
<1.00 U
<1.00 u
<1.00 u
NA
<1.00 U
<1.00 u
<1.00 u
Bis-(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (117-81-7)
Hg/L
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
NA
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
Butyl benzyl phthalate (85-68-7)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<1.00 u
NA
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<1.00 u
Carbazole (86-74-8)
Hg/L
NR
<3.00 U
<3.00 U
NA
NR
<3.00 U
<3.00 U
Chrysene (218-01-9)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 U,J-
<1.00 u
NA
<0.50 U
<1.00 U,J-
<1.00 u
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene (53-70-3)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<1.00 u
NA
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<1.00 u
Dibenzofuran (132-64-9)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<1.00 u
NA
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<1.00 u
Diethyl phthalate (84-66-2)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<1.00 u
NA
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<1.00 u
Dimethyl phthalate (131-11-3)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<1.00 u
NA
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<1.00 u
Di-n-butyl phthalate (84-74-2)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<1.00 u
NA
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<1.00 u
Di-n-octyl phthalate (117-84-0)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<1.00 u
NA
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<1.00 u
Diphenylamine (122-39-4)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<1.00 u
NA
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<1.00 u
-------
B-85
Table B-6 Sample Results - Semivolatile Organic Compounds (Wise County, Texas)

Sample
GW04
GW04
GW04
GW04
GW05
GW05

Sample Date
9/22/11
3/6/12
12/4/12
5/29/13
9/22/11
3/6/12
Parameter (CAS Number)
Unit
Round 1
Round 2
Round 4
Round 5
Round 1
Round 2
4-chloroaniline (106-47-8)
Hg/L
NR
<3.00 U
<3.00 U
NA
NR
<3.00 U
4-chlorophenyl phenyl ether (7005-72-3)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
NA
<0.50 U
<1.00 U
4-nitroaniline (100-01-6)
Hg/L
NR
<3.00 U
<3.00 U
NA
NR
<3.00 U
4-nitrophenol (100-02-7)
Hg/L
<2.50 U
<3.00 U
<3.00 U
NA
<2.50 U
<3.00 U
Acenaphthene (83-32-9)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
NA
<0.50 U
<1.00 U
Acenaphthylene (208-96-8)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
NA
<0.50 U
<1.00 U
Adamantane (281-23-2)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 U
<1.00 U,J-
NA
<0.50 U
<1.00 U
Aniline (62-53-3)
Hg/L
NR
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
NA
NR
<1.00 U
Anthracene (120-12-7)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<1.00 u
NA
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
Azobenzene (103-33-3)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<1.00 u
NA
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
Benzo(a)anthracene (56-55-3)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<1.00 u
NA
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
Benzo(a)pyrene (50-32-8)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 U,J-
<1.00 u
NA
<0.50 U
<1.00 U,J-
Benzo(b)fluoranthene (205-99-2)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<1.00 u
NA
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene (191-24-2)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<1.00 u
NA
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
Benzo(k)fluoranthene (207-08-9)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<1.00 u
NA
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
Benzoic Acid (65-85-0)
Hg/L
<5.00 U
<3.00 U
<3.00 U
NA
<5.00 U
<3.00 U
Benzyl alcohol (100-51-6)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<1.00 u
NA
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
Bis-(2-chloroethoxy)methane (111-91-1)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<1.00 u
NA
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
Bis-(2-chloroethyl)ether (111-44-4)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<1.00 u
NA
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
Bis-(2-chloroisopropyl)ether (108-60-1)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<1.00 u
NA
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
Bis-(2-ethylhexyl) adipate (103-23-1)
Hg/L
<1.00 U
<1.00 u
<1.00 u
NA
<1.00 U
<1.00 u
Bis-(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (117-81-7)
Hg/L
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
NA
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
Butyl benzyl phthalate (85-68-7)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
1.40
<1.00 u
NA
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
Carbazole (86-74-8)
Hg/L
NR
<3.00 U
<3.00 U
NA
NR
<3.00 U
Chrysene (218-01-9)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 U,J-
<1.00 u
NA
<0.50 U
<1.00 U,J-
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene (53-70-3)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<1.00 u
NA
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
Dibenzofuran (132-64-9)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<1.00 u
NA
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
Diethyl phthalate (84-66-2)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<1.00 u
NA
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
Dimethyl phthalate (131-11-3)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<1.00 u
NA
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
Di-n-butyl phthalate (84-74-2)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<1.00 u
NA
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
Di-n-octyl phthalate (117-84-0)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<1.00 u
NA
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
Diphenylamine (122-39-4)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<1.00 u
NA
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
-------
B-86
Table B-6 Sample Results - Semivolatile Organic Compounds (Wise County, Texas)

Sample
GW06
GW06
GW07
GW07

Sample Date
9/19/11
3/7/12
9/19/11
3/8/12
Parameter (CAS Number)
Unit
Round 1
Round 2
Round 1
Round 2
4-chloroaniline (106-47-8)
Hg/L
NR
<3.00 U
NR
<3.00 U
4-chlorophenyl phenyl ether (7005-72-3)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 U
<0.50 U
<1.00 U
4-nitroaniline (100-01-6)
Hg/L
NR
<3.00 U
NR
<3.00 U
4-nitrophenol (100-02-7)
Hg/L
<2.50 U
<3.00 U
<2.50 U
<3.00 U
Acenaphthene (83-32-9)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 U
<0.50 U
<1.00 U
Acenaphthylene (208-96-8)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 U
<0.50 U
<1.00 U
Adamantane (281-23-2)
Hg/L
<0.50 U,J-
<1.00 U
<0.50 U,J-
<1.00 U
Aniline (62-53-3)
Hg/L
NR
<1.00 U
NR
<1.00 U
Anthracene (120-12-7)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
Azobenzene (103-33-3)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
Benzo(a)anthracene (56-55-3)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
Benzo(a)pyrene (50-32-8)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 U,J-
<0.50 U
<1.00 U,J-
Benzo(b)fluoranthene (205-99-2)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene (191-24-2)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
Benzo(k)fluoranthene (207-08-9)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
Benzoic Acid (65-85-0)
Hg/L
<5.00 U
<3.00 U
<5.00 U
<3.00 U
Benzyl alcohol (100-51-6)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
Bis-(2-chloroethoxy)methane (111-91-1)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
Bis-(2-chloroethyl)ether (111-44-4)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
Bis-(2-chloroisopropyl)ether (108-60-1)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
Bis-(2-ethylhexyl) adipate (103-23-1)
Hg/L
<1.00 U
<1.00 u
<1.00 U
<1.00 u
Bis-(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (117-81-7)
Hg/L
2.51 B
<2.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
Butyl benzyl phthalate (85-68-7)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
Carbazole (86-74-8)
Hg/L
NR
<3.00 U
NR
<3.00 U
Chrysene (218-01-9)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 U,J-
<0.50 U
<1.00 U,J-
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene (53-70-3)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
Dibenzofuran (132-64-9)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
Diethyl phthalate (84-66-2)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
Dimethyl phthalate (131-11-3)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
Di-n-butyl phthalate (84-74-2)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
Di-n-octyl phthalate (117-84-0)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
Diphenylamine (122-39-4)
Hg/L
<0.50 U,J-
<1.00 u
<0.50 U,J-
<1.00 u
-------
B-87
Table B-6 Sample Results - Semivolatile Organic Compounds (Wise County, Texas)

Sample
GW08
GW08
GW08
GW08
GW08
GW09
GW09

Sample Date
9/20/11
3/5/12
9/20/12
12/4/12
5/29/13
9/21/11
3/7/12
Parameter (CAS Number)
Unit
Round 1
Round 2
Round 3
Round 4
Round 5
Round 1
Round 2
4-chloroaniline (106-47-8)
Hg/L
NR
<3.00 U
NA
<3.00 U
NA
NR
<3.00 U
4-chlorophenyl phenyl ether (7005-72-3)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 U
NA
<1.00 U
NA
<0.50 U
<1.00 U
4-nitroaniline (100-01-6)
Hg/L
NR
<3.00 U
NA
<3.00 U
NA
NR
<3.00 U
4-nitrophenol (100-02-7)
Hg/L
<2.50 U
<3.00 U
NA
<3.00 U
NA
<2.50 U
<3.00 U
Acenaphthene (83-32-9)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 U
NA
<1.00 U
NA
<0.50 U
<1.00 U
Acenaphthylene (208-96-8)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 U
NA
<1.00 U
NA
<0.50 U
<1.00 U
Adamantane (281-23-2)
Hg/L
<0.50 U,J-
<1.00 U
NA
<1.00 U,J-
NA
<0.50 U
<1.00 U
Aniline (62-53-3)
Hg/L
NR
<1.00 U
NA
<1.00 U
NA
NR
<1.00 U
Anthracene (120-12-7)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
NA
<1.00 u
NA
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
Azobenzene (103-33-3)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
NA
<1.00 u
NA
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
Benzo(a)anthracene (56-55-3)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
NA
<1.00 u
NA
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
Benzo(a)pyrene (50-32-8)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 U,J-
NA
<1.00 u
NA
<0.50 U
<1.00 U,J-
Benzo(b)fluoranthene (205-99-2)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
NA
<1.00 u
NA
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene (191-24-2)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
NA
<1.00 u
NA
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
Benzo(k)fluoranthene (207-08-9)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
NA
<1.00 u
NA
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
Benzoic Acid (65-85-0)
Hg/L
<5.00 U
<3.00 U
NA
<3.00 U
NA
<5.00 U
<3.00 U
Benzyl alcohol (100-51-6)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
NA
<1.00 u
NA
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
Bis-(2-chloroethoxy)methane (111-91-1)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
NA
<1.00 u
NA
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
Bis-(2-chloroethyl)ether (111-44-4)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
NA
<1.00 u
NA
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
Bis-(2-chloroisopropyl)ether (108-60-1)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
NA
<1.00 u
NA
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
Bis-(2-ethylhexyl) adipate (103-23-1)
Hg/L
<1.00 U
<1.00 u
NA
<1.00 u
NA
<1.00 U
<1.00 u
Bis-(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (117-81-7)
Hg/L
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
NA
<2.00 U
NA
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
Butyl benzyl phthalate (85-68-7)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
NA
<1.00 u
NA
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
Carbazole (86-74-8)
Hg/L
NR
<3.00 U
NA
<3.00 U
NA
NR
<3.00 U
Chrysene (218-01-9)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 U,J-
NA
<1.00 u
NA
<0.50 U
<1.00 U,J-
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene (53-70-3)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
NA
<1.00 u
NA
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
Dibenzofuran (132-64-9)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
NA
<1.00 u
NA
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
Diethyl phthalate (84-66-2)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
NA
<1.00 u
NA
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
Dimethyl phthalate (131-11-3)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
NA
<1.00 u
NA
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
Di-n-butyl phthalate (84-74-2)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
NA
<1.00 u
NA
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
Di-n-octyl phthalate (117-84-0)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
NA
<1.00 u
NA
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
Diphenylamine (122-39-4)
Hg/L
<0.50 U,J-
<1.00 u
NA
<1.00 u
NA
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
-------
B-88
Table B-6 Sample Results - Semivolatile Organic Compounds (Wise County, Texas)

Sample
GW10
GW10
GW11
GW11
GW12

Sample Date
9/22/11
3/7/12
9/22/11
3/7/12
9/21/11
Parameter (CAS Number)
Unit
Round 1
Round 2
Round 1
Round 2
Round 1
4-chloroaniline (106-47-8)
Hg/L
NR
<3.00 U
NR
<3.00 U
NR
4-chlorophenyl phenyl ether (7005-72-3)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 U
<0.50 U
<1.00 U
<0.50 U
4-nitroaniline (100-01-6)
Hg/L
NR
<3.00 U
NR
<3.00 U
NR
4-nitrophenol (100-02-7)
Hg/L
<2.50 U
<3.00 U
<2.50 U
<3.00 U
<2.50 U
Acenaphthene (83-32-9)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 U
<0.50 U
<1.00 U
<0.50 U
Acenaphthylene (208-96-8)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 U
<0.50 U
<1.00 U
<0.50 U
Adamantane (281-23-2)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 U
<0.50 U
<1.00 U
<0.50 U,J-
Aniline (62-53-3)
Hg/L
NR
<1.00 U
NR
<1.00 U
NR
Anthracene (120-12-7)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<0.50 U
Azobenzene (103-33-3)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<0.50 U
Benzo(a)anthracene (56-55-3)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<0.50 U
Benzo(a)pyrene (50-32-8)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 U,J-
<0.50 U
<1.00 U,J-
<0.50 U
Benzo(b)fluoranthene (205-99-2)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<0.50 U
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene (191-24-2)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<0.50 U
Benzo(k)fluoranthene (207-08-9)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<0.50 U
Benzoic Acid (65-85-0)
Hg/L
<5.00 U
<3.00 U
<5.00 U
<3.00 U
<5.00 U
Benzyl alcohol (100-51-6)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<0.50 U
Bis-(2-chloroethoxy)methane (111-91-1)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<0.50 U
Bis-(2-chloroethyl)ether (111-44-4)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<0.50 U
Bis-(2-chloroisopropyl)ether (108-60-1)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<0.50 U
Bis-(2-ethylhexyl) adipate (103-23-1)
Hg/L
<1.00 U
<1.00 u
<1.00 U
<1.00 u
<1.00 U
Bis-(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (117-81-7)
Hg/L
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
2.02 J+
<2.00 U
<1.00 U
Butyl benzyl phthalate (85-68-7)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<0.50 U
Carbazole (86-74-8)
Hg/L
NR
<3.00 U
NR
<3.00 U
NR
Chrysene (218-01-9)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 U,J-
<0.50 U
<1.00 U,J-
<0.50 U
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene (53-70-3)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<0.50 U
Dibenzofuran (132-64-9)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<0.50 U
Diethyl phthalate (84-66-2)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<0.50 U
Dimethyl phthalate (131-11-3)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<0.50 U
Di-n-butyl phthalate (84-74-2)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<0.50 U
Di-n-octyl phthalate (117-84-0)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<0.50 U
Diphenylamine (122-39-4)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<0.50 U
-------
B-89
Table B-6 Sample Results - Semivolatile Organic Compounds (Wise County, Texas)

Sample
GW13
GW13
GW13
GW14
GW14
GW14

Sample Date
3/5/12
12/3/12
5/28/13
3/5/12
12/5/12
5/28/13
Parameter (CAS Number)
Unit
Round 2
Round 4
Round 5
Round 2
Round 4
Round 5
4-chloroaniline (106-47-8)
Hg/L
<3.00 U
<3.00 U
NA
<3.00 U
<3.00 U
NA
4-chlorophenyl phenyl ether (7005-72-3)
Hg/L
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
NA
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
NA
4-nitroaniline (100-01-6)
Hg/L
<3.00 U
<3.00 U
NA
<3.00 U
<3.00 U
NA
4-nitrophenol (100-02-7)
Hg/L
<3.00 U
<3.00 U
NA
<3.00 U
<3.00 U
NA
Acenaphthene (83-32-9)
Hg/L
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
NA
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
NA
Acenaphthylene (208-96-8)
Hg/L
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
NA
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
NA
Adamantane (281-23-2)
Hg/L
<1.00 U
<1.00 U,J-
NA
<1.00 U
<1.00 U,J-
NA
Aniline (62-53-3)
Hg/L
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
NA
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
NA
Anthracene (120-12-7)
Hg/L
<1.00 u
<1.00 u
NA
<1.00 u
<1.00 u
NA
Azobenzene (103-33-3)
Hg/L
<1.00 u
<1.00 u
NA
<1.00 u
<1.00 u
NA
Benzo(a)anthracene (56-55-3)
Hg/L
<1.00 u
<1.00 u
NA
<1.00 u
<1.00 u
NA
Benzo(a)pyrene (50-32-8)
Hg/L
<1.00 U,J-
<1.00 u
NA
<1.00 U,J-
<1.00 u
NA
Benzo(b)fluoranthene (205-99-2)
Hg/L
<1.00 u
<1.00 u
NA
<1.00 u
<1.00 u
NA
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene (191-24-2)
Hg/L
<1.00 u
<1.00 u
NA
<1.00 u
<1.00 u
NA
Benzo(k)fluoranthene (207-08-9)
Hg/L
<1.00 u
<1.00 u
NA
<1.00 u
<1.00 u
NA
Benzoic Acid (65-85-0)
Hg/L
<3.00 U
<3.00 U
NA
<3.00 U
<3.00 U
NA
Benzyl alcohol (100-51-6)
Hg/L
<1.00 u
<1.00 u
NA
<1.00 u
<1.00 u
NA
Bis-(2-chloroethoxy)methane (111-91-1)
Hg/L
<1.00 u
<1.00 u
NA
<1.00 u
<1.00 u
NA
Bis-(2-chloroethyl)ether (111-44-4)
Hg/L
<1.00 u
<1.00 u
NA
<1.00 u
<1.00 u
NA
Bis-(2-chloroisopropyl)ether (108-60-1)
Hg/L
<1.00 u
<1.00 u
NA
<1.00 u
<1.00 u
NA
Bis-(2-ethylhexyl) adipate (103-23-1)
Hg/L
<1.00 u
<1.00 u
NA
<1.00 u
<1.00 u
NA
Bis-(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (117-81-7)
Hg/L
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
NA
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
NA
Butyl benzyl phthalate (85-68-7)
Hg/L
<1.00 u
<1.00 u
NA
<1.00 u
<1.00 u
NA
Carbazole (86-74-8)
Hg/L
<3.00 U
<3.00 U
NA
<3.00 U
<3.00 U
NA
Chrysene (218-01-9)
Hg/L
<1.00 U,J-
<1.00 u
NA
<1.00 U,J-
<1.00 u
NA
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene (53-70-3)
Hg/L
<1.00 u
<1.00 u
NA
<1.00 u
<1.00 u
NA
Dibenzofuran (132-64-9)
Hg/L
<1.00 u
<1.00 u
NA
<1.00 u
<1.00 u
NA
Diethyl phthalate (84-66-2)
Hg/L
<1.00 u
<1.00 u
NA
<1.00 u
<1.00 u
NA
Dimethyl phthalate (131-11-3)
Hg/L
<1.00 u
<1.00 u
NA
<1.00 u
<1.00 u
NA
Di-n-butyl phthalate (84-74-2)
Hg/L
<1.00 u
<1.00 u
NA
<1.00 u
<1.00 u
NA
Di-n-octyl phthalate (117-84-0)
Hg/L
<1.00 u
<1.00 u
NA
<1.00 u
<1.00 u
NA
Diphenylamine (122-39-4)
Hg/L
<1.00 u
<1.00 u
NA
<1.00 u
<1.00 u
NA
-------
B-90
Table B-6 Sample Results - Semivolatile Organic Compounds (Wise County, Texas)

Sample
GW15
GW15
GW15
GW16
GW16
GW16

Sample Date
3/6/12
12/5/12
5/30/13
3/6/12
12/5/12
5/30/13
Parameter (CAS Number)
Unit
Round 2
Round 4
Round 5
Round 2
Round 4
Round 5
4-chloroaniline (106-47-8)
Hg/L
<3.00 U
<3.00 U
NA
<3.00 U
<3.00 U
NA
4-chlorophenyl phenyl ether (7005-72-3)
Hg/L
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
NA
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
NA
4-nitroaniline (100-01-6)
Hg/L
<3.00 U
<3.00 U
NA
<3.00 U
<3.00 U
NA
4-nitrophenol (100-02-7)
Hg/L
<3.00 U
<3.00 U
NA
<3.00 U
<3.00 U
NA
Acenaphthene (83-32-9)
Hg/L
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
NA
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
NA
Acenaphthylene (208-96-8)
Hg/L
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
NA
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
NA
Adamantane (281-23-2)
Hg/L
<1.00 U
<1.00 U,J-
NA
<1.00 U
<1.00 U,J-
NA
Aniline (62-53-3)
Hg/L
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
NA
<1.00 U
<1.00 U
NA
Anthracene (120-12-7)
Hg/L
<1.00 u
<1.00 u
NA
<1.00 u
<1.00 u
NA
Azobenzene (103-33-3)
Hg/L
<1.00 u
<1.00 u
NA
<1.00 u
<1.00 u
NA
Benzo(a)anthracene (56-55-3)
Hg/L
<1.00 u
<1.00 u
NA
<1.00 u
<1.00 u
NA
Benzo(a)pyrene (50-32-8)
Hg/L
<1.00 U,J-
<1.00 u
NA
<1.00 U,J-
<1.00 u
NA
Benzo(b)fluoranthene (205-99-2)
Hg/L
<1.00 u
<1.00 u
NA
<1.00 u
<1.00 u
NA
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene (191-24-2)
Hg/L
<1.00 u
<1.00 u
NA
<1.00 u
<1.00 u
NA
Benzo(k)fluoranthene (207-08-9)
Hg/L
<1.00 u
<1.00 u
NA
<1.00 u
<1.00 u
NA
Benzoic Acid (65-85-0)
Hg/L
<3.00 U
<3.00 U
NA
<3.00 U
<3.00 U
NA
Benzyl alcohol (100-51-6)
Hg/L
<1.00 u
<1.00 u
NA
<1.00 u
<1.00 u
NA
Bis-(2-chloroethoxy)methane (111-91-1)
Hg/L
<1.00 u
<1.00 u
NA
<1.00 u
<1.00 u
NA
Bis-(2-chloroethyl)ether (111-44-4)
Hg/L
<1.00 u
<1.00 u
NA
<1.00 u
<1.00 u
NA
Bis-(2-chloroisopropyl)ether (108-60-1)
Hg/L
<1.00 u
<1.00 u
NA
<1.00 u
<1.00 u
NA
Bis-(2-ethylhexyl) adipate (103-23-1)
Hg/L
<1.00 u
<1.00 u
NA
<1.00 u
<1.00 u
NA
Bis-(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (117-81-7)
Hg/L
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
NA
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
NA
Butyl benzyl phthalate (85-68-7)
Hg/L
<1.00 u
<1.00 u
NA
<1.00 u
<1.00 u
NA
Carbazole (86-74-8)
Hg/L
<3.00 U
<3.00 U
NA
<3.00 U
<3.00 U
NA
Chrysene (218-01-9)
Hg/L
<1.00 U,J-
<1.00 u
NA
<1.00 U,J-
<1.00 u
NA
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene (53-70-3)
Hg/L
<1.00 u
<1.00 u
NA
<1.00 u
<1.00 u
NA
Dibenzofuran (132-64-9)
Hg/L
<1.00 u
<1.00 u
NA
<1.00 u
<1.00 u
NA
Diethyl phthalate (84-66-2)
Hg/L
<1.00 u
<1.00 u
NA
<1.00 u
<1.00 u
NA
Dimethyl phthalate (131-11-3)
Hg/L
<1.00 u
<1.00 u
NA
<1.00 u
<1.00 u
NA
Di-n-butyl phthalate (84-74-2)
Hg/L
<1.00 u
<1.00 u
NA
<1.00 u
<1.00 u
NA
Di-n-octyl phthalate (117-84-0)
Hg/L
<1.00 u
<1.00 u
NA
<1.00 u
<1.00 u
NA
Diphenylamine (122-39-4)
Hg/L
<1.00 u
<1.00 u
NA
<1.00 u
<1.00 u
NA
-------
B-91
Table B-6 Sample Results - Semivolatile Organic Compounds (Wise County, Texas)

Sample
PW01
PW02
PW03
SW01
SW01
SW02
SW02

Sample Date
9/20/12
5/29/13
5/29/13
9/21/11
3/6/12
9/21/11
3/6/12
Parameter (CAS Number)
Unit
Round 3
Round 5
Round 5
Round 1
Round 2
Round 1
Round 2
4-chloroaniline (106-47-8)
Hg/L
NA
NA
NA
NR
<3.00 U
NR
<3.00 U
4-chlorophenyl phenyl ether (7005-72-3)
Hg/L
NA
NA
NA
<0.50 U
<1.00 U
<0.50 U
<1.00 U
4-nitroaniline (100-01-6)
Hg/L
NA
NA
NA
NR
<3.00 U
NR
<3.00 U
4-nitrophenol (100-02-7)
Hg/L
NA
NA
NA
<2.50 U
<3.00 U
<2.50 U
<3.00 U
Acenaphthene (83-32-9)
Hg/L
NA
NA
NA
<0.50 U
<1.00 U
<0.50 U
<1.00 U
Acenaphthylene (208-96-8)
Hg/L
NA
NA
NA
<0.50 U
<1.00 U
<0.50 U
<1.00 U
Adamantane (281-23-2)
Hg/L
NA
NA
NA
<0.50 U
<1.00 U
<0.50 U
<1.00 U
Aniline (62-53-3)
Hg/L
NA
NA
NA
NR
<1.00 U
NR
<1.00 U
Anthracene (120-12-7)
Hg/L
NA
NA
NA
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
Azobenzene (103-33-3)
Hg/L
NA
NA
NA
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
Benzo(a)anthracene (56-55-3)
Hg/L
NA
NA
NA
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
Benzo(a)pyrene (50-32-8)
Hg/L
NA
NA
NA
<0.50 U
<1.00 U,J-
<0.50 U
<1.00 U,J-
Benzo(b)fluoranthene (205-99-2)
Hg/L
NA
NA
NA
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene (191-24-2)
Hg/L
NA
NA
NA
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
Benzo(k)fluoranthene (207-08-9)
Hg/L
NA
NA
NA
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
Benzoic Acid (65-85-0)
Hg/L
NA
NA
NA
<5.00 U
<3.00 U
<5.00 U
<3.00 U
Benzyl alcohol (100-51-6)
Hg/L
NA
NA
NA
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
Bis-(2-chloroethoxy)methane (111-91-1)
Hg/L
NA
NA
NA
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
Bis-(2-chloroethyl)ether (111-44-4)
Hg/L
NA
NA
NA
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
Bis-(2-chloroisopropyl)ether (108-60-1)
Hg/L
NA
NA
NA
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
Bis-(2-ethylhexyl) adipate (103-23-1)
Hg/L
NA
NA
NA
<1.00 U
<1.00 u
<1.00 U
<1.00 u
Bis-(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (117-81-7)
Hg/L
NA
NA
NA
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
Butyl benzyl phthalate (85-68-7)
Hg/L
NA
NA
NA
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
Carbazole (86-74-8)
Hg/L
NA
NA
NA
NR
<3.00 U
NR
<3.00 U
Chrysene (218-01-9)
Hg/L
NA
NA
NA
<0.50 U
<1.00 U,J-
<0.50 U
<1.00 U,J-
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene (53-70-3)
Hg/L
NA
NA
NA
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
Dibenzofuran (132-64-9)
Hg/L
NA
NA
NA
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
Diethyl phthalate (84-66-2)
Hg/L
NA
NA
NA
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
Dimethyl phthalate (131-11-3)
Hg/L
NA
NA
NA
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
Di-n-butyl phthalate (84-74-2)
Hg/L
NA
NA
NA
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
Di-n-octyl phthalate (117-84-0)
Hg/L
NA
NA
NA
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
Diphenylamine (122-39-4)
Hg/L
NA
NA
NA
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
-------
B-92
Table B-6 Sample Results - Semivolatile Organic Compounds (Wise County, Texas)

Sample
SW03
SW03
SW04
SW04

Sample Date
9/22/11
3/7/12
12/4/12
5/29/13
Parameter (CAS Number)
Unit
Round 1
Round 2
Round 4
Round 5
4-chloroaniline (106-47-8)
Hg/L
NR
<3.00 U
<12.0 U,J-
NA
4-chlorophenyl phenyl ether (7005-72-3)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 U
<4.00 U
NA
4-nitroaniline (100-01-6)
Hg/L
NR
<3.00 U
<12.0 U
NA
4-nitrophenol (100-02-7)
Hg/L
<2.50 U
<3.00 U
<12.0 U
NA
Acenaphthene (83-32-9)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 U
<4.00 U
NA
Acenaphthylene (208-96-8)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 U
<4.00 U
NA
Adamantane (281-23-2)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 U
<4.00 U,J-
NA
Aniline (62-53-3)
Hg/L
NR
<1.00 U
<4.00 U
NA
Anthracene (120-12-7)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<4.00 U
NA
Azobenzene (103-33-3)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<4.00 U
NA
Benzo(a)anthracene (56-55-3)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<4.00 U
NA
Benzo(a)pyrene (50-32-8)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 U,J-
<4.00 U
NA
Benzo(b)fluoranthene (205-99-2)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<4.00 U
NA
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene (191-24-2)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<4.00 U
NA
Benzo(k)fluoranthene (207-08-9)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<4.00 U
NA
Benzoic Acid (65-85-0)
Hg/L
<5.00 U
<3.00 U
<12.0 U
NA
Benzyl alcohol (100-51-6)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<4.00 U
NA
Bis-(2-chloroethoxy)methane (111-91-1)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<4.00 U
NA
Bis-(2-chloroethyl)ether (111-44-4)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<4.00 U
NA
Bis-(2-chloroisopropyl)ether (108-60-1)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<4.00 U
NA
Bis-(2-ethylhexyl) adipate (103-23-1)
Hg/L
<1.00 U
<1.00 u
<4.00 U
NA
Bis-(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (117-81-7)
Hg/L
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<8.00 U
NA
Butyl benzyl phthalate (85-68-7)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<4.00 U
NA
Carbazole (86-74-8)
Hg/L
NR
<3.00 U
<12.0 U
NA
Chrysene (218-01-9)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 U,J-
<4.00 U
NA
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene (53-70-3)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<4.00 U
NA
Dibenzofuran (132-64-9)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<4.00 U
NA
Diethyl phthalate (84-66-2)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<4.00 U
NA
Dimethyl phthalate (131-11-3)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<4.00 U
NA
Di-n-butyl phthalate (84-74-2)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<4.00 U
NA
Di-n-octyl phthalate (117-84-0)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<4.00 U
NA
Diphenylamine (122-39-4)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<4.00 U
NA
-------
B-93
Table B-6 Sample Results - Semivolatile Organic Compounds (Wise County, Texas)

Sample
GW01
GW01
GW01
GW01
GW01

Sample Date
9/20/11
3/5/12
9/20/12
12/3/12
5/28/13
Parameter (CAS Number)
Unit
Round 1
Round 2
Round 3
Round 4
Round 5
Fluoranthene (206-44-0)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
NA
<1.00 u
NA
Fluorene (86-73-7)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
NA
<1.00 u
NA
Hexachlorobenzene (118-74-1)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
NA
<1.00 u
NA
Hexachlorobutadiene (87-68-3)
Hg/L
<1.00 U
<1.00 u
NA
<1.00 u
NA
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene (77-47-4)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
NA
<1.00 u
NA
Hexachloroethane (67-72-1)
Hg/L
<1.00 U
<1.00 u
NA
<1.00 u
NA
lndeno(l,2,3-cd)pyrene (193-39-5)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
NA
<1.00 u
NA
Isophorone (78-59-1)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
NA
<1.00 u
NA
Naphthalene (91-20-3)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
NA
<1.00 u
NA
Nitrobenzene (98-95-3)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
NA
<1.00 u
NA
N-nitrosodimethylamine (62-75-9)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
NA
<1.00 u
NA
N-nitrosodi-n-propylamine (621-64-7)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
NA
<1.00 u
NA
Pentachlorophenol (87-86-5)
Hg/L
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
NA
<2.00 U
NA
Phenanthrene(85-01-8)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
NA
<1.00 u
NA
Phenol (108-95-2)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<2.00 U
NA
<2.00 U
NA
Pyrene (129-00-0)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
NA
<1.00 u
NA
Pyridine (110-86-1)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
NA
<1.00 u
NA
Squalene (111-02-4)
Hg/L
<1.00 U,J-
<2.00 U,J-
NA
<2.00 U
NA
Terpiniol (98-55-5)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
NA
<1.00 u
NA
tri-(2-butoxyethyl) phosphate (78-51-3)
Hg/L
<1.00 U
NR
NA
<1.00 u
NA
-------
B-94
Table B-6 Sample Results - Semivolatile Organic Compounds (Wise County, Texas)

Sample
GW02
GW02
GW02
GW02
GW03
GW03
GW03

Sample Date
9/20/11
3/5/12
12/3/12
5/28/13
9/20/11
3/5/12
12/3/12
Parameter (CAS Number)
Unit
Round 1
Round 2
Round 4
Round 5
Round 1
Round 2
Round 4
Fluoranthene (206-44-0)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<1.00 u
NA
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<1.00 u
Fluorene (86-73-7)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<1.00 u
NA
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<1.00 u
Hexachlorobenzene (118-74-1)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<1.00 u
NA
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<1.00 u
Hexachlorobutadiene (87-68-3)
Hg/L
<1.00 U
<1.00 u
<1.00 u
NA
<1.00 U
<1.00 u
<1.00 u
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene (77-47-4)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<1.00 u
NA
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<1.00 u
Hexachloroethane (67-72-1)
Hg/L
<1.00 U
<1.00 u
<1.00 u
NA
<1.00 U
<1.00 u
<1.00 u
lndeno(l,2,3-cd)pyrene (193-39-5)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<1.00 u
NA
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<1.00 u
Isophorone (78-59-1)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<1.00 u
NA
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<1.00 u
Naphthalene (91-20-3)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<1.00 u
NA
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<1.00 u
Nitrobenzene (98-95-3)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<1.00 u
NA
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<1.00 u
N-nitrosodimethylamine (62-75-9)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<1.00 u
NA
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<1.00 u
N-nitrosodi-n-propylamine (621-64-7)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<1.00 u
NA
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<1.00 u
Pentachlorophenol (87-86-5)
Hg/L
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
NA
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
Phenanthrene(85-01-8)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<1.00 u
NA
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<1.00 u
Phenol (108-95-2)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
NA
<0.50 U
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
Pyrene (129-00-0)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<1.00 u
NA
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<1.00 u
Pyridine (110-86-1)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<1.00 u
NA
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<1.00 u
Squalene (111-02-4)
Hg/L
<1.00 U
<2.00 U,J-
<2.00 U
NA
<1.00 U
<2.00 U,J-
<2.00 U
Terpiniol (98-55-5)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<1.00 u
NA
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<1.00 u
tri-(2-butoxyethyl) phosphate (78-51-3)
Hg/L
<1.00 U
NR
<1.00 u
NA
<1.00 U
NR
<1.00 u
-------
B-95
Table B-6 Sample Results - Semivolatile Organic Compounds (Wise County, Texas)

Sample
GW04
GW04
GW04
GW04
GW05
GW05

Sample Date
9/22/11
3/6/12
12/4/12
5/29/13
9/22/11
3/6/12
Parameter (CAS Number)
Unit
Round 1
Round 2
Round 4
Round 5
Round 1
Round 2
Fluoranthene (206-44-0)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<1.00 u
NA
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
Fluorene (86-73-7)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<1.00 u
NA
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
Hexachlorobenzene (118-74-1)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<1.00 u
NA
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
Hexachlorobutadiene (87-68-3)
Hg/L
<1.00 U
<1.00 u
<1.00 u
NA
<1.00 U
<1.00 u
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene (77-47-4)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<1.00 u
NA
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
Hexachloroethane (67-72-1)
Hg/L
<1.00 U
<1.00 u
<1.00 u
NA
<1.00 U
<1.00 u
lndeno(l,2,3-cd)pyrene (193-39-5)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<1.00 u
NA
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
Isophorone (78-59-1)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<1.00 u
NA
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
Naphthalene (91-20-3)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<1.00 u
NA
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
Nitrobenzene (98-95-3)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<1.00 u
NA
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
N-nitrosodimethylamine (62-75-9)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<1.00 u
NA
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
N-nitrosodi-n-propylamine (621-64-7)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<1.00 u
NA
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
Pentachlorophenol (87-86-5)
Hg/L
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
NA
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
Phenanthrene(85-01-8)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<1.00 u
NA
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
Phenol (108-95-2)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
NA
<0.50 U
<2.00 U
Pyrene (129-00-0)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<1.00 u
NA
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
Pyridine (110-86-1)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<1.00 u
NA
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
Squalene (111-02-4)
Hg/L
<1.00 U
<2.00 U,J-
<2.00 U
NA
<1.00 U
<2.00 U,J-
Terpiniol (98-55-5)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<1.00 u
NA
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
tri-(2-butoxyethyl) phosphate (78-51-3)
Hg/L
<1.00 U
NR
<1.00 u
NA
<1.00 U
NR
-------
B-96
Table B-6 Sample Results - Semivolatile Organic Compounds (Wise County, Texas)

Sample
GW06
GW06
GW07
GW07

Sample Date
9/19/11
3/7/12
9/19/11
3/8/12
Parameter (CAS Number)
Unit
Round 1
Round 2
Round 1
Round 2
Fluoranthene (206-44-0)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
Fluorene (86-73-7)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
Hexachlorobenzene (118-74-1)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
Hexachlorobutadiene (87-68-3)
Hg/L
<1.00 U
<1.00 u
<1.00 U
<1.00 u
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene (77-47-4)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
Hexachloroethane (67-72-1)
Hg/L
<1.00 U
<1.00 u
<1.00 U
<1.00 u
lndeno(l,2,3-cd)pyrene (193-39-5)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
Isophorone (78-59-1)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
Naphthalene (91-20-3)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
Nitrobenzene (98-95-3)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
N-nitrosodimethylamine (62-75-9)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
N-nitrosodi-n-propylamine (621-64-7)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
Pentachlorophenol (87-86-5)
Hg/L
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
Phenanthrene(85-01-8)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
Phenol (108-95-2)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<2.00 U
<0.50 U
<2.00 U
Pyrene (129-00-0)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
Pyridine (110-86-1)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
Squalene (111-02-4)
Hg/L
<1.00 U,J-
<2.00 U,J-
<1.00 U,J-
<2.00 U,J-
Terpiniol (98-55-5)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
tri-(2-butoxyethyl) phosphate (78-51-3)
Hg/L
<1.00 U
NR
<1.00 U
NR
-------
B-97
Table B-6 Sample Results - Semivolatile Organic Compounds (Wise County, Texas)

Sample
GW08
GW08
GW08
GW08
GW08
GW09
GW09

Sample Date
9/20/11
3/5/12
9/20/12
12/4/12
5/29/13
9/21/11
3/7/12
Parameter (CAS Number)
Unit
Round 1
Round 2
Round 3
Round 4
Round 5
Round 1
Round 2
Fluoranthene (206-44-0)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
NA
<1.00 u
NA
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
Fluorene (86-73-7)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
NA
<1.00 u
NA
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
Hexachlorobenzene (118-74-1)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
NA
<1.00 u
NA
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
Hexachlorobutadiene (87-68-3)
Hg/L
<1.00 U
<1.00 u
NA
<1.00 u
NA
<1.00 U
<1.00 u
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene (77-47-4)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
NA
<1.00 u
NA
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
Hexachloroethane (67-72-1)
Hg/L
<1.00 U
<1.00 u
NA
<1.00 u
NA
<1.00 U
<1.00 u
lndeno(l,2,3-cd)pyrene (193-39-5)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
NA
<1.00 u
NA
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
Isophorone (78-59-1)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
NA
<1.00 u
NA
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
Naphthalene (91-20-3)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
NA
<1.00 u
NA
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
Nitrobenzene (98-95-3)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
NA
<1.00 u
NA
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
N-nitrosodimethylamine (62-75-9)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
NA
<1.00 u
NA
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
N-nitrosodi-n-propylamine (621-64-7)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
NA
<1.00 u
NA
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
Pentachlorophenol (87-86-5)
Hg/L
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
NA
<2.00 U
NA
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
Phenanthrene(85-01-8)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
NA
<1.00 u
NA
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
Phenol (108-95-2)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<2.00 U
NA
<2.00 U
NA
<0.50 U
<2.00 U
Pyrene (129-00-0)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
NA
<1.00 u
NA
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
Pyridine (110-86-1)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
NA
<1.00 u
NA
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
Squalene (111-02-4)
Hg/L
<1.00 U,J-
<2.00 U,J-
NA
<2.00 U
NA
<1.00 U
<2.00 U,J-
Terpiniol (98-55-5)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
NA
<1.00 u
NA
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
tri-(2-butoxyethyl) phosphate (78-51-3)
Hg/L
<1.00 U
NR
NA
<1.00 u
NA
<1.00 U
NR
-------
B-98
Table B-6 Sample Results - Semivolatile Organic Compounds (Wise County, Texas)

Sample
GW10
GW10
GW11
GW11
GW12

Sample Date
9/22/11
3/7/12
9/22/11
3/7/12
9/21/11
Parameter (CAS Number)
Unit
Round 1
Round 2
Round 1
Round 2
Round 1
Fluoranthene (206-44-0)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<0.50 U
Fluorene (86-73-7)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<0.50 U
Hexachlorobenzene (118-74-1)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<0.50 U
Hexachlorobutadiene (87-68-3)
Hg/L
<1.00 U
<1.00 u
<1.00 U
<1.00 u
<1.00 U
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene (77-47-4)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<0.50 U
Hexachloroethane (67-72-1)
Hg/L
<1.00 U
<1.00 u
<1.00 U
<1.00 u
<1.00 U
lndeno(l,2,3-cd)pyrene (193-39-5)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<0.50 U
Isophorone (78-59-1)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<0.50 U
Naphthalene (91-20-3)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<0.50 U
Nitrobenzene (98-95-3)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<0.50 U
N-nitrosodimethylamine (62-75-9)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<0.50 U
N-nitrosodi-n-propylamine (621-64-7)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<0.50 U
Pentachlorophenol (87-86-5)
Hg/L
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<1.00 U
Phenanthrene(85-01-8)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<0.50 U
Phenol (108-95-2)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<2.00 U
<0.50 U
<2.00 U
<0.50 U
Pyrene (129-00-0)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<0.50 U
Pyridine (110-86-1)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<0.50 U
Squalene (111-02-4)
Hg/L
<1.00 U
<2.00 U,J-
<1.00 U
<2.00 U,J-
<1.00 U
Terpiniol (98-55-5)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<0.50 U
tri-(2-butoxyethyl) phosphate (78-51-3)
Hg/L
<1.00 U
NR
<1.00 U
NR
<1.00 U
-------
B-99
Table B-6 Sample Results - Semivolatile Organic Compounds (Wise County, Texas)

Sample
GW13
GW13
GW13
GW14
GW14
GW14

Sample Date
3/5/12
12/3/12
5/28/13
3/5/12
12/5/12
5/28/13
Parameter (CAS Number)
Unit
Round 2
Round 4
Round 5
Round 2
Round 4
Round 5
Fluoranthene (206-44-0)
Hg/L
<1.00 u
<1.00 u
NA
<1.00 u
<1.00 u
NA
Fluorene (86-73-7)
Hg/L
<1.00 u
<1.00 u
NA
<1.00 u
<1.00 u
NA
Hexachlorobenzene (118-74-1)
Hg/L
<1.00 u
<1.00 u
NA
<1.00 u
<1.00 u
NA
Hexachlorobutadiene (87-68-3)
Hg/L
<1.00 u
<1.00 u
NA
<1.00 u
<1.00 u
NA
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene (77-47-4)
Hg/L
<1.00 u
<1.00 u
NA
<1.00 u
<1.00 u
NA
Hexachloroethane (67-72-1)
Hg/L
<1.00 u
<1.00 u
NA
<1.00 u
<1.00 u
NA
lndeno(l,2,3-cd)pyrene (193-39-5)
Hg/L
<1.00 u
<1.00 u
NA
<1.00 u
<1.00 u
NA
Isophorone (78-59-1)
Hg/L
<1.00 u
<1.00 u
NA
<1.00 u
<1.00 u
NA
Naphthalene (91-20-3)
Hg/L
<1.00 u
<1.00 u
NA
<1.00 u
<1.00 u
NA
Nitrobenzene (98-95-3)
Hg/L
<1.00 u
<1.00 u
NA
<1.00 u
<1.00 u
NA
N-nitrosodimethylamine (62-75-9)
Hg/L
<1.00 u
<1.00 u
NA
<1.00 u
<1.00 u
NA
N-nitrosodi-n-propylamine (621-64-7)
Hg/L
<1.00 u
<1.00 u
NA
<1.00 u
<1.00 u
NA
Pentachlorophenol (87-86-5)
Hg/L
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
NA
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
NA
Phenanthrene(85-01-8)
Hg/L
<1.00 u
<1.00 u
NA
<1.00 u
<1.00 u
NA
Phenol (108-95-2)
Hg/L
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
NA
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
NA
Pyrene (129-00-0)
Hg/L
<1.00 u
<1.00 u
NA
<1.00 u
<1.00 u
NA
Pyridine (110-86-1)
Hg/L
<1.00 u
<1.00 u
NA
<1.00 u
<1.00 u
NA
Squalene (111-02-4)
Hg/L
<2.00 U,J-
<2.00 U
NA
<2.00 U,J-
<2.00 U
NA
Terpiniol (98-55-5)
Hg/L
<1.00 u
<1.00 u
NA
<1.00 u
<1.00 u
NA
tri-(2-butoxyethyl) phosphate (78-51-3)
Hg/L
NR
<1.00 u
NA
NR
<1.00 u
NA
-------
B-100
Table B-6 Sample Results - Semivolatile Organic Compounds (Wise County, Texas)

Sample
GW15
GW15
GW15
GW16
GW16
GW16

Sample Date
3/6/12
12/5/12
5/30/13
3/6/12
12/5/12
5/30/13
Parameter (CAS Number)
Unit
Round 2
Round 4
Round 5
Round 2
Round 4
Round 5
Fluoranthene (206-44-0)
Hg/L
<1.00 u
<1.00 u
NA
<1.00 u
<1.00 u
NA
Fluorene (86-73-7)
Hg/L
<1.00 u
<1.00 u
NA
<1.00 u
<1.00 u
NA
Hexachlorobenzene (118-74-1)
Hg/L
<1.00 u
<1.00 u
NA
<1.00 u
<1.00 u
NA
Hexachlorobutadiene (87-68-3)
Hg/L
<1.00 u
<1.00 u
NA
<1.00 u
<1.00 u
NA
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene (77-47-4)
Hg/L
<1.00 u
<1.00 u
NA
<1.00 u
<1.00 u
NA
Hexachloroethane (67-72-1)
Hg/L
<1.00 u
<1.00 u
NA
<1.00 u
<1.00 u
NA
lndeno(l,2,3-cd)pyrene (193-39-5)
Hg/L
<1.00 u
<1.00 u
NA
<1.00 u
<1.00 u
NA
Isophorone (78-59-1)
Hg/L
<1.00 u
<1.00 u
NA
<1.00 u
<1.00 u
NA
Naphthalene (91-20-3)
Hg/L
<1.00 u
<1.00 u
NA
<1.00 u
<1.00 u
NA
Nitrobenzene (98-95-3)
Hg/L
<1.00 u
<1.00 u
NA
<1.00 u
<1.00 u
NA
N-nitrosodimethylamine (62-75-9)
Hg/L
<1.00 u
<1.00 u
NA
<1.00 u
<1.00 u
NA
N-nitrosodi-n-propylamine (621-64-7)
Hg/L
<1.00 u
<1.00 u
NA
<1.00 u
<1.00 u
NA
Pentachlorophenol (87-86-5)
Hg/L
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
NA
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
NA
Phenanthrene(85-01-8)
Hg/L
<1.00 u
<1.00 u
NA
<1.00 u
<1.00 u
NA
Phenol (108-95-2)
Hg/L
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
NA
<2.00 U
<2.00 U
NA
Pyrene (129-00-0)
Hg/L
<1.00 u
<1.00 u
NA
<1.00 u
<1.00 u
NA
Pyridine (110-86-1)
Hg/L
<1.00 u
<1.00 u
NA
<1.00 u
<1.00 u
NA
Squalene (111-02-4)
Hg/L
<2.00 U,J-
<2.00 U
NA
<2.00 U,J-
<2.00 U
NA
Terpiniol (98-55-5)
Hg/L
<1.00 u
<1.00 u
NA
<1.00 u
<1.00 u
NA
tri-(2-butoxyethyl) phosphate (78-51-3)
Hg/L
NR
<1.00 u
NA
NR
<1.00 u
NA
-------
B-101
Table B-6 Sample Results - Semivolatile Organic Compounds (Wise County, Texas)

Sample
PW01
PW02
PW03
SW01
SW01
SW02
SW02

Sample Date
9/20/12
5/29/13
5/29/13
9/21/11
3/6/12
9/21/11
3/6/12
Parameter (CAS Number)
Unit
Round 3
Round 5
Round 5
Round 1
Round 2
Round 1
Round 2
Fluoranthene (206-44-0)
Hg/L
NA
NA
NA
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
Fluorene (86-73-7)
Hg/L
NA
NA
NA
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
Hexachlorobenzene (118-74-1)
Hg/L
NA
NA
NA
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
Hexachlorobutadiene (87-68-3)
Hg/L
NA
NA
NA
<1.00 U
<1.00 u
<1.00 U
<1.00 u
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene (77-47-4)
Hg/L
NA
NA
NA
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
Hexachloroethane (67-72-1)
Hg/L
NA
NA
NA
<1.00 U
<1.00 u
<1.00 U
<1.00 u
lndeno(l,2,3-cd)pyrene (193-39-5)
Hg/L
NA
NA
NA
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
Isophorone (78-59-1)
Hg/L
NA
NA
NA
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
Naphthalene (91-20-3)
Hg/L
NA
NA
NA
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
Nitrobenzene (98-95-3)
Hg/L
NA
NA
NA
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
N-nitrosodimethylamine (62-75-9)
Hg/L
NA
NA
NA
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
N-nitrosodi-n-propylamine (621-64-7)
Hg/L
NA
NA
NA
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
Pentachlorophenol (87-86-5)
Hg/L
NA
NA
NA
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
Phenanthrene(85-01-8)
Hg/L
NA
NA
NA
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
Phenol (108-95-2)
Hg/L
NA
NA
NA
<0.50 U
<2.00 U
<0.50 U
<2.00 U
Pyrene (129-00-0)
Hg/L
NA
NA
NA
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
Pyridine (110-86-1)
Hg/L
NA
NA
NA
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
Squalene (111-02-4)
Hg/L
NA
NA
NA
<1.00 U
<2.00 U,J-
<1.00 U
<2.00 U,J-
Terpiniol (98-55-5)
Hg/L
NA
NA
NA
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
tri-(2-butoxyethyl) phosphate (78-51-3)
Hg/L
NA
NA
NA
<1.00 U
NR
<1.00 U
NR
-------
B-102
Table B-6 Sample Results - Semivolatile Organic Compounds (Wise County, Texas)

Sample
SW03
SW03
SW04
SW04

Sample Date
9/22/11
3/7/12
12/4/12
5/29/13
Parameter (CAS Number)
Unit
Round 1
Round 2
Round 4
Round 5
Fluoranthene (206-44-0)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<4.00 U
NA
Fluorene (86-73-7)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<4.00 U
NA
Hexachlorobenzene (118-74-1)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<4.00 U
NA
Hexachlorobutadiene (87-68-3)
Hg/L
<1.00 U
<1.00 u
<4.00 U
NA
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene (77-47-4)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<4.00 U
NA
Hexachloroethane (67-72-1)
Hg/L
<1.00 U
<1.00 u
<4.00 U
NA
lndeno(l,2,3-cd)pyrene (193-39-5)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<4.00 U
NA
Isophorone (78-59-1)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<4.00 U
NA
Naphthalene (91-20-3)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<4.00 U
NA
Nitrobenzene (98-95-3)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<4.00 U
NA
N-nitrosodimethylamine (62-75-9)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<4.00 U
NA
N-nitrosodi-n-propylamine (621-64-7)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<4.00 U
NA
Pentachlorophenol (87-86-5)
Hg/L
<1.00 U
<2.00 U
<8.00 U
NA
Phenanthrene(85-01-8)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<4.00 U
NA
Phenol (108-95-2)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<2.00 U
<8.00 U
NA
Pyrene (129-00-0)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<4.00 U
NA
Pyridine (110-86-1)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<4.00 U
NA
Squalene (111-02-4)
Hg/L
<1.00 U
<2.00 U,J-
<8.00 U,J-
NA
Terpiniol (98-55-5)
Hg/L
<0.50 U
<1.00 u
<4.00 U
NA
tri-(2-butoxyethyl) phosphate (78-51-3)
Hg/L
<1.00 U
NR
<4.00 U
NA
-------
Table B-7 Sample Results - Water Isotopes and Strontium Isotopes (Wise County, Texas)
B-103

Sample
GW01
GW01
GW01
GW01
GW01

Sample Date
9/20/11
3/5/12
9/20/12
12/3/12
5/28/13
Parameter
Unit
Round 1
Round 2
Round 3
Round 4
Round 5
Water Isotopes

62H
%0
NA
-34.70
-34.31
-35.39
-35.89
O
00
rtb

NA
-5.69
-5.53
-5.86
-6.00
Strontium Isotopes

Sr
Hg/L
NA
12000
3750
13500
13650
Rb
Hg/L
NA
4.7
1.9
5.0
4.9
87r /86r
Sr/ Sr
Atom Ratio
NA
0.708825
0.70880
0.70880
0.708795
1/Sr
L/Hg
NA
0.0000833
0.0002667
0.000074074
0.000073260
Rb/Sr
Weight Ratio
NA
0.000392
0.0005067
0.000370370
0.000358974
-------
B-104
Table B-7 Sample Results - Water Isotopes and Strontium Isotopes (Wise County, Texas)

Sample
GW02
GW02
GW02
GW02
GW03
GW03
GW03

Sample Date
9/20/11
3/5/12
12/3/12
5/28/13
9/20/11
3/5/12
12/3/12
Parameter
Unit
Round 1
Round 2
Round 4
Round 5
Round 1
Round 2
Round 4
Water Isotopes

62H
%0
NA
-33.09
-33.19
-33.82
NA
-34.68
-35.34
O
00
rtb

NA
-5.59
-5.69
-5.65
NA
-5.79
-5.95
Strontium Isotopes

Sr
Hg/L
NA
566
562
486
NA
421
473
Rb
Hg/L
NA
0.8
0.8
0.8
NA
1.1
1.1
87r /86r
Sr/ Sr
Atom Ratio
NA
0.708491
0.70842
0.708458
NA
0.708434
0.70851
1/Sr
L/Hg
NA
0.0017668
0.001779359
0.002057613
NA
0.0023753
0.002114165
Rb/Sr
Weight Ratio
NA
0.001413
0.001423488
0.001646091
NA
0.002613
0.002325581
-------
B-105
Table B-7 Sample Results - Water Isotopes and Strontium Isotopes (Wise County, Texas)

Sample
GW04
GW04
GW04
GW04
GW05
GW05
GW06
GW06

Sample Date
9/22/11
3/6/12
12/4/12
5/29/13
9/22/11
3/6/12
9/19/11
3/7/12
Parameter
Unit
Round 1
Round 2
Round 4
Round 5
Round 1
Round 2
Round 1
Round 2
Water Isotopes

62H
%0
NA
-34.71
-35.29
-35.23
NA
-33.74
NA
NR
O
00
rtb

NA
-5.70
-5.89
-5.79
NA
-5.57
NA
NR
Strontium Isotopes

Sr
Hg/L
NA
230
233
221
NA
1800
NA
NR
Rb
Hg/L
NA
0.6
0.5
0.7
NA
1.3
NA
NR
87r /86r
Sr/ Sr
Atom Ratio
NA
0.708392
0.70837
0.708407
NA
0.708439
NA
NR
1/Sr
L/Hg
NA
0.0043478
0.004291845
0.004524887
NA
0.0005556
NA
NR
Rb/Sr
Weight Ratio
NA
0.002609
0.002145923
0.003167421
NA
0.000722
NA
NR
-------
B-106
Table B-7 Sample Results - Water Isotopes and Strontium Isotopes (Wise County, Texas)

Sample
GW07
GW07
GW08
GW08
GW08
GW08
GW08

Sample Date
9/19/11
3/8/12
9/20/11
3/5/12
9/20/12
12/4/12
5/29/13
Parameter
Unit
Round 1
Round 2
Round 1
Round 2
Round 3
Round 4
Round 5
Water Isotopes

62H
%0
NA
NR
NA
-31.75
-31.98
-32.24
-33.16
O
00
rtb

NA
NR
NA
-5.36
-5.28
-5.53
-5.58
Strontium Isotopes

Sr
Hg/L
NA
NR
NA
6540
3450
2750
4020
Rb
Hg/L
NA
NR
NA
2.4
1.2
1.2
1.5
87r /86r
Sr/ Sr
Atom Ratio
NA
NR
NA
0.709063
0.70903
0.70901
0.709019
1/Sr
L/Hg
NA
NR
NA
0.0001529
0.0002899
0.000363636
0.000248756
Rb/Sr
Weight Ratio
NA
NR
NA
0.000367
0.0003478
0.000436364
0.000373134
-------
B-107
Table B-7 Sample Results - Water Isotopes and Strontium Isotopes (Wise County, Texas)

Sample
GW09
GW09
GW10
GW10
GW11
GW11
GW12

Sample Date
9/21/11
3/7/12
9/22/11
3/7/12
9/22/11
3/7/12
9/21/11
Parameter
Unit
Round 1
Round 2
Round 1
Round 2
Round 1
Round 2
Round 1
Water Isotopes

62H
%0
NA
-31.15
NA
NR
NA
NR
NA
O
00
rtb

NA
-5.11
NA
NR
NA
NR
NA
Strontium Isotopes

Sr
Hg/L
NA
NR
NA
NR
NA
247
NA
Rb
Hg/L
NA
NR
NA
NR
NA
0.8
NA
87r /86r
Sr/ Sr
Atom Ratio
NA
NR
NA
NR
NA
0.708658
NA
1/Sr
L/Hg
NA
NR
NA
NR
NA
0.0040486
NA
Rb/Sr
Weight Ratio
NA
NR
NA
NR
NA
0.003239
NA
-------
B-108
Table B-7 Sample Results - Water Isotopes and Strontium Isotopes (Wise County, Texas)

Sample
GW13
GW13
GW13
GW14
GW14
GW14

Sample Date
3/5/12
12/3/12
5/28/13
3/5/12
12/5/12
5/28/13
Parameter
Unit
Round 2
Round 4
Round 5
Round 2
Round 4
Round 5
Water Isotopes

62H
%0
-34.01
-34.66
-35.21
-34.08
-34.53
-35.11
O
00
rtb

-5.57
-5.92
-6.03
-5.70
-5.80
-6.02
Strontium Isotopes

Sr
Hg/L
229
237
310
288
294
270
Rb
Hg/L
0.6
0.6
0.7
0.6
0.6
0.6
87r /86r
Sr/ Sr
Atom Ratio
0.708502
0.70848
0.708706
0.708528
0.70849
0.708493
1/Sr
L/Hg
0.0043668
0.004219409
0.003225806
0.0034722
0.003401361
0.003703704
Rb/Sr
Weight Ratio
0.002620
0.002531646
0.002258065
0.002083
0.002040816
0.002222222
-------
B-109
Table B-7 Sample Results - Water Isotopes and Strontium Isotopes (Wise County, Texas)

Sample
GW15
GW15
GW15
GW16
GW16
GW16

Sample Date
3/6/12
12/5/12
5/30/13
3/6/12
12/5/12
5/30/13
Parameter
Unit
Round 2
Round 4
Round 5
Round 2
Round 4
Round 5
Water Isotopes

62H
%0
-33.58
-33.93
-34.02
-34.97
-35.22
-35.97
O
00
rtb

-5.58
-5.89
-5.65
-5.77
-5.92
-5.92
Strontium Isotopes

Sr
Hg/L
290
309
301
NR
267
259
Rb
Hg/L
0.7
0.6
0.6
NR
0.8
0.8
87r /86r
Sr/ Sr
Atom Ratio
0.708417
0.70839
0.708390
NR
0.70868
0.708693
1/Sr
L/Hg
0.0034483
0.003236246
0.003322259
NR
0.003745318
0.003861004
Rb/Sr
Weight Ratio
0.002414
0.001941748
0.001993355
NR
0.002996255
0.003088803
-------
B-110
Table B-7 Sample Results - Water Isotopes and Strontium Isotopes (Wise County, Texas)

Sample
PW01
PW02
PW03
SW01
SW01
SW02
SW02

Sample Date
9/20/12
5/29/13
5/29/13
9/21/11
3/6/12
9/21/11
3/6/12
Parameter
Unit
Round 3
Round 5
Round 5
Round 1
Round 2
Round 1
Round 2
Water Isotopes

62H
%0
-10.41
-28.63
-11.86
NA
NR
NA
NR
O
00
rtb

2.14
-1.18
1.90
NA
NR
NA
NR
Strontium Isotopes

Sr
Hg/L
668000*
48
532000
NA
NR
NA
NR
Rb
Hg/L
3470*
<4
2120
NA
NR
NA
NR
87r /86r
Sr/ Sr
Atom Ratio
0.71303
0.711061
0.712297
NA
NR
NA
NR
1/Sr
L/Hg
0.0000015
0.020833333
0.000001880
NA
NR
NA
NR
Rb/Sr
Weight Ratio
0.0051946
NR
0.003984962
NA
NR
NA
NR
-------
Table B-7 Sample Results - Water Isotopes and Strontium Isotopes (Wise County, Texas)
B-lll

Sample
SW03
SW03
SW04
SW04

Sample Date
9/22/11
3/7/12
12/4/12
5/29/13
Parameter
Unit
Round 1
Round 2
Round 4
Round 5
Water Isotopes

62H
%0
NA
NR
9.53
1.99
O
00
rtb

NA
NR
3.39
1.37
Strontium Isotopes

Sr
Hg/L
NA
NR
233
198
Rb
Hg/L
NA
NR
2.8
6.2
87r /86r
Sr/ Sr
Atom Ratio
NA
NR
0.709692
0.709651
1/Sr
L/Hg
NA
NR
0.004291845
0.005050505
Rb/Sr
Weight Ratio
NA
NR
0.012017167
0.031313131
-------
Appendix C Background Data, Retrospective Case Study in Wise County, Texas
May 2015
Appendix C
Background Data
Retrospective Case Study in Wise County, Texas
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Research and Development
Washington, DC
May 2015
EPA/600/R-14/090
-------
Appendix C Background Data, Retrospective Case Study in Wise County, Texas	May 2015
Table of Contents
Table of Contents	C-2
List of Tables	C-3
List of Figures	C-4
C.l. Land Use	C-5
C.2. Search Areas	C-5
C.2.1. Land Use	C-5
C.2.2. Crop Land	C-6
C.2.3. Land Use Changes	C-6
C.3. Environmental Records Search	C-6
C.3.1. Oil and Gas Well Inventory	C-7
C.3.2. State Record Summary	C-7
C.4. Evaluation of Data for Location A	C-7
C.4.1. Environmental Records Search Report Summary	C-7
C.4.2. Oil and Gas Well Inventory Summary	C-8
C.4.3. State Record Summary	C-8
C.5. Evaluation of Data for Location B	C-9
C.5.1. Environmental Records Search Report Summary	C-9
C.5.2. Oil and Gas Well Inventory Summary	C-9
C.5.3. State Record Summary	C-10
C.6. Evaluation of Data for Location C	C-10
C.6.1. Environmental Records Search Report Summary	C-10
C.6.2. Oil and Gas Well Inventory Summary	C-10
C.6.3. State Record Summary	C-ll
C.7. References	C-ll
Attachment 1 EDR Record Search	C-58
C-2
-------
Appendix C Background Data, Retrospective Case Study in Wise County, Texas
May 2015
List of	Tables
Table CI Major Agricultural Land Uses in Wise County	C-14
Table C2 Changes in Land Use, 1992 to 2001 and 2001 to 2006, in Wise County	C-14
Table C3 Largest Industries by Employment in Wise County in 2011	C-15
Table C4 Land Use in Search Area A in 1992 and 2006	C-15
Table C5 Land Use in Search Area B in 1992 and 2006	C-16
Table C6 Land Use in Search Area C in 1992 and 2006	C-16
Table C7 Major Agricultural Land Uses in Search Area A	C-17
Table C8 Major Agricultural Land Uses in Search Area B	C-17
Table C9 Major Agricultural Land Uses in Search Area C	C-17
Table C10 Changes in Land Use, 1992 to 2001 and 2001 to 2006, in Search Area A	C-18
Table Cll Changes in Land Use, 1992 to 2001 and 2001 to 2006, in Search Area B	C-18
Table C12 Changes in Land Use, 1992 to 2001 and 2001 to 2006, in Search Area C	C-18
Table C13 Environmental Database Review Summary for Wise County, Texas - Location A	C-19
Table C14 Well Inventory Summary for Wise County, Texas - Location A	C-21
Table C15 Number of Oil and Gas Wells in Wise County Texas - Location A	C-25
Table C16 Impoundments within 1 Mile of EPA Samples, Wise County, Texas - Location A	C-25
Table C17 Environmental Database Review Summary for Wise County, Texas - Location B	C-26
Table C18 Well Inventory Summary for Wise County, Texas - Location B	C-28
Table C19 Number of Oil and Gas Wells in Wise County, Texas - Location B	C-33
Table C20 Impoundments within 1 Mile of EPA Samples, Wise County, Texas - Location B	C-33
Table C21 Environmental Database Review Summary for Wise County, Texas - Location C	C-34
Table C22 Well Inventory Summary for Wise County, Texas - Location C	C-37
Table C23 Number of Oil and Gas Wells in Wise County, Texas - Location C	C-39
Table C24 Impoundments within 1 Mile of EPA Samples, Wise County, Texas - Location C	C-39
Table C25 Notable Notice of Violations Summary	C-40
C-3
-------
Appendix C Background Data, Retrospective Case Study in Wise County, Texas
May 2015
List of	Figures
Figure CI 2012 Crop Lands	C-42
Figure C2 Land Use Changes, 1992-2001 and 2001-2006	C-43
Figure C3 Population in Wise County, 1950-2010	C-44
Figure C4 Land Use/Land Cover 1992 and 2006, Location A	C-45
Figure C5 Land Use/Land Cover 1992 and 2006, Location B	C-46
Figure C6 Land Use/Land Cover 1992 and 2006, Location C	C-47
Figure C7 2012 Crop Lands, Location A	C-48
Figure C8 2012 Crop Lands, Location B	C-49
Figure C9 2012 Crop Lands, Location C	C-50
Figure C10 Land Use Change, 1992-2001 and 2001-2006, Location A	C-51
Figure Cll Land Use Change, 1992-2001 and 2001-2006, Location B	C-52
Figure C12 Land Use Change, 1992-2001 and 2001-2006, Location C	C-53
Figure C13 Case Study Sample Location Map	C-54
Figure C14 Impoundments, Location A	C-55
Figure C15 Impoundments, Location B	C-56
Figure C16 Impoundments, Location C	C-57
C-4
-------
Appendix C Background Data, Retrospective Case Study in Wise County, Texas
May 2015
C.l. Land Use
This appendix contains descriptions of land uses in Wise County as a whole, followed by descriptions of
land uses in and around the sampling points of this study. The Cropland Data Layer produced by the
National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS), a part of the U.S. Department of Agriculture,1 provides
data on agricultural uses of land. Figure CI shows land uses, including the agricultural uses of land, in
Wise County in 2012. Table CI shows the percentages of county land devoted to the largest agricultural
uses. Grassland herbaceous was the largest use of agricultural land in the county.
The National Land Cover Database was used here to examine changes in land use. The earliest available
imagery dates to 1992, there is imagery available from 2001, and the latest available imagery dates to
2006. The data from the National Land Cover Database for 1992 and 2006 were not directly comparable
due to changes in input data and mapping methodologies. However, it was possible to compare data
from 1992 to that from 2001 and to compare data from 2001 to that from 2006 to identify changes in
land use (Multi-Resolution Land Characteristics Consortium 2013.) Figure C2 shows land use changes in
Wise County between 1992 and 2001 and between 2001 and 2006, respectively. Table C2 contains data
on the changes in land use in the county in the two sub-periods. It can be seen from the table that only
a tiny proportion of the land in the county changed use in either sub-period.
The population totals for Wise County (i.e., an indicator of the intensity of land use) at each census year
from 1950 to 2010 are shown in Figure C3 (U.S. Census Bureau 2013a, b,c). The population of Wise
County has grown throughout the period, and the population of the county tripled between 1970 and
2010. In 2011 the population density in Wise County was approximately 66 persons per square mile; the
entire state had approximately 98 persons per square mile (U.S. Census Bureau 2012a). In 2010 the
percentage of the land taken up by urban areas (another indicator of the intensity of land use) in Wise
County was 1.6%; in the entire state, urban areas comprise 3.4% (U.S. Census Bureau 2012b).
Employment is another broad indicator of land use in the county. Table C3 shows the largest industries
by employment in Wise County. The production industries (i.e., manufacturing, mining, and utilities)
accounted for 29% of employment in Wise County.
C.2. Search Areas
C.2.1. Land Use
Figures C4 through C6, which were created using data from the National Land Cover Database, show
land use maps for Search Areas A, B, and C, respectively, in 1992 and 2006. The search areas encompass
a 3-mile search radius around the sampling points in the county and were used to focus the analysis of
land use patterns and the environmental records searches. Tables C4 through C6 contain data on land
use in Search Areas A, B and C, respectively, in 1992 and 2006. Bearing in mind that the data for land
use in the two years were not comparable due to methodological differences, they indicate that
1 The Cropland Data Layer is "created annually for the continental United States using moderate resolution satellite imagery
and extensive agricultural ground truth." (U.S .Department of Agriculture 2012)
C-5
-------
Appendix C Background Data, Retrospective Case Study in Wise County, Texas
May 2015
grassland/herbaceous and pasture/hay (i.e., land suitable for grazing or animal forage production),
forest, and row/cultivated crop land were the largest land use categories in the search areas.
C.2.2. Crop Land
Figures C7 through C9 show land uses, including the agricultural uses of land, in Search Areas A, B,
and C, respectively, in 2012. Tables C7 through C9 show the percentages of land devoted to the largest
agricultural uses in Search Areas A, B, and C, respectively. Grassland herbaceous was the largest use of
agricultural land in all three search areas.
C.2.3. Land Use Changes
Figures CIO through C12 show land use changes in Search Areas A, B and C, respectively, between 1992
and 2001 and between 2001 and 2006. Tables C10 through C12 contain data on the changes in land use
in the two sub-periods. It can be seen from the tables that only a tiny proportion of the land in each
search area changed use in either sub-period.
C.3. Environmental Records Search
Environmental record searches of the three study areas (Locations A, B, and C) were obtained by
Environmental Data Resources, Inc. (EDR). EDR provides a service for searching publically available
databases as well as providing data from their own proprietary databases. The database searches
included records reviews of several different federal, state, tribal, and EDR proprietary environmental
databases for the three study areas with documented use, storage, or release of hazardous materials or
petroleum products (see Attachment l).2
The record searches were based on 3-mile-radius 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 study area as described below:
1.	In general, a 3-mile search radius was centered around a cluster of EPA sample points in each
location.
2.	If sample points were less than 1 mile from the edge of the 3-mile search radius, they were
considered extraneous points and 1-mile radii were used.
The identified records included 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 being assessed and/or remediated; sites with National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) and State Pollutant Discharge Elimination system (SPDES)
permits; and active and abandoned mines and landfills. All these properties, listed on the
Note: Environmental Data Resources Inc. (EDR) does not search the EnviroFacts and its associated EnviroMapper databases
but does search 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-6
-------
Appendix C Background Data, Retrospective Case Study in Wise County, Texas
May 2015
Environmental Records Search Report, were reviewed and screened to determine whether they are
potential candidate causes. The criteria used for the screening included 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 points.
Sites that could not be mapped due to poor or inadequate address information were not included on
the EDR Radius Map. However, EDR determined that, based on the limited address information
available, it was possible that these sites could be located within the stated search radius (e.g., zip code
listed within searched radius) and were listed on the Environmental Records Search Report as orphan
sites3. Even though they are not mappable, the orphan sites were screened to the extent possible based
on limited information on those sites available through additional searches of the databases listed above
and information obtained through Internet searches (e.g., EPA and Texas Railroad Commission [TRRC]
websites).
C.3.1. Oil and Gas Well Inventory
Well inventories of the same search areas described above for the EDR reports were prepared using the
TRRC oil and gas well database. All oil and gas wells within these search area radii were selected for
review. Specific focus was placed on wells within 1 mile of EPA sampling locations.
C.3.2. State Record Summary
The TRRC database was used to find up-to-date records for wells within the search radii. The database
provides information on inspection and pollution prevention visits, including a listing of all inspections
that have occurred at each well on record, if violations were noted, and any enforcement that may have
resulted. The system provides multiple options to search for records. Because of the large number of
wells in each study area, this record search was only for oil and gas wells within a 1-mile radius of each
EPA sampling point.
C.4. Evaluation of Data for Location A
C.4.1. Environmental Records Search Report Summary
One 3-mile search radius was established to perform database searches that would capture all seven
EPA sample points (see Figure C13). The database search located five mapped records within this search
area. An additional 43 records for orphan sites were identified during the searches. Some of the same
records were identified in different databases. Therefore the actual number of sites was less than the
48 records identified. An attempt to locate these sites with the information available in the reports and
through internet searches was made to aid in determining the potential of these sites as candidate
causes. The evaluation of sites is summarized in Table C13.
A total of one incident, record, and site were retained as potential candidate causes and were identified
within the databases as described below:
3 Orphan sites are those sites with poor locational information in the databases that may or may not exist outside the actual
search radius.
C-7
-------
Appendix C Background Data, Retrospective Case Study in Wise County, Texas
May 2015
• Emergency Response Notification System (ERNS) - This database records and stores
information on reported releases of oil and hazardous substances. This site was a drilling pad
location. On October 29, 2009, a release of a black "smokey" [sic] fluid from a drilling rig was
reported. The site is located at 415 Star Shell Road, in Decatur, Texas, approximately 0.17 miles
northwest of EPA sample WISETXGW12. Because of the proximity of this release to the
sampling point and unknown materials and quantity, this site is a potential candidate cause.
C.4.2. Oil and Gas Well Inventory Summary
As described above, the EPA sampling locations were compared with the distance to the inventory of
wells identified in the in EPA geographic information system (GIS) database files and the TRRC oil and
gas well database files (see Table C14).
There are 304 oil and gas wells in Location A's 3-mile search area. Of the 304 wells, 62 are within 1 mile
of EPA sample points (see Table C15).
In addition to obtaining well inventory data, Google Earth Aerial Imagery between 1995 and 2013 were
reviewed to identify the presence or absence of impoundments or reserve pits associated with oil and
gas wells in the study area.
Impoundments/reserve pits were observed in the aerial images that were reviewed. However, since
these features are relatively short-term and the time frame between the images can span multiple
years, additional impoundments/reserve pits could have been present in the study area but not
captured by the available Google Earth Imagery. Most of the impoundments observed were post-2004.
In Location A, between 35 and 41 well pads were observed within a 1-mile radius of a given EPA sample
point. Many of the well pads contain or previously contained reserve pits, which are generally used for
drill cuttings. The nearest distances of the impoundments and well pads relative to the EPA sample
locations are summarized in Table C16 and the locations of impoundments relative to the search areas
are shown on Figure C14. Specific use of each impoundment is unknown; however, impoundments are
generally used to store fresh water for hydraulic fracturing, but treated flowback fluids (brines and spent
hydraulic fracturing fluid) from the hydraulic fracturing process are also placed in these impoundments.
Available aerial imagery did not show any impoundments in Location A within 1 mile of an EPA sampling
point.
In summary, numerous oil and gas production wells are in the study area, most well pads
contain/contained a reserve pit, and some of the well pads were associated with an impoundment. The
presence of numerous oil and gas wells, reserve pits, and impoundments increase the probability of one
or more of these features to be a potential candidate cause.
C.4.3. State Record Summary
Notice of Violations (NOVs). A list of oil and gas wells within Location A's 1-mile search area was
submitted to the TRRC for NOV review since NOVs are not available online from the state of Texas. Only
major violations associated with the individual wells (e.g., spills, releases, and well-integrity issues) were
C-8
-------
Appendix C Background Data, Retrospective Case Study in Wise County, Texas
May 2015
requested (i.e., administrative violations were not deemed necessary for this study). No major
violations were reported by TRRC for this area.
C.5. Evaluation of Data for Location B
C.5.1. Environmental Records Search Report Summary
A 3-mile search radius that would capture all 10 EPA sample points was established for database
searches (see Figure C13). The database search located 31 records within this search area. An
additional 41 records for orphan sites were identified during the searches. Some of the same records
were identified in different databases. Therefore the actual number of sites is less than the 72 records
identified. An attempt to locate these sites with the information available in the reports and through
Internet searches was made to aid in determining the potential of these sites as candidate causes Site
evaluations are summarized in Table C17.
Of the 72 records, a total of four incidents, records, and sites were retained as potential candidate
causes and were identified within the databases as described below:
•	Old Decatur Site - This site is an historic landfill, closed in 1972, located 0.45 miles northeast of
sample WISETXGW15 and approximately 1 mile southwest of the junction of Highway 28 and
Highway 380. Landfills can impact water quality over large areas and release a variety of
contaminants. No additional information was found through desktop and Internet searches.
•	Timeout Chevron - Records for this site indicate use of an underground storage tank (UST)
containing petroleum fluids. Old USTs were typically built using a single wall design that was
prone to leak. The site is located approximately 1.23 miles northeast of sample location
WISETXGW15.
•	JE Haynes Construction - Records for this site indicate use of a UST containing petroleum fluids.
Old USTs were typically built using a single wall design that was prone to leak. The site is located
approximately 1.52 miles northeast of sample location WISETXGW05.
•	Historical Automotive Site -Historically, automotive shops have contributed to groundwater
contamination as the result of poor disposal practices of waste automotive fluids. This site is
located 1.7 miles northeast of sample WISETXGW15.
C.5.2. Oil and Gas Well Inventory Summary
As noted above, the EPA sampling locations were compared with the inventory of wells identified in the
EPA's GIS database files and TRRC database files (see Table C18).
There are 369 oil and gas wells in the 3-mile search area. Of the 369 wells, 76 are within 1 mile of EPA
sample points (see Table C19).
Impoundments/reserve pits were observed in Google Earth aerial images that were reviewed. However,
since these features are relatively short-term and the time frame between the images can span multiple
years, additional impoundments/reserve pits could have been present but were not captured by the
available Google Earth imagery. Most of the impoundments observed were post-2008 and in some
cases have since been reclaimed. In Location B, between 28 and 41 well pads were observed within a 1-
C-9
-------
Appendix C Background Data, Retrospective Case Study in Wise County, Texas
May 2015
mile radius of a given EPA sample point. Many of the well pads contain or previously contained reserve
pits, which are generally used for drill cuttings. The nearest distances of the impoundments and well
pads relative to the EPA sample locations are summarized in Table C20 and the locations relative to the
search areas are shown on Figure C15. Specific use of each impoundment is unknown; however,
although impoundments are generally used to store fresh water for hydraulic fracturing, treated
flowback fluids (brines and spent hydraulic fracturing fluid) from the hydraulic fracturing process are
also placed in these impoundments. Two impoundments are within a 1-mile radius of any given sample
point. The distance between a given EPA sample point to the nearest impoundment ranged from
between less than 0.1 miles to 0.6 miles.
In summary, numerous production wells are in the study area, most well pads contain a reserve pit, and
some of the well pads are associated with an impoundment. The presence of numerous oil and gas
wells, reserve pits, and impoundments increases the probability of one or more of these features to be a
potential candidate cause.
C.5.3. State Record Summary
Notice of Violations. A list of oil and gas wells within the Location B 1-mile search area was submitted
to the TRRC for NOV review since NOVs are not available online from the state of Texas. Only major
violations associated with the individual wells (e.g., spill, releases, and well integrity issues) were
requested (i.e., administrative violations were not deemed necessary for this study). No major
violations were reported by TRRC for this area. However, since brine migration is the issue of concern in
this area, there may be violations associated with brine releases from reserve pits or impoundments.
Additional information was requested; however, no additional information was provided by the TRRC
regarding impoundment releases.
C.6. Evaluation of Data for Location C
C.6.1. Environmental Records Search Report Summary
A 3-mile search radius that would capture the two EPA sample points was established for database
searches (see Figure C13). The database search located one mapped record within this search area. An
additional 118 records for orphan sites were identified during the searches. Some of the same records
were identified in different databases. Therefore the actual number of sites is less than the 119 records
identified. An attempt was made to locate these sites using information available in the reports and
through the Internet to help determine the potential of these sites as candidate causes. The evaluation
of sites is summarized in Table C21.
No incidents, records, or releases were identified at Location C in the databases and none were retained
as potential candidate causes.
C.6.2. Oil and Gas Well Inventory Summary
As described above, the EPA sampling locations were compared with the distance to the inventory of
wells identified in the in EPA's GIS database files and the TRRC oil and gas well database files (see Table
C22).
C-10
-------
Appendix C Background Data, Retrospective Case Study in Wise County, Texas
May 2015
There are 161 oil and gas wells in the 3-mile search area. Of the 161 wells, 30 are within 1 mile of EPA
sample points (see Table C23).
Impoundments/reserve pits were observed in Google Earth aerial images that were reviewed. However,
since these features are relatively short-term and the time frame between the images can span multiple
years, additional impoundments/reserve pits could have been present but were not captured by the
available Google Earth Imagery. Most of the impoundments observed were post-2008. In Location C,
between 17 and 18 well pads were observed within a 1-mile radius of a given EPA sample point. Many
of the well pads contain or previously contained reserve pits, which are generally used for drill cuttings.
The nearest distances of the impoundments and well pads relative to the EPA sample locations are
summarized in Table C24 and the locations relative to the search areas are shown on Figure C16.
Specific use of each impoundment is unknown; however, although impoundments are generally used to
store fresh water for hydraulic fracturing, treated flowback fluids (brines and spent hydraulic fracturing
fluid) from the hydraulic fracturing process are also placed in these impoundments. Two impoundments
are within a 1-mile radius of any given sample point. The distance from a given EPA sample point to the
nearest impoundment ranged from between 0.2 miles to 0.7 miles.
In summary, numerous production wells are in the study area, most well pads contain a reserve pit, and
some of the well pads are associated with an impoundment. The presence of numerous oil and gas
wells, reserve pits, and impoundments increases the probability of one or more of these features to be a
potential candidate cause.
C.6.3. State Record Summary
Notice of Violations. A list of oil and gas wells within the Location C 1-mile search area was submitted
to the TRRC for NOV review since NOVs are not available online from the state of Texas. Only major
violations associated with the individual wells (e.g., spills, releases, and well integrity issues) were
requested (i.e., administrative violations were not deemed necessary for this study). Three violations
were noted (see Table C25). These violations included an alleged casing leak in April 2013, an oil and
brine spill in September 2011, and a production fluid spill in February 2013. The casing leak could not be
confirmed by TRRC, the oil and brine spill was contained and cleaned up, and the status of the
production fluid spill is unknown. The operator was directed to conduct remedial cleanup of affected
areas. As of March 1, 2013, a site inspection reported that cleanup had not been conducted. Because
of its proximity to an EPA sampling location, this incident could be considered a potential candidate
cause.
C.7. References
Multi-Resolution Land Characteristics Consortium. 2013. Frequently Asked Questions.
http://www.mrlc.gov/faq_lc.php. Accessed on October 25, 2013.
U.S. Census Bureau, Economic Planning & Coordination Division. 2011. Geography Area Series: County
Business Patterns: 2011. Wise County, Texas.
http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/tableservices/isf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=BP 2011 OOAl&pr
odType=table Accessed on November 4, 2013.
C-ll
-------
Appendix C Background Data, Retrospective Case Study in Wise County, Texas
May 2015
U.S. Census Bureau, Population Division. 2012a. Table 3. Cumulative Estimates of Resident Population
Change for the United States, States, County, Puerto Rico, and Puerto Rico Municipios: April 1, 2010 to
July 1, 2011 (MAPS-EST2011-03) http://www.census.gov/popest/data/maps/2011/County-Density-
11.html. Accessed on 10/31/2013.
U.S. Census Bureau. 2012b. PctUrbanRural_County.xls and PctUrbanRural State.xls.
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
21, 2013.
U.S. Census Bureau. 2013b. DP-1 Profile of General Demographic Characteristics: 2000. Census 2000
Summary File 1 (SF 1) 100-Percent Data. Wise County, Texas.
http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=DEC_00_SFl_DPl&
prodType=table Accessed on November 21, 2013.
U.S. Census Bureau. 2013c. Community Facts. Census 2010 Total Population. Wise County, Texas.
Available at: http://factfinder2.census.gOv/faces/nav/jsf/pages/community_facts.xhtml#none
Accessed on November 21, 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. Available at:
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 Wise County, Texas	May 2015
Appendix C Tables
C-13
-------
C-14
Table CI Major Agricultural Land
Uses in Wise County
Agricultural Land Use
% of County Land
Area
Grassland herbaceous
63.9
Pasture/hay
4.7
Winter wheat
2.9
Fallow/idle cropland
0.8
Sorghum
0.7
Corn
0.2
Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 2012.
Table C2 Changes in Land Use, 1992 to 2001 and
2001 to 2006, in Wise County
% of County Land Area
Change in Land Use
1992 to 2001
2001 to 2006
No change
97.0
99.2
Change in land use
3.0
0.8
- to grassland/shrub
1.3
0.0
- to agriculture
0.7
0.0
- to urban
0.4
0.0
- to barren
0.3
0.1
- to open water
0.2
0.0
- to developed
0.0
0.1
- to herbaceous
0.0
0.4
Source: U.S. Geological Survey, 2012.
Note: Percentages may not sum to 100% due to rounding
-------
C-15
Table C3 Largest Industries by Employment in Wise
County in 2011

Number of
% of Total

Paid
Paid
Industry Title
Employees
Employees
Mining, quarrying, and oil and gas extraction
3,337
20.4
Health care and social assistance
2,433
14.9
Retail trade
2,217
13.6
Accommodation and food services
1,474
9.0
Manufacturing
1,396
8.5
Other services (except public administration)
1,277
7.8
Transportation and warehousing
1,077
6.6
Construction
774
4.7
Wholesale trade
598
3.7
Administrative and support and waste
488
3.0
management and remediation services


Finance and insurance
368
2.3
Professional, scientific, and technical services
263
1.6
Real estate and rental and leasing
244
1.5
Arts, entertainment, and recreation
39
0.2
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2011.
Table C4 Land Use in Search Area A in 1992
and 2006

1992
2006

Square
% of
Square
% of
Land Use
Miles
Total
Miles
Total
Grassland/herbaceous
10.2
36.0
20.4
72.0
Pasture/hay
9.4
33.4
2.6
9.1
Deciduous forest
3.1
11.1
2.8
9.9
Row/cultivated crops
1.8
6.3
0.7
2.6
Shrub/scrub
1.5
5.5
0.0
0.1
Evergreen forest
1.2
4.3
0.0
0.0
Mixed forest
0.6
2.2
0.0
0.0
Open water
0.3
1.2
0.3
0.9
Developed
0.0
0.0
1.4
5.1
Total
28.3
100.0
28.3
100.0
Note: Totals may not sum exactly due to rounding.
Source: U.S. Geological Survey, 2012
-------
C-16
Table C5 Land Use in Search Area B in 1992 and 2006

1992
2006

Square
% of
Square
% of
Land Use
Miles
Total
Miles
Total
Pasture/hay
10.1
35.8
6.0
21.3
Grassland/herbaceous
8.4
29.6
13.9
49.0
Deciduous forest
3.3
11.7
3.8
13.3
Row/cultivated crops
2.8
10.1
2.0
7.0
Shrub/scrub
1.6
5.5
0.0
0.1
Evergreen forest
1.0
3.4
0.0
0.0
Mixed forest
0.4
1.5
0.0
0.0
Open water
0.3
1.2
0.1
0.3
Developed
0.3
1.1
2.4
8.6
Barren
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.2
Emergent herbaceous wetlands
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.2
Total
28.3
100.0
28.3
100.0
Source: U.S. Geological Survey, 2012
Note: Totals may not sum exactly due to rounding.
Table C6 Land Use in Search Area C in 1992
and 2006

1992
2006

Square
% of
Square
% of
Land Use
Miles
Total
Miles
Total
Grassland/herbaceous
13.4
47.3
15.0
53.1
Deciduous forest
6.0
21.4
8.1
28.8
Pasture/hay
2.5
9.0
3.0
10.6
Shrub/scrub
2.5
8.9
0.0
0.0
Row/cultivated crops
1.7
5.9
0.3
0.9
Evergreen forest
1.4
4.9
0.2
0.7
Open water
0.4
1.4
0.2
0.7
Mixed forest
0.3
0.9
0.0
0.0
Developed
0.0
0.0
1.5
5.2
Total
28.3
100.0
28.3
100.0
Source: U.S. Geological Survey, 2012.
Note: Totals may not sum exactly due to rounding.
-------
C-17
Table C7 Major Agricultural Land
Uses in Search Area A

% of

County
Use
Land Area
Grassland herbaceous
71.8
Pasture/hay
4.2
Sorghum
3.9
Winter wheat
3.6
Fallow/idle cropland
0.2
Corn
0.1
Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 2012.
Table C8 Major Agricultural Land
Uses in Search Area B
Use
% of County
Land Area
Grassland herbaceous
63.1
Pasture/hay
9.9
Winter wheat
3.1
Sorghum
0.7
Fallow/idle cropland
0.3
Corn
0.1
Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 2012.
Table C9 Major Agricultural Land
Uses in Search Area C

% of County
Use
Land Area
Grassland herbaceous
57.7
Pasture/hay
4.1
Winter wheat
0.9
Fallow/idle cropland
0.2
Source: U.S .Department of Agriculture, 2012.
-------
C-18
Table CIO Changes in Land Use, 1992 to 2001
and 2001 to 2006, in Search Area A
% of County Land Area

1992 to 2001
2001 to 2006
No change
97.1
99.9
Change in land use
2.9
0.1
- to grassland/shrub
1.7
0.00
- to agriculture
0.6
0.00
- to urban
0.5
0.00
- to open water
0.1
0.02
- to barren
0.0
0.07
Source: U.S .Geological Survey, 2012.
Note: Totals may not sum exactly due to rounding.
Table Cll Changes in Land Use, 1992 to 2001 and 2001 to
2006, in Search Area B
% of County Land Area

1992 to 2001
2001 to 2006
No change
96.2
99.5
Change in land use
3.8
0.5
- to grassland/shrub
1.6
0.00
- to agriculture
1.2
0.00
- to urban
0.7
0.00
- to open water
0.2
0.00
- to barren
0.1
0.06
- to developed
0.0
0.21
- to emergent herbaceous wetlands
0.0
0.21
Source: U.S. Geological Survey, 2012.
Note: Totals may not sum exactly due to rounding.
Table C12 Changes in Land Use, 1992 to 2001
and 2001 to 2006, in Search Area C
% of County Land Area

1992 to 2001
2001 to 2006
No change
98.4
99.7
Change in land use
1.6
0.3
- to grassland/shrub
1.0
0.0
- to agriculture
0.5
0.0
- to urban
0.1
0.0
- to herbaceous
0.0
0.3
Source: U.S. Geological Survey, 2012.
Note: Totals may not sum exactly due to rounding.
-------
C-19
Table C13	Environmental Database Review Summary, Wise County, Texas - Location A
Database
Name of Facility
Site Location
Distance from Nearest
Sampling Point
Yes/No
Potential Candidate Cause
Justification
Ground Water
Wells
ERNS
NOT REPORTED
415 STAR SHELLRD.
DECATUR, TX 76234
0.17 mi NW of WISETXGW12
Yes
On 10/29/09 a release of a substance to soils was reported
for emergency response. The released material was not
identified but was described as a black, smokey fluid
shooting out of a drilling rig. Based on the proximity of this
site to an EPA sampling location and the presence and
quantity of unknown materials, this site is a potential
candidate cause.
38 State Wells
1 ENF site, NW 0.814 mi.
WRIGHT 15H AND 16H
1247 COUNTY RD 2513
DECATUR, TX 76234
0.66 mi NW of WISETXGW11
No
This enforcement action was for not properly permitting a
compressor at a nearby drill site. No record of a release.
TIER 2
TARGA MIDSTREAM
SERVICES LP
COUNTY ROAD 2610
DECATUR, TX 76234
1.50 NW of WISETXGW11
No
Natural condensate/liquids stored on site, but no releases
are recorded.
AIRS orphan site
POOR FARM
COMPRESSOR SITE
ON THE EAST SIDE OF S.H. 51, 2.2
Ml. S. OF HWY. 287
DECATUR, TX 76234
1.8 mi NE of WISETXGW15
No
This record is for air emissions inventory. Not a potential
candidate.
LPST, AST, UST orphan
site
WISE COUNTY PRECINCT 1
N HWY 51
DECATUR, TX 76234
>9.4 mi W of WISETXGW10
No
Leaking petroleum storage tank that involved minor soil
contamination that did not require remedial action.
Currently, a diesel storage tank is on site. Based on
distance, this site is not likely to impact water quality in
Location A.
LPST orphan site
TXDOT MAINTENANCE
FACILITY
HWY 281
DECATUR, TX 76234
Nl
No
Petroleum product affected the groundwater but has been
remediated. Due to the lack of a contaminants after a
completed remediation, this site is not considered a
potential candidate cause.
LPST orphan
FORMER HAPPY K
8175 N HWY 51
DECATUR, TX 76234
Nl
No
Petroleum product affected the groundwater but has been
remediated. Due to the lack of a contaminants after a
completed remediation, this site is not considered a
potential candidate cause.
GCC orphan
S&J OILCOMPANYINC
1000 S HWY 287
DECATUR, TX 76234
~9.8 mi SW of WISETXGW10
No
Record is for a site with groundwater contamination but
contaminant not specified. Contaminant not likely to
migrate this distance and be detected in EPA samples.
Ind. Haz Waste orphan
DEROCHE TRUCKING
HIGHWAY 114 EAST
DECATUR, TX 76234
>14.5 mi SE of WISETXGW10
No
Record is for a conditionally exempt small quantity
generator (CESQG). No reports of a release. Distance too
great to impact water quality.
Ind. Haz Waste orphan
DUSTYS TRUCK SERVICE
HIGHWAY 287 NORTH
DECATUR, TX 76234
>9.6 mi W of WISETXGW10
No
Record is for a CESQG that is no longer active. No records
of release and distance too great to impact water quality.
SPILLS orphan
HWY 287, 7 Ml SOUTH OF
DECATUR, TX
HWY 287, 7 Ml SOUTH OF
DECATUR, TX 76234
9.4 mi SW of WISETXGW10
No
53,000 gallons of gasoline were spilled and affected ground
water. Contaminant not likely to migrate this distance and
be detected in EPA samples.
TIER 2 orphan
MCLEODUSA -
DECATUR.TX
2425 US HWY 287
DECATUR, TX 76234
9.8 mi SW of WISETXGW10
No
Record is for storage or generation of chemicals between
2005 and 2007. No indication of a release and too distant
to impact ground water quality in Location A.
5 TIER 2 orphan records
"TARGA MIDSTREAM
SERVICES LP. ""DECATUR
STATION"
HIGHWAY 287
DECATUR, TX 76234
>9.6 mi W of WISETXGW10
No
Two records indicate storage of natural gas
condensate/liquids. No indication of a release and too
distant to impact ground water quality in Location A.
2 TIER 2 orphan reports
"RYDER SCOTT
MANAGEMENT, LLC-
WAGGONER-WALKER # 2"
OLD DENTON HWY
DECATUR, TX 76234
>4.2 mi SW of WISETCG W10
No
Record is for storage or generation of chemicals in 2005
and 2006. No indication of a release and too distant to
impact ground water quality in Location A.
TIER 2 orphan
DECATURS&G PLANT
1205
4798 US HWY 380
DECATUR, TX 76234
15.2 mi W of WISETXGW10
No
Record is for storage or manufacture of chemicals. No
record of release and site too distant to impact water
quality for Location A.
TIER 2 orphan
SPS DECATUR
2379 N HWY 287
DECATUR, TX 76234
11.9 mi W of WISETXG W10
No
Aboveground storage of petroleum products. Based on the
distance from a sampling point and the lack of a reported
release, this is not a potential candiate site.
2 TIER 2 orphan
AT&T COMMUNICATIONS
OF TEXAS - TX6462
17889 HWY 380 EAST
DECATUR, TX 76234
>0.8 mi S of WISETXGW10
No
Sulfuric Acid is stored at the facility; there is no mention of
a release.
2 TIER 2 orphan
BIG SKY "W" #1 LEASE
HIGHWAY 380
KRUM,TX 76249
>5.8 mi E of WISETXGW10
No
Record is for storage of crude petroleum and natural gas.
No record of release.
2 TIER 2 orphan
FOSTER #1 LEASE
HIGHWAY 380
DECATUR, TX 76234
>0.8 mi S of WISETXGW10
No
Record is for storage of crude petroleum and natural gas.
No record of release.
2 TIER 2 orphan
GRIFFIN #2, #3, #4, #6, #7
& #8 LEASE
HIGHWAY 380
PONDER, TX 76259
>5.4 mi SE of WISETXGW10
No
Record is for storage of crude petroleum and natural gas.
No record of release.
2 TIER 2 orphan
GRIFFIN-ADAMI #6 LEASE
HIGHWAY 380
PONDER, TX 76259
>5.4 mi SE of WISETXGW10
No
Record is for storage of crude petroleum and natural gas.
No record of release.
2 TIER 2 orphan
LOWE'S OF DECATUR, TX
(STORE # 2235)
1201 WEST US HIGHWAY 380
BUSINESS
DECATUR, TX 76234
11.5 mi W of WISETXG W10
No
This facility stores diesel fuel. Too distant to impact water
quality of Location A samples.
2 TIER 2 orphan
WILLIAMS #1 LEASE
HIGHWAY 380
PONDER, TX 76259
>5.4 mi SE of WISETXGW10
No
Record is for storage of crude petroleum and natural gas.
No record of release.
2 TIER 2 orphan
WILLIAMS #2 & #3 LEASE
HIGHWAY 380
PONDER, TX 76259
>5.4 mi SE of WISETXGW10
No
Record is for storage of crude petroleum and natural gas.
No record of release.
TIER 2 orphan
0902 WISE COUNTY
3188 E HWY 380
DECATUR, TX 76234
11.8 mi W of WISETXG W10
No
Based on the distance from sampling points and the lack of
a reported release, this is not a potential candidate site.
TIER 2 orphan
NABORS WELL SERVICES
LTD.
223 N. HIGHWAY 287
DECATUR, TX 76234
10.6 mi WSW of WISETXGW10
No
This facility stores petroleum products. Based on distance,
this site not likely to impact water quality in Location A.
LPST, GCC orphan
S&J OILCOMPANYINC
1000S BUSINESS HWY287
DECATUR, TX 76234
10.8 mi WSW of WISETXGW10
No
Ground water was affected by a release of petroleum
product. Based on distance, this is not likely to affect water
quality in Location A.
ENF orphan
COLE ROBERTS 1H & 2H
GAS WELL SITE
WEST OF HIGHWAY FM 730 ON
COUNTY ROAD 265 IN DECATUR
TEXAS
DECATUR, TX 76234
Nl
No
A NOV of moderate level has been resolved. The violation
involved failure to prevent discharge of air contaminants. A
second moderate NOV has been resolved. It involved the
failure to get a proper permit. Due to the lack of a ground
water release, this site is not considered a potential
candidate cause.
2 TIER 2 orphan
NABORS WELL SERVICES
CO. - DECATUR
2273 N. HIGHWAY 287
DECATUR, TX 76234
11.8 mi W of WISETXGW10
No
This facility stores diesel fuel. Based on distance, not likely
to impact water quality in Location A.
TIER 2 orphan
WINDSTREAM DECATUR
PAETEC REGEN
2425 US HWY 287
DECATUR, TX 76234
9.7 mi SW of WISETXGW10
No
This facility stores sulfuric acid. Based on distance, this site
is not likely to impact water quality in Location A.
TIER 2 orphan
WARRIOR ENERGY
SERVICES CORPORATION
3271 US HWY 287 SOUTH
DECATUR, TX 76234
11.9 mi W of WISETXG W10
No
This facility stores propane and diesel. Based on distance,
this site is not likely to impact water resources in Location A.
UST, Financial Assurance
DECATUR QUICK TRACK
EXPRESS
1789 N HWY 287
DECATUR, TX 76234
10.7 mi SW of WISETXG W10
No
Gasoline is stored at the site. Based on distance, this site is
not likely to impact water quality in Location A.
AST
TXDOT WISE COUNTY
MAI NT YARD
701 HWY 81 & US 287
DECATUR, TX 76234
9.9 mi W of WISETXGW10
No
There are diesel and gasoline ASTs at this site. Based on
distance, this site is not likely to impact water quality in
Location A.
-------
C-20
Table C13
Environmental Database Review Summary, Wise County, Texas - Location A
Distance from Nearest
Sampling Point
Potential Candidate Cause
Ground Water
Wells
Yes/No
Justification
Database
Name of Facility
Site Location
Primary Source: Environmental records search report by Environmental Data Resources, Inc. (EDR)
Notes:
EDR Inquiry Number:
EDR Search Radius:
Center of Search:
3589232.2s
3 miles
Lat. 33.2677000 - 33° 16' 3.72", Long. 97.4097000 - 97° 24' 34.92'
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.
Key:
Databases:
AIRS = Aerometric Information Retrieval System Facility Subsystem
AST = Aboveground storage tank
ERNS = Emergency Response Notification System
ENF = Administrative Orders issued to Municipal Solid Waste, Petroleum Storage Tank and Multi-Media sites.Multi-Media Sites
GCC = Groundwater contamination case
LPST = Leaking petroleum storage tank
RAP= Remedial action plan
SPILLS = Spills database
TIER 2 = A listing of facilities which store or manufacture hazardous materials and submit a chemical inventory report.chemical inventory report.
UST = Underground storage tank
AST = Above ground storage tank.
FRDS = Federal Reporting Data System,
mi = Mile.
Nl = No infromation.
N PDES = National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System.
USGS = United States Geological Survey.
-------
C-21
Table C14 Well Inventoiy Summary for Wise County, Texas - Location A
API Number
Texas RRC Well ID
Lateral Length
Well Type
Surface Well Longitude
Surface Well Latitude
Bottom Well
Longitude
Bottom Well Latitude
4249733129
800065
0
5
-97.441252
33.233552
-97.441252
33.233553
4249720082
800067
0
8
-97.452735
33.247803
-97.452735
33.247803
42497
800068
0
5
-97.445032
33.244987
-97.445032
33.244987
42497
800069
0
5
-97.436295
33.239768
-97.436296
33.239768
4249700254
800071
0
8
-97.429683
33.229586
-97.429683
33.229587
42497
800072
0
5
-97.423281
33.235919
-97.423281
33.235919
4249733111
800073
0
8
-97.421553
33.229660
-97.421553
33.229660
42497
800074
0
5
-97.426797
33.240589
-97.426797
33.240589
4249731806
800075
0
5
-97.419873
33.242816
-97.419873
33.242816
4249731583
800076
0
8
-97.418718
33.247370
-97.418718
33.247370
4249730225
800081
0
8
-97.412476
33.229100
-97.412476
33.229100
4249730146
800082
0
5
-97.408989
33.239168
-97.408989
33.239168
4249731805
800083
0
3
-97.448275
33.240197
-97.448275
33.240197
4249731991
800084
0
3
-97.440595
33.246240
-97.440595
33.246240
42497
800085
0
3
-97.439966
33.249673
-97.439966
33.249673
42497
800086
0
3
-97.433634
33.247252
-97.433634
33.247252
42497
800087
0
3
-97.429856
33.246929
-97.429856
33.246929
42497
800088
0
3
-97.413964
33.243277
-97.413964
33.243277
4249731808
800089
0
9
-97.424217
33.229776
-97.424217
33.229776
4249731359
800093
0
3
-97.403363
33.232547
-97.403363
33.232547
4249732123
800094
0
3
-97.397269
33.243650
-97.397269
33.243650
4249731807
800239
0
5
-97.431980
33.235526
-97.431980
33.235526
4249733458
800249
0
8
-97.415923
33.235573
-97.415923
33.235573
4249733581
800255
0
5
-97.427819
33.229772
-97.427819
33.229772
42121
800298
0
3
-97.388976
33.239931
-97.388976
33.239931
4212100060
800507
0
5
-97.372670
33.242025
-97.372670
33.242025
4212130289
800569
0
5
-97.371303
33.261840
-97.371304
33.261840
4212130099
800570
0
5
-97.368949
33.268607
-97.368949
33.268607
4212130290
800571
0
5
-97.361857
33.266315
-97.361857
33.266315
4212130052
800584
0
5
-97.368732
33.290625
-97.368732
33.290625
4249730160
800835
0
5
-97.424310
33.303869
-97.424310
33.303869
4249732678
800836
0
5
-97.431908
33.303588
-97.431908
33.303588
4249730140
800837
0
5
-97.420636
33.307778
-97.420636
33.307778
4249730152
800838
0
5
-97.412806
33.308958
-97.412806
33.308958
4249732852
800839
0
8
-97.408741
33.304106
-97.408741
33.304106
4249732503
800840
0
8
-97.421774
33.299020
-97.421774
33.299020
4249730175
800841
0
8
-97.415762
33.293692
-97.415762
33.293692
4249732886
800842
0
3
-97.413067
33.300404
-97.413067
33.300404
42497
800843
0
3
-97.399767
33.305399
-97.399767
33.305399
4249730216
800862
0
5
-97.452467
33.288807
-97.452467
33.288807
42497
800863
0
3
-97.451623
33.283182
-97.451623
33.283182
42497
800864
0
5
-97.455844
33.282564
-97.455844
33.282564
4249730212
800868
0
5
-97.442955
33.292795
-97.442955
33.292795
42497
800870
0
5
-97.431908
33.303577
-97.431908
33.303577
4249730235
800872
0
5
-97.442268
33.287467
-97.442268
33.287467
42497
800873
0
5
-97.439997
33.290507
-97.439997
33.290507
4249730276
800874
0
8
-97.435807
33.286374
-97.435807
33.286374
42497
800875
0
5
-97.428035
33.300530
-97.428035
33.300530
4249732490
800876
0
3
-97.427656
33.291416
-97.427656
33.291417
4249730169
800877
0
8
-97.408141
33.282995
-97.408141
33.282995
4249730282
800878
0
8
-97.400287
33.275885
-97.400287
33.275885
4249780915
800879
0
5
-97.390764
33.298287
-97.390764
33.298287
4249732246
800880
0
5
-97.390431
33.292265
-97.390431
33.292265
4249730239
800881
0
8
-97.435962
33.282978
-97.435962
33.282978
4249730231
800882
0
8
-97.440425
33.278060
-97.440425
33.278060
4249700612
800900
0
8
-97.461095
33.265748
-97.461095
33.265748
4249700611
800902
0
8
-97.453829
33.251498
-97.453829
33.251498
4249732549
800903
0
9
-97.454616
33.268484
-97.454616
33.268484
4249732268
800904
0
8
-97.448278
33.270722
-97.448279
33.270722
4249732578
800905
0
5
-97.449122
33.275530
-97.449122
33.275530
4249732597
800906
0
5
-97.448880
33.251971
-97.448880
33.251971
42497
800907
0
5
-97.444325
33.262968
-97.444325
33.262969
42497
800908
0
5
-97.441145
33.267555
-97.441145
33.267555
42497
800909
0
5
-97.430059
33.257920
-97.430060
33.257920
4249732437
800910
0
8
-97.429652
33.252191
-97.429652
33.252191
4249731864
800911
0
5
-97.424863
33.256201
-97.424863
33.256201
42497
800912
0
2
-97.446846
33.258195
-97.446846
33.258195
4249731865
800913
0
5
-97.432906
33.261986
-97.432906
33.261986
4249731469
800914
0
9
-97.449959
33.251002
-97.449959
33.251002
4249731990
800915
0
3
-97.427131
33.259121
-97.427131
33.259121
42497
800916
0
3
-97.446134
33.258775
-97.446134
33.258775
4249732626
800917
0
5
-97.430371
33.273316
-97.430371
33.273316
4249731468
800918
0
9
-97.431448
33.273779
-97.431448
33.273779
4249731782
800919
0
5
-97.422173
33.253202
-97.422173
33.253202
4249731717
800920
0
8
-97.402181
33.268059
-97.402181
33.268059
4249730328
800921
0
8
-97.412611
33.273830
-97.412611
33.273830
4249732284
800922
0
5
-97.415802
33.252099
-97.415802
33.252099
42497
800923
0
3
-97.416002
33.261716
-97.416002
33.261716
4249732122
800924
0
3
-97.406208
33.256072
-97.406208
33.256072
42497
800925
0
3
-97.396985
33.252175
-97.396985
33.252175
42497
800926
0
3
-97.391601
33.257185
-97.391601
33.257185
4249732462
800931
0
8
-97.438085
33.265012
-97.438085
33.265012
4249733577
800935
0
5
-97.454526
33.268509
-97.454526
33.268509
4249733703
800936
0
5
-97.459067
33.271951
-97.459067
33.271951
4249733725
800938
0
5
-97.459721
33.264789
-97.459721
33.264789
4212130123
800940
0
5
-97.383191
33.272480
-97.383191
33.272481
4212130060
800941
0
5
-97.375980
33.285933
-97.375980
33.285933
4212130050
800942
0
5
-97.375725
33.292192
-97.375725
33.292192
4212130073
800943
0
8
-97.375653
33.295843
-97.375653
33.295843
42121
800944
0
3
-97.376786
33.277083
-97.376786
33.277083
4249734025
800952
0
5
-97.410383
33.264326
-97.410383
33.264326
4249734222
800956
0
5
-97.433701
33.278462
-97.433701
33.278462
-------
C-22
Table C14 Well Inventoiy Summary for Wise County, Texas - Location A
API Number
Texas RRC Well ID
Lateral Length
Well Type
Surface Well Longitude
Surface Well Latitude
Bottom Well
Longitude
Bottom Well Latitude
4249734221
800957
0
5
-97.422118
33.270650
-97.422118
33.270650
4249734274
800958
0
5
-97.447961
33.269046
-97.447961
33.269046
4249734295
800960
0
5
-97.422378
33.276138
-97.422378
33.276138
4249734313
800962
0
3
-97.434489
33.291333
-97.434489
33.291333
4249734315
800963
0
5
-97.434536
33.291333
-97.434536
33.291333
4249734278
800964
0
5
-97.428650
33.286316
-97.428650
33.286316
4249734337
800965
0
5
-97.415607
33.281943
-97.415607
33.281943
4249734338
800966
0
5
-97.427121
33.281027
-97.427121
33.281027
4249734398
800967
0
5
-97.430641
33.267396
-97.430641
33.267396
4249734444
800970
0
5
-97.438233
33.274474
-97.438233
33.274475
4249734462
800971
0
5
-97.399450
33.264138
-97.399450
33.264138
4249734479
1051018
0
5
-97.426101
33.262924
-97.426101
33.262924
4249734482
1051157
0
5
-97.431284
33.256626
-97.431284
33.256626
4249734487
1052349
0
5
-97.438434
33.257302
-97.438434
33.257302
4249734498
1053008
0
5
-97.391521
33.268595
-97.391521
33.268595
4249734524
1055295
0
2
-97.411947
33.269919
-97.411947
33.269919
4249734565
1061474
0
5
-97.389785
33.285834
-97.389785
33.285834
4212130827
1061475
0
5
-97.380271
33.259188
-97.380271
33.259188
4249734602
1064419
0
8
-97.411011
33.274173
-97.411011
33.274173
4212130905
1065732
0
5
-97.388841
33.255158
-97.388841
33.255158
4249734619
1065790
0
5
-97.416866
33.279072
-97.416866
33.279072
4249734618
1065791
0
8
-97.418890
33.282112
-97.418890
33.282112
4249734644
1067426
0
5
-97.397287
33.229776
-97.397287
33.229776
4212130936
1067464
0
5
-97.359584
33.278623
-97.359584
33.278623
4249734650
1067727
0
5
-97.411063
33.290389
-97.411063
33.290389
4249734659
1068207
0
5
-97.406894
33.258684
-97.406894
33.258684
4212130957
1068363
0
5
-97.361579
33.264381
-97.361579
33.264381
4249734681
1069474
0
5
-97.407507
33.256817
-97.407507
33.256817
4212131012
1070509
0
5
-97.369597
33.256050
-97.369597
33.256050
4249734699
1070981
0
2
-97.444406
33.261593
-97.444406
33.261593
4249734702
1071504
0
5
-97.397697
33.235790
-97.397697
33.235790
4249734707
1071908
0
5
-97.395625
33.238945
-97.395625
33.238945
4212131051
1072142
0
5
-97.389433
33.232802
-97.389433
33.232802
4249734736
1073509
0
5
-97.420302
33.300091
-97.420302
33.300091
4249734752
1074470
0
5
-97.413343
33.248767
-97.413343
33.248767
4212131174
1075069
0
5
-97.387915
33.249370
-97.387915
33.249370
4212131186
1075383
0
5
-97.388240
33.258998
-97.388240
33.258998
4212131188
1075409
0
5
-97.363950
33.261753
-97.363950
33.261753
4249734791
1075851
0
5
-97.392702
33.235696
-97.392702
33.235696
4249734801
1076030
0
5
-97.399444
33.256777
-97.399444
33.256777
4249734802
1076052
0
5
-97.400663
33.231491
-97.400663
33.231491
4249734808
1076142
0
5
-97.403965
33.233043
-97.403965
33.233043
4212131220
1076174
0
5
-97.371878
33.278885
-97.371878
33.278885
4212131236
1076363
0
5
-97.371786
33.284434
-97.371786
33.284434
4249734816
1076465
0
8
-97.428012
33.280945
-97.428012
33.280945
4249734819
1076742
0
5
-97.401786
33.236592
-97.401786
33.236592
4212131265
1076796
0
5
-97.359283
33.268537
-97.359283
33.268537
4212131292
1077105
0
5
-97.383698
33.232715
-97.383698
33.232715
4212131283
1077148
0
5
-97.367350
33.278473
-97.367350
33.278473
4212131297
1077241
0
5
-97.365579
33.267791
-97.365579
33.267791
4212131342
1077820
0
5
-97.374644
33.262611
-97.374644
33.262611
4212131422
1079374
0
5
-97.389772
33.229342
-97.389772
33.229342
4249734902
1079823
0
5
-97.400777
33.258632
-97.400777
33.258632
4249734909
1080105
0
2
-97.431632
33.229181
-97.431632
33.229181
4249734918
1080400
0
5
-97.392848
33.250521
-97.392848
33.250521
4212131510
1080890
0
5
-97.362480
33.278836
-97.362480
33.278836
4212131530
1081418
0
5
-97.363992
33.284315
-97.363992
33.284315
4212131529
1081419
0
5
-97.367263
33.284361
-97.367263
33.284361
4212131533
1081621
0
5
-97.374629
33.259127
-97.374629
33.259127
4249734968
1082049
0
5
-97.397846
33.242616
-97.397846
33.242616
4249734969
1082057
0
5
-97.394964
33.255877
-97.394964
33.255877
4212131557
1082260
0
5
-97.382138
33.261626
-97.382138
33.261626
4249734995
1082638
0
5
-97.391867
33.261268
-97.391867
33.261268
4212131568
1082784
0
5
-97.383580
33.258261
-97.383580
33.258261
4212131581
1083288
0
5
-97.386714
33.261768
-97.386714
33.261768
4249735025
1083421
0
5
-97.402320
33.251775
-97.402320
33.251775
4249735026
1083422
0
5
-97.394417
33.253161
-97.394417
33.253161
4249735043
1084422
0
5
-97.394893
33.258487
-97.394893
33.258487
4249735049
1084882
0
5
-97.404682
33.255818
-97.404682
33.255818
4249735051
1085048
0
3
-97.406407
33.250872
-97.406407
33.250872
4212131640
1085150
0
5
-97.378083
33.261390
-97.378083
33.261390
4249735074
1085591
0
5
-97.395021
33.262268
-97.395021
33.262268
4249735084
1085895
0
5
-97.403130
33.243167
-97.403130
33.243167
4249735096
1086085
0
5
-97.400079
33.254139
-97.400079
33.254139
4212131699
1086594
0
3
-97.386439
33.304163
-97.386439
33.304163
4212131764
1088507
0
5
-97.366587
33.261789
-97.366587
33.261789
4212131790
1089678
0
5
-97.380090
33.239122
-97.380090
33.239122
4212131788
1089679
0
5
-97.379335
33.237039
-97.379335
33.237039
4212131783
1089683
0
5
-97.373972
33.236896
-97.373972
33.236896
4212131812
1089908
0
5
-97.376515
33.238118
-97.376515
33.238118
4212131893
1091850
0
5
-97.370746
33.250343
-97.370746
33.250343
4212131895
1091878
0
5
-97.368812
33.249524
-97.368812
33.249524
4212131896
1091879
0
5
-97.367119
33.248391
-97.367119
33.248391
4249735254
1092018
0
5
-97.407958
33.224936
-97.407958
33.224936
4212131908
1092287
0
5
-97.370137
33.240684
-97.370137
33.240684
4212131951
1093300
0
5
-97.364148
33.249460
-97.364148
33.249460
4249735305
1094312
0
5
-97.395935
33.271562
-97.395935
33.271562
4212132011
1095348
0
5
-97.373916
33.241309
-97.373916
33.241309
4249735326
1095524
0
5
-97.413582
33.243162
-97.413582
33.243162
4212132075
1096842
0
5
-97.373858
33.251522
-97.373858
33.251522
4212132104
1097406
0
5
-97.376087
33.255787
-97.376087
33.255787
4212132119H1
1097967
2280
86
-97.389873
33.238340
-97.383059
33.235797
-------
C-23
Table C14 Well Inventoiy Summary for Wise County, Texas - Location A
API Number
Texas RRC Well ID
Lateral Length
Well Type
Surface Well Longitude
Surface Well Latitude
Bottom Well
Longitude
Bottom Well Latitude
4249735422
1098461
0
5
-97.392821
33.238357
-97.392821
33.238357
4249735537H1
1098945
0
5
0.000000
0.000000
-97.400238
33.250163
4212132172
1099694
0
5
-97.364177
33.252188
-97.364177
33.252188
4212132171
1099695
0
5
-97.359499
33.256693
-97.359499
33.256693
4212132170
1099696
0
5
-97.365592
33.253785
-97.365592
33.253785
4249735462
1100090
0
5
-97.398446
33.272139
-97.398446
33.272139
4249735490D1
1100624
3603
87
-97.393201
33.263499
-97.401044
33.270891
4249735497D1
1101008
462
87
-97.398371
33.272189
-97.399322
33.273178
4249735523
1101858
0
5
-97.393720
33.231869
-97.393720
33.231869
4249735532H1
1102137
2923
86
-97.397274
33.227603
-97.391538
33.221176
4249735533D1
1102229
143
87
-97.392282
33.277325
-97.392441
33.276956
4249735534
1102255
0
5
-97.447161
33.269497
-97.447161
33.269497

1102324
2559
86
-97.392446
33.247594
0.000000
0.000000
4249735542D1
1102746
1191
87
-97.403913
33.226140
-97.407478
33.227460
4249735550
1103176
0
5
-97.440415
33.250245
-97.440415
33.250245
4249735590H1
1105228
3023
86
-97.400525
33.240430
-97.408487
33.235505
4212132333
1106843
0
5
-97.372911
33.244509
-97.372911
33.244509
4212132342
1107105
0
5
-97.372078
33.247281
-97.372078
33.247281
4249735630H1
1107663
3529
86
-97.454013
33.251597
-97.461849
33.258719
4249731837
1108526
0
9
-97.415771
33.235777
-97.415771
33.235777
4249735665H1
1110073
3101
86
-97.428224
33.280816
-97.435768
33.286516
4249735725H1
1113612
2010
86
-97.392335
33.277399
-97.397075
33.281230
4212132475
1114605
0
5
-97.380113
33.250864
-97.380113
33.250864
4212132476
1114606
0
5
-97.383109
33.256103
-97.383109
33.256103
4249735755
1115417
0
2
-97.407833
33.251200
-97.407833
33.251200
4212132527
1116829
0
5
-97.365217
33.244939
-97.365217
33.244939
4249735811
1119568
0
5
-97.400443
33.226880
-97.400443
33.226880
4249735819H1
1120665
3646
86
-97.428113
33.280949
-97.420581
33.273176
4249735872H1
1124215
3443
86
-97.424970
33.281801
-97.416275
33.275782
4249735885
1125162
0
5
-97.413365
33.224179
-97.413365
33.224179
4212132688H1
1127503
2839
86
-97.355203
33.256080
-97.361102
33.262106
4249735916H1
1128900
3482
86
-97.424902
33.281707
-97.433665
33.287823
4249735923H1
1129541
3019
86
-97.422001
33.270677
-97.414835
33.264967
4249735924H1
1129581
3605
86
-97.436115
33.283543
-97.427954
33.276389
4249735926H1
1129787
2932
86
-97.441789
33.260389
-97.450925
33.262847
4249735927H1
1129889
2906
86
-97.428808
33.301605
-97.422014
33.296015
4212132720
1130054
0
5
-97.369115
33.244431
-97.369115
33.244431
4249735938H1
1131196
3639
86
-97.407177
33.266566
-97.398296
33.259904
4249735998
1136326
0
2
-97.405929
33.250526
-97.405929
33.250526
4212132859D1
1139456
126
87
-97.378199
33.234785
-97.377842
33.234956
4212132864D1
1139915
531
87
-97.378253
33.234813
-97.379895
33.234337
4249736070H1
1141860
3175
86
-97.437781
33.244936
-97.429456
33.239718
4249736086
1142952
0
5
-97.400872
33.224697
-97.400872
33.224697
4212132927H1
1143894
2359
86
-97.368133
33.264718
-97.373781
33.269137
4249736100
1143958
0
5
-97.440006
33.247199
-97.440006
33.247199
4249736120H1
1145389
4404
86
-97.403252
33.219612
-97.412259
33.229056
4249736286H1
1158546
3336
86
-97.400287
33.225939
-97.407380
33.232905
4212133276
1167197
0
5
-97.366546
33.255674
-97.366546
33.255674
4212133277
1167203
0
5
-97.370958
33.259351
-97.370958
33.259351
4249736529H1
1176936
2773
86
-97.402185
33.242736
-97.408086
33.248525
4212133435
1177233
0
5
-97.366958
33.259305
-97.366958
33.259305
4212133447
1177536
0
5
-97.370951
33.262757
-97.370951
33.262757
4249736546H1
1178272
2869
86
-97.402242
33.242707
-97.410068
33.247057
4249736633H1
1186055
4618
86
-97.399849
33.221055
-97.409311
33.230947
4249736649H1
1186620
2800
86
-97.400143
33.274478
-97.404763
33.281125
4249736658H1
1187039
3202
86
-97.400190
33.274399
-97.407625
33.280601
4249736659H1
1187040
3024
86
-97.400272
33.274339
-97.409012
33.278233
4212133618H1
1187237
4040
86
-97.359532
33.287168
-97.371222
33.292354
4249736683H1
1188102
4109
86
-97.415186
33.278335
-97.408082
33.268745
4249736686H1
1188198
3849
86
-97.415111
33.278385
-97.405107
33.271955
4249736689H1
1188325
2674
86
-97.413906
33.243524
-97.408056
33.238059
4249736690H1
1188350
2833
86
-97.413872
33.243614
-97.406062
33.239425
4249736693H1
1188677
3459
86
-97.400048
33.274515
-97.406039
33.282583
4249736789H1
1192616
2901
86
-97.461545
33.266807
-97.453427
33.262676
4249736816H1
1194783
3378
86
-97.431997
33.271820
-97.440787
33.277448
4249736822H1
1195048
3209
86
-97.432042
33.271805
-97.440845
33.276612
4249736823H1
1195050
3074
86
-97.432147
33.271859
-97.440889
33.276037
4249735542DW
1195051
0
2
0.000000
0.000000
-97.403913
33.226140
4249735542H1
1195052
1522
2
0.000000
0.000000
-97.408431
33.227894
4249736838H1
1195557
2908
86
-97.432078
33.271587
-97.440854
33.274675
4249736887H1
1198016
3343
86
-97.432346
33.290721
-97.424960
33.283941
4249736891H1
1198270
2018
86
-97.432248
33.290782
-97.427007
33.287408
4249736892H1
1198413
3410
86
-97.407973
33.267997
-97.416339
33.274200
4249736907H1
1199289
2877
86
-97.436524
33.287502
-97.430616
33.281346
4249736908H1
1199292
2865
86
-97.436013
33.287177
-97.428654
33.282298
4249736915H1
1199467
3576
86
-97.411078
33.265999
-97.418196
33.273801
4249736916H1
1199473
2574
86
-97.411102
33.265918
-97.417579
33.270440
4249736948H1
1201091
2737
86
-97.424415
33.279933
-97.419332
33.273740
4249736949H1
1201136
3001
86
-97.424617
33.279989
-97.417561
33.274250
4212133928
1205883
0
5
-97.376933
33.246934
-97.376933
33.246934
4249737031H1
1206931
3854
86
-97.431994
33.271671
-97.439809
33.279984
4249737034H1
1207233
2780
86
-97.431987
33.271614
-97.440747
33.273675
4249737071H1
1209733
3408
86
-97.417230
33.255866
-97.407344
33.251534
4249737074H1
1209764
3374
86
-97.416931
33.255910
-97.406858
33.252119
4249737107H1
1211371
4228
86
-97.418792
33.246306
-97.430763
33.252127
4249737111H1
1211540
3419
86
-97.418790
33.246210
-97.427297
33.252311
-------
C-24
Table C14 Well Inventoiy Summary for Wise County, Texas - Location A
API Number
Texas RRC Well ID
Lateral Length
Well Type
Surface Well Longitude
Surface Well Latitude
Bottom Well
Longitude
Bottom Well Latitude
4249737119H1
1212575
3000
86
-97.425818
33.246081
-97.433434
33.251281
4249737120H1
1212840
3604
86
-97.425727
33.246453
-97.436533
33.250416
4249737154H1
1215602
2861
86
-97.418667
33.256384
-97.423599
33.263069
4249737161H1
1215975
3193
86
-97.418729
33.256367
-97.425499
33.263051
4249737162H1
1215990
4006
86
-97.393813
33.262940
-97.405618
33.267724
4249737163H1
1216002
3791
86
-97.393801
33.262899
-97.402718
33.270143
4249737164H1
1216054
3849
86
-97.393824
33.262935
-97.404255
33.268862
4212134110H1
1219454
3553
86
-97.361673
33.286108
-97.372312
33.290046

1220477
4929
0
0.000000
0.000000
0.000000
0.000000

1220627
3892
0
0.000000
0.000000
0.000000
0.000000

1220645
4907
0
0.000000
0.000000
0.000000
0.000000

1220799
3542
0
0.000000
0.000000
0.000000
0.000000
4249737228H1
1223659
3544
86
-97.443470
33.267282
-97.451977
33.273903
4212134129H1
1224380
4077
86
-97.374110
33.299728
-97.387170
33.302029
4212134131H1
1224961
5388
86
-97.375013
33.281948
-97.386232
33.293372
4212134132H1
1224964
4741
86
-97.375013
33.281907
-97.386197
33.290938
4212134133H1
1224965
4932
86
-97.375014
33.281866
-97.384368
33.292912
4212134134H1
1224966
5442
86
-97.375015
33.281825
-97.387949
33.292106
4212134153H1
1225728
5500
86
-97.375015
33.281783
-97.389121
33.291175
4212134187H1
1229740
4345
86
-97.373847
33.295389
-97.387264
33.299347
4212134188H1
1229741
4146
86
-97.373847
33.295306
-97.387344
33.296467
4212134208
1234119
0
5
-97.373875
33.252996
-97.373875
33.252996

1244495
4868
0
0.000000
0.000000
0.000000
0.000000
4212134271H1
1247726
5349
86
-97.381717
33.276903
-97.389885
33.289905
4212134273H1
1247860
5346
86
-97.381664
33.276901
-97.391256
33.289188
4212134274H1
1247861
5266
86
-97.381730
33.276904
-97.392494
33.288208
4249737504H1
1252301
2746
86
-97.406425
33.257413
-97.399074
33.253076
4249737505H1
1252406
2677
86
-97.406417
33.257373
-97.400121
33.252258
4249737506H1
1252472
2681
86
-97.406409
33.257332
-97.401497
33.251226
4212134346H1
1262906
5670
86
-97.387763
33.273047
-97.372278
33.264466
4212134347H1
1262934
5375
86
-97.387777
33.273008
-97.373424
33.264472
4212134348H1
1263049
5056
86
-97.387791
33.272968
-97.374690
33.264484
4212134356H1
1264111
4805
86
-97.387805
33.272929
-97.375717
33.264484
4212134357H1
1264159
4532
86
-97.387935
33.272891
-97.376981
33.264495
Well Type Legend
2	Permitted Location
3	Dry Hole
5	Gas Well
8	Plugged Gas Well
9	Canceled Location
86	Horizontal Drainhole
87	Sidetrack Well Surface Location
-------
C-25
Table CI 5 Number of Oil and Gas Wells in Wise County Texas - Location A



Total Number
Oil and Gas Wells within
Search Area
Search Area

of Oil and Gas
1 Mile of EPA Sample
Name
Radius (miles)
EPA Samples
Wells
Points
Location A
3
WISETXGW09
WISETXGW10
WISETXGW11
WISETXGW12
WISETXSW01
WISETXSW02
WISETXSW03
304
62
Table C16 Impoundments within 1 Mile of EPA Samples, Wise County,
Texas - Location A

Approximate



Date of Google

Distance from
No. of

Approximate
Earth Aerial

EPA Sample to
Wells
No. of
Distance from
Imagery showing

Nearest Well
within 1
Impoundments
EPA Sample to
Impoundment

Pad and API
Mile of the
within 1 Mile of
the Nearest
Nearest to EPA
EPA Sample
Number
EPA Sample
the EPA sample
Impoundment
Sample
WISETXGW09
0.11 miles SSE
41
0
1.6 miles SE
6/11-4/13

49736892




WISETXGW10
0.2 miles NE
38
0
1.5 miles SE
6/11-4/13

49734025




WISETXGW11
0.17 miles SW
35
0
1.6 miles SE
6/11-4/13

49734525




WISETXGW12
0.8 miles SE
40
0
1.7 miles ESE
6/11-4/13

49736916




WISETXSW01
0.4 NE
41
0
1.5 miles ESE
6/11-4/13

49736892




WISETXSW02
0.4 NE
41
0
1.5 miles ESE
6/11-4/13

49736892




WISETXSW03
0.9 miles NE
41
0
1.6 miles ESE
6/11-4/13

49736892




-------
C-28
Table C18	Well Inventory Summary for Wise County, Texas - Location B
API Number
Texas RRCWell ID
Lateral Length
Well Type
Surface Well Longitude
Surface Well Latitude
Bottom Well
Longitude
Bottom Well Latitude
4249701857
802837
0
5
-97.648439
33.213372
-97.648439
33.213372
4249731556
802838
0
5
-97.644964
33.220830
-97.644964
33.220830
4249701696
802840
0
5
-97.635226
33.225924
-97.635226
33.225924
4249701705
802841
0
5
-97.625979
33.222320
-97.625979
33.222320
4249701700
802842
0
5
-97.634411
33.219157
-97.634411
33.219157
4249701134
802843
0
10
-97.628303
33.213788
-97.628303
33.213788
4249733218
802844
0
5
-97.641803
33.215881
-97.641803
33.215881
4249732758
802845
0
9
-97.641774
33.215458
-97.641774
33.215458
42497
802846
0
3
-97.655498
33.216423
-97.655498
33.216424
42497
802847
0
3
-97.656541
33.211257
-97.656541
33.211257
4249731277
802848
0
5
-97.660895
33.203175
-97.660895
33.203175
4249701136
802849
0
5
-97.651711
33.204134
-97.651711
33.204134
4249700525
802850
0
8
-97.645015
33.203853
-97.645015
33.203853
4249731069
802851
0
5
-97.657232
33.199540
-97.657232
33.199540
4249731086
802852
0
5
-97.639402
33.210762
-97.639402
33.210762
4249701631
802853
0
5
-97.631907
33.206535
-97.631908
33.206535
4249702187
802854
0
5
-97.641384
33.197603
-97.641384
33.197603
4249730214
802855
0
5
-97.631283
33.200691
-97.631283
33.200691
4249732075
802856
0
8
-97.627725
33.197040
-97.627725
33.197040
42497
802857
0
5
-97.652444
33.193109
-97.652444
33.193109
4249700993
802858
0
5
-97.647954
33.184114
-97.647954
33.184114
42497
802859
0
5
-97.660117
33.183856
-97.660117
33.183856
4249732000
802860
0
5
-97.638932
33.192355
-97.638932
33.192355
4249731884
802861
0
5
-97.634079
33.192788
-97.634079
33.192788
4249701852
802862
0
5
-97.626724
33.192555
-97.626724
33.192555
4249732085
802863
0
5
-97.641750
33.188254
-97.641750
33.188254
4249730973
802864
0
5
-97.639973
33.182934
-97.639973
33.182934
4249702005
802865
0
5
-97.630770
33.184972
-97.630770
33.184972
4249702052
802866
0
5
-97.634593
33.178712
-97.634593
33.178712
4249731026
802867
0
5
-97.642117
33.173580
-97.642117
33.173580
4249731603
802868
0
5
-97.633673
33.172959
-97.633673
33.172959
4249732357
802869
0
7
-97.641694
33.171768
-97.641694
33.171768
42497
802870
0
7
-97.637112
33.172005
-97.637112
33.172005
42497
802871
0
2
-97.659506
33.191484
-97.659506
33.191484
4249733299
802872
0
5
-97.653459
33.189315
-97.653459
33.189315
4249732954
802913
0
5
-97.674064
33.180477
-97.674064
33.180477
4249701088
802915
0
5
-97.671121
33.174240
-97.671121
33.174240
4249731025
802916
0
5
-97.672411
33.187768
-97.672411
33.187768
4249731764
802917
0
8
-97.674802
33.192852
-97.674802
33.192852
4249702152
802921
0
8
-97.667819
33.197258
-97.667819
33.197258
4249701089
802923
0
5
-97.664759
33.179606
-97.664759
33.179606
4249731425
802924
0
5
-97.657592
33.173663
-97.657592
33.173663
4249732093
802925
0
5
-97.648456
33.175208
-97.648456
33.175208
4249731256
802926
0
5
-97.647285
33.177778
-97.647285
33.177778
42497
802927
0
5
-97.651664
33.170015
-97.651664
33.170015
4249732826
802928
0
5
-97.666311
33.169483
-97.666311
33.169483
4249731870
802929
0
5
-97.645263
33.164601
-97.645263
33.164601
4249701660
802930
0
5
-97.637855
33.165990
-97.637856
33.165990
4249701989
802931
0
5
-97.627985
33.170939
-97.627985
33.170939
42497
802932
0
7
-97.635139
33.170369
-97.635139
33.170369
42497
802955
0
5
-97.665075
33.160331
-97.665075
33.160331
4249733195
802956
0
5
-97.661529
33.156764
-97.661529
33.156764
4249731992
802976
0
5
-97.649430
33.151819
-97.649430
33.151819
42497
802990
0
5
-97.659186
33.154097
-97.659186
33.154097
4249701662
802995
0
8
-97.630647
33.162127
-97.630647
33.162127
4249732170
802996
0
5
-97.636706
33.156516
-97.636706
33.156516
4249701663
802997
0
5
-97.652054
33.160660
-97.652054
33.160660
4249731684
802998
0
5
-97.628294
33.153845
-97.628294
33.153845
4249732094
803000
0
5
-97.637594
33.148367
-97.637594
33.148367
4249780434
803004
0
5
-97.629092
33.147131
-97.629092
33.147131
42497
803005
0
5
-97.634571
33.144551
-97.634571
33.144551
4249701664
803010
0
5
-97.642307
33.152082
-97.642307
33.152082
42497
803138
0
4
-97.662089
33.213859
-97.662089
33.213859
4249732227
803143
0
5
-97.665706
33.204887
-97.665706
33.204887
42497
803187
0
3
-97.657756
33.212289
-97.657756
33.212289
4249700989
803189
0
7
-97.659528
33.214708
-97.659528
33.214708
4249700991
803190
0
5
-97.658752
33.214597
-97.658752
33.214597
4249733281
803198
0
5
-97.649173
33.188051
-97.649173
33.188051
4249730097
803203
0
5
-97.661572
33.166031
-97.661572
33.166032
4249733621
803228
0
8
-97.646424
33.190872
-97.646424
33.190872
4249733650
803229
0
5
-97.668061
33.183450
-97.668061
33.183450
4249733651
803230
0
8
-97.646612
33.157018
-97.646612
33.157018
4249733642
803231
0
7
-97.641335
33.161647
-97.641335
33.161647
4249733653
803232
0
7
-97.655209
33.165659
-97.655209
33.165659
4249733663
803234
0
5
-97.650791
33.198683
-97.650791
33.198683
4249733711
803239
0
5
-97.632316
33.213960
-97.632316
33.213960
4249733745
803240
0
5
-97.625396
33.210576
-97.625397
33.210576
4249733746
803241
0
8
-97.637180
33.171744
-97.637180
33.171744
4249733764
803243
0
5
-97.661934
33.196733
-97.661934
33.196733
4249733806
803249
0
5
-97.666754
33.191565
-97.666754
33.191565
-------
C-29
Table C18	Well Inventory Summary for Wise County, Texas - Location B
API Number
Texas RRCWell ID
Lateral Length
Well Type
Surface Well Longitude
Surface Well Latitude
Bottom Well
Longitude
Bottom Well Latitude
4249733807
803250
0
5
-97.639294
33.219599
-97.639294
33.219599
4249733856
803255
0
5
-97.663306
33.187663
-97.663306
33.187663
4249733863
803256
0
5
-97.640961
33.224517
-97.640961
33.224517
4249733866
803257
0
5
-97.642181
33.155917
-97.642181
33.155917
4249733947
803262
0
5
-97.633577
33.151401
-97.633577
33.151401
4249733951
803263
0
5
-97.640511
33.168538
-97.640511
33.168538
4249733985
803264
0
5
-97.636401
33.186804
-97.636401
33.186804
4249733988
803265
0
5
-97.628609
33.166488
-97.628609
33.166489
4249733994
803266
0
5
-97.628881
33.178092
-97.628881
33.178092
4249734051
803269
0
5
-97.644678
33.168421
-97.644678
33.168421
4249734326
803273
0
22
-97.629636
33.158378
-97.629637
33.158378
4249734328
803274
0
5
-97.627035
33.227513
-97.627035
33.227513
4249734391
803278
0
2
-97.665640
33.166158
-97.665640
33.166158
4249731247
803286
0
5
-97.601991
33.220204
-97.601992
33.220204
42497
803300
0
3
-97.597020
33.220607
-97.597020
33.220607
4249700811
803305
0
5
-97.610620
33.220626
-97.610620
33.220626
42497
803309
0
3
-97.617195
33.226466
-97.617195
33.226466
4249732275
803310
0
5
-97.611681
33.227109
-97.611681
33.227109
4249732895
803363
0
5
-97.620411
33.214578
-97.620411
33.214578
4249730255
803364
0
8
-97.619383
33.209256
-97.619383
33.209256
4249730185
803365
0
5
-97.614259
33.210250
-97.614259
33.210250
4249731700
803366
0
5
-97.599766
33.207665
-97.599766
33.207665
4249702017
803367
0
6
-97.618418
33.202216
-97.618418
33.202216
4249730379
803368
0
5
-97.616785
33.198066
-97.616785
33.198066
4249730284
803369
0
5
-97.614119
33.200715
-97.614119
33.200715
42497
803370
0
5
-97.591461
33.210931
-97.591461
33.210931
4249732755
803373
0
9
-97.619804
33.218158
-97.619804
33.218158
42497
803374
0
2
-97.613811
33.203240
-97.613811
33.203240
4249731159
803375
0
9
-97.594002
33.204906
-97.594002
33.204906
4249733355
803376
0
5
-97.592877
33.206499
-97.592877
33.206499
4249701998
803377
0
6
-97.602652
33.201023
-97.602652
33.201023
4249701571
803378
0
8
-97.605809
33.213990
-97.605809
33.213990
4249701853
803379
0
8
-97.606764
33.206343
-97.606764
33.206343
4249732509
803380
0
5
-97.616410
33.219208
-97.616410
33.219208
42497
803381
0
3
-97.597352
33.215585
-97.597352
33.215585
42497
803382
0
5
-97.598132
33.215980
-97.598132
33.215980
42497
803383
0
3
-97.592991
33.207488
-97.592991
33.207488
4249731315
803384
0
3
-97.586989
33.208264
-97.586989
33.208264
42497
803385
0
7
-97.587021
33.205936
-97.587022
33.205936
4249731574
803386
0
5
-97.612455
33.193500
-97.612455
33.193500
4249730210
803387
0
5
-97.621916
33.196361
-97.621916
33.196361
4249701413
803388
0
5
-97.604192
33.194310
-97.604192
33.194310
4249730524
803389
0
5
-97.598805
33.197384
-97.598805
33.197384
4249731630
803390
0
5
-97.598082
33.190880
-97.598082
33.190880
4249731137
803391
0
5
-97.582366
33.201541
-97.582366
33.201541
4249730968
803392
0
5
-97.584607
33.197453
-97.584607
33.197453
4249700303
803393
0
8
-97.576837
33.190683
-97.576837
33.190683
4249700209
803394
0
8
-97.589295
33.185107
-97.589295
33.185107
42497
803404
0
8
-97.588662
33.200095
-97.588662
33.200095
4249700205
803405
0
8
-97.576735
33.197392
-97.576735
33.197392
4249730526
803433
0
5
-97.597151
33.186226
-97.597151
33.186226
4249731799
803434
0
5
-97.606544
33.186262
-97.606544
33.186262
4249702917
803435
0
5
-97.618155
33.182854
-97.618155
33.182854
4249731614
803436
0
5
-97.624568
33.178646
-97.624568
33.178647
4249701521
803437
0
5
-97.612551
33.180742
-97.612551
33.180742
4249701988
803438
0
5
-97.618645
33.173147
-97.618645
33.173147
4249730075
803439
0
5
-97.604846
33.171983
-97.604846
33.171983
4249731416
803440
0
5
-97.598257
33.177984
-97.598257
33.177984
4249732358
803441
0
8
-97.593631
33.176030
-97.593631
33.176030
4249701170
803442
0
5
-97.593601
33.182327
-97.593601
33.182327
4249701522
803443
0
8
-97.601680
33.179372
-97.601680
33.179372
4249702000
803444
0
8
-97.618482
33.187966
-97.618482
33.187966
4249730405
803445
0
5
-97.577542
33.179730
-97.577542
33.179730
42497
803454
0
8
-97.581980
33.179572
-97.581980
33.179572
4249730402
803455
0
8
-97.587009
33.173663
-97.587009
33.173663
4249730248
803460
0
5
-97.576945
33.174877
-97.576945
33.174877
42497
803480
0
4
-97.619531
33.168691
-97.619531
33.168691
4249730347
803481
0
5
-97.619223
33.164728
-97.619223
33.164728
4249730972
803482
0
5
-97.613971
33.163143
-97.613971
33.163143
4249702020
803483
0
5
-97.616554
33.158319
-97.616554
33.158320
4249700453
803484
0
5
-97.603447
33.158154
-97.603447
33.158154
4249700676
803485
0
5
-97.595282
33.161295
-97.595282
33.161295
4249730525
803486
0
5
-97.599792
33.165001
-97.599792
33.165001
4249731160
803487
0
8
-97.596159
33.167446
-97.596159
33.167446
4249701414
803488
0
5
-97.605501
33.169235
-97.605501
33.169235
4249730439
803489
0
5
-97.586341
33.167187
-97.586342
33.167187
4249730563
803490
0
5
-97.588923
33.156076
-97.588923
33.156076
4249700035
803492
0
8
-97.593708
33.170625
-97.593708
33.170625
4249730326
803493
0
8
-97.585739
33.167757
-97.585739
33.167757
4249720105
803494
0
3
-97.591572
33.165051
-97.591572
33.165051
-------
C-30
Table C18	Well Inventory Summary for Wise County, Texas - Location B
API Number
Texas RRCWell ID
Lateral Length
Well Type
Surface Well Longitude
Surface Well Latitude
Bottom Well
Longitude
Bottom Well Latitude
4249700969
803522
0
5
-97.621043
33.151495
-97.621043
33.151495
4249701343
803524
0
5
-97.612515
33.151420
-97.612515
33.151420
4249732812
803525
0
8
-97.611318
33.144907
-97.611318
33.144907
4249732658
803529
0
5
-97.603557
33.147492
-97.603557
33.147492
4249733404
803537
0
5
-97.605924
33.152387
-97.605924
33.152387
4249733327
803541
0
5
-97.599020
33.152818
-97.599020
33.152819
42497
803544
0
3
-97.621006
33.145093
-97.621006
33.145093
4249701990
803587
0
8
-97.593628
33.194617
-97.593628
33.194617
4249700825
803592
0
5
-97.597040
33.151247
-97.597040
33.151247
42497
803595
0
5
-97.619435
33.213307
-97.619435
33.213307
42497
803597
0
2
-97.598060
33.192244
-97.598060
33.192244
4249733443
803601
0
5
-97.589941
33.175400
-97.589942
33.175400
4249733507
803610
0
5
-97.617562
33.147245
-97.617562
33.147245
4249733627
803621
0
5
-97.621054
33.218916
-97.621054
33.218916
4249733667
803623
0
5
-97.580623
33.170918
-97.580623
33.170918
4249733671
803624
0
5
-97.618888
33.161503
-97.618888
33.161503
4249733700
803629
0
5
-97.606701
33.161560
-97.606701
33.161560
4249733722
803631
0
6
-97.622803
33.205064
-97.622803
33.205065
4249733730
803633
0
5
-97.582690
33.174848
-97.582690
33.174848
4249733739
803634
0
5
-97.582551
33.187581
-97.582551
33.187581
4249733766
803636
0
5
-97.608902
33.197418
-97.608902
33.197418
4249733768
803637
0
5
-97.585664
33.180313
-97.585664
33.180313
4249733816
803638
0
5
-97.624733
33.162142
-97.624733
33.162142
4249733858
803642
0
5
-97.621952
33.159332
-97.621952
33.159332
4249733925
803645
0
5
-97.591783
33.199683
-97.591783
33.199683
4249733940
803647
0
5
-97.592816
33.158049
-97.592817
33.158049
4249733945
803648
0
5
-97.597700
33.202555
-97.597700
33.202555
4249733944
803649
0
3
-97.621053
33.191650
-97.621053
33.191650
4249733946
803650
0
5
-97.591994
33.203710
-97.591994
33.203710
4249733957
803653
0
5
-97.615915
33.177461
-97.615915
33.177461
4249733964
803654
0
5
-97.623798
33.174601
-97.623798
33.174601
4249733984
803655
0
5
-97.582104
33.193171
-97.582104
33.193171
4249733993
803656
0
5
-97.589095
33.193849
-97.589095
33.193849
4249734011
803658
0
5
-97.579748
33.197284
-97.579748
33.197284
4249734026
803660
0
5
-97.610844
33.172488
-97.610844
33.172488
4249734040
803661
0
8
-97.592551
33.191002
-97.592551
33.191002
4249734067
803664
0
5
-97.623951
33.183322
-97.623951
33.183322
4249734081
803665
0
3
-97.590258
33.168826
-97.590258
33.168826
4249733878
803666
0
5
-97.588459
33.160636
-97.588459
33.160636
4249734126
803670
0
5
-97.583699
33.191211
-97.583699
33.191211
4249734245
803674
0
2
-97.590258
33.168752
-97.590259
33.168752
4249734662
1068303
0
5
-97.587130
33.211662
-97.587130
33.211662
4249734669
1068661
0
8
-97.608512
33.224608
-97.608512
33.224608
4249734706
1071907
0
2
-97.610714
33.165301
-97.610714
33.165301
4249734754
1074581
0
5
-97.578033
33.185073
-97.578033
33.185073
4249734784
1075249
0
8
-97.613059
33.193175
-97.613059
33.193175
4249734790
1075384
0
5
-97.596252
33.210044
-97.596252
33.210044
4249734817
1076560
0
5
-97.588590
33.205128
-97.588590
33.205128
4249734827
1076968
0
8
-97.614362
33.184882
-97.614362
33.184882
4249734837
1077772
0
5
-97.615699
33.177877
-97.615699
33.177877
4249734840
1078038
0
5
-97.601679
33.215695
-97.601679
33.215695
4249734922
1080567
0
5
-97.582790
33.200785
-97.582790
33.200785
4249734975
1082248
0
5
-97.623724
33.177630
-97.623724
33.177630
4249735015
1083100
0
5
-97.596417
33.203004
-97.596417
33.203004

1083121
0
86
-97.596146
33.200864
0.000000
0.000000
4249735017
1083123
0
2
-97.601939
33.201758
-97.601939
33.201758
4249735032
1083597
0
8
-97.592742
33.190448
-97.592742
33.190448
4249735034
1083639
0
5
-97.592714
33.206647
-97.592714
33.206647
4249735046
1084716
0
5
-97.617903
33.168254
-97.617903
33.168254
4249735062
1085251
0
5
-97.588143
33.215380
-97.588143
33.215380
4249735129HW
1087493
0
86
-97.596476
33.158852
-97.596476
33.158852
4249735130HW
1087494
0
86
-97.589779
33.158548
-97.589779
33.158548
4249735181D1
1089770
523
87
-97.599024
33.214878
-97.599015
33.213442
4249735285
1093502
0
5
-97.605252
33.221553
-97.605252
33.221553
4249735861H1
1094251
0
5
0.000000
0.000000
-97.617415
33.208634
4249735362
1096271
0
5
-97.591250
33.203773
-97.591250
33.203773
4249735016H1
1097582
2290
5
0.000000
0.000000
-97.603265
33.202813
4249735429
1098681
0
5
-97.615251
33.221863
-97.615251
33.221863
4249735430
1098682
0
3
-97.609509
33.221929
-97.609509
33.221929
4249735431
1098683
0
5
-97.611463
33.225771
-97.611463
33.225771
4249735438
1099082
0
5
-97.609688
33.222176
-97.609688
33.222176
4249735455H1
1100044
2171
86
-97.588388
33.207773
-97.593576
33.211845
4249735471H1
1100348
2853
86
-97.596955
33.157192
-97.587804
33.155698
4249735528
1101933
0
5
-97.594964
33.151243
-97.594964
33.151243
4249735562H1
1103664
2491
86
-97.663013
33.180270
-97.655975
33.176826
4249735581H1
1104472
3009
86
-97.572518
33.193540
-97.580439
33.198447
4249735604H1
1105688
2701
86
-97.612663
33.170229
-97.620825
33.173061
4249735614
1106586
0
5
-97.584342
33.202855
-97.584342
33.202855
4249735616
1106672
0
5
-97.654447
33.183759
-97.654447
33.183759
4249735618H1
1106826
2392
86
-97.647500
33.209084
-97.644593
33.202980
-------
C-31
Table C18	Well Inventory Summary for Wise County, Texas - Location B
API Number
Texas RRCWell ID
Lateral Length
Well Type
Surface Well Longitude
Surface Well Latitude
Bottom Well
Longitude
Bottom Well Latitude
4249735619
1107012
0
5
-97.593325
33.204371
-97.593325
33.204371
4249735625
1107204
0
5
-97.623903
33.179889
-97.623903
33.179889
4249735636
1107970
0
5
-97.611033
33.167460
-97.611033
33.167460
4249731999
1108572
0
9
-97.593628
33.176579
-97.593628
33.176579
4249735710H1
1112567
2585
86
-97.577255
33.204654
-97.584465
33.208360
4249735767
1116257
0
5
-97.622255
33.175899
-97.622255
33.175899
4249735768
1116260
0
5
-97.613317
33.168321
-97.613317
33.168321
4249735777
1117130
0
5
-97.615550
33.226852
-97.615550
33.226852
4249735797H1
1118444
2539
86
-97.631287
33.184407
-97.627633
33.178140
4249735851
1122885
0
2
-97.620454
33.179613
-97.620454
33.179613

1123566
1625
86
-97.621601
33.211383
0.000000
0.000000
4249735904H1
1126989
206
86
-97.601532
33.165510
-97.601222
33.165008
4249735905D1
1127309
928
87
-97.590489
33.217535
-97.590520
33.214983
4249735922
1129343
0
5
-97.615685
33.175882
-97.615685
33.175882
4249735944H1
1131506
2803
86
-97.590199
33.163588
-97.581094
33.162742
4249735964H1
1133345
2111
86
-97.669764
33.166703
-97.664475
33.162980
4249735972H1
1134519
2248
86
-97.606957
33.213372
-97.612885
33.217027
4249735973H1
1134614
3075
86
-97.642937
33.190220
-97.634198
33.186042
4249735983H1
1135335
2911
86
-97.595931
33.175316
-97.604909
33.177968
4249736024
1137966
0
5
-97.656289
33.207664
-97.656289
33.207664
4249736029H1
1138401
4223
86
-97.606862
33.213230
-97.596359
33.205695
4249736046H1
1139654
3272
86
-97.618480
33.198345
-97.625106
33.205404
4249736077H1
1142249
2463
86
-97.602681
33.195947
-97.600708
33.189383
4249736079
1142611
0
5
-97.587031
33.206286
-97.587031
33.206286
4249736095H1
1143691
3181
86
-97.654261
33.175889
-97.645129
33.171708
4249736111H1
1144661
3391
86
-97.626746
33.156594
-97.635216
33.162607
4249736128H1
1146272
2969
86
-97.675736
33.193640
-97.666949
33.190171
4249736129H1
1146273
3141
86
-97.626197
33.146376
-97.633718
33.152249
4249736200H1
1151312
2202
86
-97.602192
33.159975
-97.604879
33.165590
4249736207H1
1151420
3007
86
-97.612431
33.179276
-97.607608
33.172073
4249736218H1
1152697
3444
86
-97.625482
33.187090
-97.634247
33.193030
4249736247H1
1155824
2391
86
-97.655673
33.159224
-97.663242
33.160858
4249736252H1
1156427
5146
86
-97.644057
33.167765
-97.660675
33.169945
4249736256H1
1156837
2570
86
-97.614091
33.203227
-97.606495
33.200208
4249736273H1
1158047
2537
86
-97.577663
33.176665
-97.581629
33.182790
4249736274
1158048
0
2
-97.582573
33.177440
-97.582573
33.177440
4249736272
1158063
0
2
-97.576960
33.182346
-97.576960
33.182346
4249736276H1
1158281
3625
86
-97.665587
33.198709
-97.659560
33.190129
4249736281H1
1158370
2607
86
-97.606503
33.208220
-97.614261
33.211187
4249736292H1
1159328
2927
86
-97.575768
33.169371
-97.582402
33.175166
4249736306H1
1160475
2912
86
-97.586954
33.211619
-97.588056
33.219570
4249736310D1
1160994
112
87
-97.590423
33.217535
-97.590254
33.217260
4249736317
1161480
0
11
-97.633855
33.191176
-97.633855
33.191176
4249736324H1
1161772
2047
86
-97.609096
33.228375
-97.604728
33.224113
4249736331H1
1162415
3010
86
-97.595269
33.165385
-97.585431
33.165378
4249736336H1
1162670
2215
86
-97.620663
33.214686
-97.613735
33.212907
4249736345H1
1163505
3513
86
-97.633447
33.172335
-97.626651
33.164550
4249736359H1
1164623
2388
86
-97.577744
33.176618
-97.582689
33.181697
4249736360H1
1164692
2216
86
-97.602063
33.160065
-97.603171
33.166086
4249736369H1
1165159
2639
86
-97.622729
33.170519
-97.618058
33.164422
4249736370H1
1165184
3025
86
-97.622729
33.170574
-97.613584
33.167416
4249736455H1
1171381
2038
86
-97.574763
33.185758
-97.568705
33.183430
4249736456H1
1171399
2714
86
-97.594519
33.179550
-97.585673
33.178997
4249736457H1
1171400
2483
86
-97.594559
33.179443
-97.592665
33.172805
4249736462H1
1171687
2925
86
-97.603152
33.171384
-97.610892
33.176104
4249736467H1
1172002
3126
86
-97.603086
33.171398
-97.609988
33.177733
4249736471H1
1172833
3037
86
-97.600125
33.180171
-97.609809
33.182007
4249736492H1
1174603
1999
86
-97.576523
33.192119
-97.583025
33.192670
4249736493H1
1174610
2226
86
-97.576376
33.192122
-97.580907
33.196909
4249736494H1
1174639
2037
86
-97.576450
33.192119
-97.581855
33.195391
4249736500H1
1174806
3959
86
-97.628393
33.228178
-97.616421
33.224032
4249736506H1
1174859
2294
86
-97.585839
33.180382
-97.593254
33.181326
4249736513H1
1175229
3636
86
-97.603031
33.171436
-97.609441
33.179853
4249736514H1
1175416
2723
86
-97.600054
33.180295
-97.606468
33.185485
4249736515H1
1175417
3254
86
-97.600090
33.180233
-97.609652
33.184151
4249736541H1
1178161
3170
86
-97.594771
33.167534
-97.584425
33.167089
4249736551H1
1178401
2486
86
-97.588715
33.203473
-97.591041
33.196925
4249736552H1
1178403
2808
86
-97.588081
33.203530
-97.584240
33.196518
4249736555H1
1178514
3638
86
-97.596005
33.174981
-97.606832
33.179115
4249736591H1
1181912
3858
86
-97.600012
33.180277
-97.611796
33.184051
4249736609H1
1183188
3409
86
-97.599984
33.180419
-97.609506
33.185289
4249736641H1
1186494
3200
86
-97.635005
33.174255
-97.626882
33.168714
4249736642H1
1186536
3533
86
-97.634951
33.174414
-97.623413
33.174009
4249736644H1
1186563
4068
86
-97.595923
33.174995
-97.607761
33.180090
4249736647H1
1186576
4172
86
-97.595845
33.175005
-97.607738
33.180614
4249736648H1
1186601
3321
86
-97.634978
33.174335
-97.624451
33.172110
4249736654H1
1186973
3751
86
-97.617780
33.159644
-97.605766
33.157598
4249736655H1
1186975
3523
86
-97.617781
33.159590
-97.606855
33.156539
4249736656H1
1187044
4067
86
-97.671878
33.202179
-97.684850
33.204641
4249736660H1
1187051
4233
86
-97.670577
33.200782
-97.684417
33.200924
-------
C-32
Table C18	Well Inventory Summary for Wise County, Texas - Location B
API Number
Texas RRCWell ID
Lateral Length
Well Type
Surface Well Longitude
Surface Well Latitude
Bottom Well
Longitude
Bottom Well Latitude
4249736661H1
1187052
3825
86
-97.671878
33.202124
-97.684329
33.203117
4249736662H1
1187077
4270
86
-97.670578
33.200837
-97.684505
33.201667
4249736687H1
1188314
3689
86
-97.597244
33.200403
-97.603518
33.209066
4249736688H1
1188315
2755
86
-97.597299
33.200469
-97.603766
33.205741
4249736696H1
1189040
2991
86
-97.577657
33.166743
-97.582590
33.173840
4249736732H1
1190092
2198
86
-97.615098
33.165421
-97.607917
33.165273
4249736733H1
1190093
1956
86
-97.615098
33.165363
-97.609411
33.162911
4249736734H1
1190100
2852
86
-97.618361
33.163247
-97.609209
33.161763
4249736736H1
1190314
2927
86
-97.618361
33.163192
-97.609427
33.160317
4249736744H1
1190560
2775
86
-97.601218
33.165683
-97.608423
33.170319
4249736749H1
1190757
2941
86
-97.601300
33.165545
-97.608512
33.170888
4249736752H1
1190809
2736
86
-97.601217
33.165549
-97.607235
33.171112
4249736801H1
1193881
3446
86
-97.600963
33.149027
-97.600099
33.158473
4249736803H1
1194043
3532
86
-97.600964
33.149082
-97.602014
33.158751
4249736804H1
1194053
3555
86
-97.600963
33.148972
-97.603403
33.158527
4249736814H1
1194642
96
86
-97.575993
33.190162
-97.576173
33.189946
4249736826H1
1195182
3569
86
-97.596564
33.162551
-97.585239
33.160208
4249736909H1
1199441
2807
86
-97.644804
33.179922
-97.636743
33.176237
4249736910H1
1199442
3491
86
-97.644803
33.179977
-97.633725
33.177675
4249736911H1
1199445
3452
86
-97.644803
33.180032
-97.633541
33.179460
4249736914H1
1199453
3362
86
-97.644392
33.183195
-97.633562
33.181631
4249736917H1
1199474
3355
86
-97.644391
33.183253
-97.633429
33.183552
4249736923H1
1200461
4134
86
-97.646143
33.177243
-97.647898
33.188511
4249736924H1
1200462
4255
86
-97.649406
33.188828
-97.648195
33.177177
4249736925H1
1200463
4813
86
-97.649099
33.177322
-97.651132
33.190441
4249736926H1
1200464
4910
86
-97.652086
33.177305
-97.653014
33.190778
4249736927H1
1200465
4963
86
-97.652119
33.177305
-97.654721
33.190771
4249737030H1
1206750
4265
86
-97.621208
33.156971
-97.633121
33.163055
4249737032H1
1207088
3088
86
-97.594583
33.169055
-97.584492
33.168852
4249737082H1
1210627
3472
86
-97.648010
33.209211
-97.650876
33.218447
4249737098H1
1211039
3474
86
-97.648010
33.209211
-97.655693
33.216245
4249737105H1
1211345
5540
86
-97.605394
33.149322
-97.622342
33.154679
4249737106H1
1211349
5089
86
-97.605396
33.149212
-97.621811
33.151456
4249737110H1
1211473
3383
86
-97.648010
33.209211
-97.654012
33.217022
4249737113H1
1211611
5493
86
-97.623252
33.150323
-97.605911
33.146428
4249737114H1
1211612
5896
86
-97.623307
33.150377
-97.605141
33.144983
4249737117H1
1212345
3417
86
-97.615223
33.221609
-97.604745
33.218348
4249737129H1
1213672
3047
86
-97.594615
33.170954
-97.584659
33.170814
4249737135H1
1214185
5561
86
-97.621110
33.145314
-97.603266
33.142438
4249737136H1
1214186
4676
86
-97.621111
33.145259
-97.606552
33.141357
4249737149H1
1215291
5108
86
-97.605400
33.149267
-97.621467
33.153076
4249737187H1
1217638
5321
86
-97.625993
33.143412
-97.643337
33.144436
4249737188H1
1217642
5262
86
-97.625993
33.143357
-97.643165
33.142666
4249735129H1
1221815
2915
5
0.000000
0.000000
-97.586949
33.158899
4249735130H1
1221816
2097
5
0.000000
0.000000
-97.596465
33.157286
4249737210H1
1221817
3555
86
-97.596956
33.156917
-97.585650
33.154666
4249737296H1
1228389
8607
86
-97.665271
33.167970
-97.680496
33.187866
4249737343H1
1232415
5420
86
-97.682702
33.208790
-97.665211
33.206385
4249737376H1
1236761
7904
86
-97.675298
33.218713
-97.651285
33.210674
Well Type Legend
2	Permitted Location
3	Dry Hole
4	Oil Well
5	Gas Well
6	Oil/Gas Well
7	Plugged Oil Well
8	Plugged Gas Well
9	Canceled Location
10	Plugged Oil/Gas Well
11	Injection/Disposal Well
22	Injection/Disposal From Gas
86	Horizontal Drainhole
87	Sidetrack Well Surface Location
-------
C-33
Table C19 Number of Oil and Gas Wells in Wise County, Texas - Location B



Total Number
Oil and Gas Wells
Search Area
Search Area

of Oil and Gas
within 1 Mile of EPA
Name
Radius (miles)
EPA Samples
Wells
Sample Points
Location B
3
WISETXGW01
369
76


WISETXGW02




WISETXGW03




WISETXGW04




WISETXGW05




WISETXGW08




WISETXGW13




WISETXGW14




WISETXGW15




WISETXGW16


Table C20 Impoundments within 1 Mile of EPA Samples, Wise County,
Texas - Location B

Approximate



Date of Google

Distance from


Approximate
Earth Aerial

EPA Sample
No. of Wells
No. of
Distance from
Imagery showing

to Nearest
within 1
Impoundments
EPA Sample to
Impoundment

Well Pad and
Mile of the
within 1 Mile of
the Nearest
Nearest to the
EPA Sample
API Number
EPA Sample
the EPA sample
Impoundment
EPA Sample
WISETXGW01
cO.lmiles N
38
2
0.15 miles N
10/08

49736218




WISETXGW02
0.2 miles SE
41
2
0.3 miles N
10/08

49734067




WISETXGW03
0.2 miles N
39
2
0.2 miles N
10/08

49736218




WISETXGW04
0.1 miles SE
34
2
<0.1 miles SE
10/08

4973618




WISETXGW05
<0.1 miles S
28
2
0.6 miles SE
10/08

49736317




WISETXGW08
<0.1 miles SW
40
2
0.3 miles NW
10/08

49734067




WISETXGW13
0.1 miles SE
41
2
0.3 miles N
10/08

49734067




WISETXGW14
0.2 miles SE
39
2
0.3miles N
10/08

49734067




WISETXGW15
<0.1 miles W
33
2
0.2 miles NW
10/08

49736218




-------
C-34
Table C21	Environmental Database Review Summary, EPA - Wise County, Texas - Location C
Database
Name of Facility
Site Location and Address
Distance from Nearest
Sample Point
Yes/No
Potential Candidate Cause
Justification
Ground Water Wells
TIER 2
TARGA MIDSTREAM
SERVICES LLC
4944 FM 1655
FORESTBURG, TX 76239
1.28 mi. NNW from
WISETXGW07
No
Natural gas condensates are listed in the chemical inventory for this site (above
ground storage). Natural gas condensates may be a potential BTEX source. However
there is no record of release.
1 Federal USGSWell
49 State wells
orphan Ind. Haz
Waste
S & W GARAGE
RR 1 BOX 101
ALVORD, TX 76225
Nl
No
Facility listed as a generator. However, it appears as inactive since 1999. No releases
found.
orphan UST
LBJ WORK CENTER
RT 1
ALVORD, TX 76225
Nl
No
Petroleum products were stored at this site (1 installed in 1977 and removed in 1999
and the other Permanently Filled in Place in 1987) Site currently inactive and owned
by USD A NATIONAL FORESTS IN TEXAS .
orphan FINDS, UST,
AST
WISE COUNTY
FM 1655 & US 81-287
ALVORD, TX 76225
Approximately 7 mi. SSW
from WISETXGW06.
No
Petroleum products were stored at this site. Removed from ground in 1993.
However, the site is too far from the sample point to have an impact on the ground
water if a release had occurred. Therefore, this site is not a potential candidate
cause.
orphan FINDS
orphan site AST
WISE COUNTY PCT 2
FM 1655 WEST ALVORD, TX 76225
Approximately 1.3 mi.
NNW from WISETXGW07.
No
Gasoline AST at the site. No record of a release found.
orphan AST
MRS H R THOMPSON
RT 2
ALVORD, TX 76225
Nl
No
Diesel AST. Out of use since 2001. No record of a release found.
orphan AST
WISE CO PCT 2
HWY 287
ALVORD, TX 76225
Approximately 5 mi. WSW
from WISETXGW06.
No
Gasoline AST at the site. No record of a release found.
orphan Ind. Haz
Waste
ALVORDGULF
HWY 287
ALVORD, TX 76225
Approximately 5 mi. WSW
from WISETXGW06.
No
No record of a release found.
orphan UST
COX AUTOMOTIVE & ELEC
HWY 287
ALVORD, TX 76225
Approximately 5 mi. WSW
from WISETXGW06.
No
3 gasoline USTs removed in 1990. No record of a release found.
orphan AST
HUDSON BUTANE ALVORD
KEYLOCK
HWY 287 & WICKHAM
ALVORD, TX 76225
Approximately 5 mi. SW
from WISETXGW06.
No
A diesel and a gasoline AST. Out of use since 2001. No record of a release. >1 mi
away from sample point.
orphan AST
FFP 832
S HWY 287
ALVORD, TX 76225
Approximately 5 mi. SW
from WISETXGW06.
No
5 ASTs (3 diesel and 2 gasoline). No record of a release.
5 orphan TIER 2
SMITH, C.P.
LAT: 33.263000
LONG: -97.669700
ALVORD, TX 76225
Approximately 10 mi. SW
from WISETXGW06.
No
Oil and gas processing operation. AST. No record of a release. BTEX sources may
exist, but because of the distance to sample locations, this site is not considered a
potential candidate source.
orphan TIER 2
DEVON ENERGY
ANDERSON, C B 1
LAT: 33.346782
LONG: -97.767724
ALVORD, TX 76225
Approximately 10 mi. SW
from WISETXGW06.
No
Oil and Gas Processing operation. AST. No record of releases. BTEX sources may
exist, but because of distance to sample locations, this site is not considered a
potential candidate source.
orphan TIER 2
DEVON ENERGY O'NEAL,
JACK 2 C
LAT: 33.325999
LONG:-97.732915
ALVORD, TX 76225
Approximately 10 mi. SW
from WISETXGW06.
No
Oil and Gas Processing operation. AST. No record of releases. BTEX sources may
exist, but because of distance to sample locations, this site is not considered a
potential candidate source.
orphan TIER 2
DEVON ENERGY SMITH, J
MIC
LAT: 33.348911
LONG:-97.751018
ALVORD, TX 76225
Approximately 10 mi. SW
from WISETXGW06.
No
Oil and Gas Processing operation. AST. No record of releases. BTEX sources may
exist, but because of distance to sample locations, this site is not considered a
potential candidate source.
orphan TIER 2
DEVON ENERGY HOWELL,
WE 1C
LAT: 33.31391
LONG:-97.749783
ALVORD, TX 76225
Approximately 10 mi. SW
from WISETXGW06.
No
Oil and Gas Processing operation. AST. No record of releases. BTEX sources may
exist, but because of distance to sample locations, this site is not considered a
potential candidate source.
orphan TIER 2
DEVON ENERGY-SMITH, C
M ETAL 3
LAT: 33.34115
LONG:-97.366327
ALVORD, TX 76225
Approximately 10 mi. SW
from WISETXGW06.
No
Oil and Gas Processing operation. AST. No record of releases. BTEX sources may
exist, but because of distance to sample locations, this site is not considered a
potential candidate source.
orphan TIER 2
DEVON ENERGY-SMITH, C
M A 2
LAT: 33.33906
LONG >97.65626
ALVORD, TX 76225
Approximately 10 mi. SW
from WISETXGW06.
No
Oil and Gas Processing operation. AST. No record of releases. BTEX sources may
exist, but because of distance to sample locations, this site is not considered a
potential candidate source.
orphan TIER 2
DEVON ENERGY-SMITH, C
M ETAL 2
LAT: 33.34115
LONG:-97.66327
ALVORD, TX 76225
Approximately 10 mi. SW
from WISETXGW06.
No
Oil and Gas Processing operation. AST. No record of releases. BTEX sources may
exist, but because of distance to sample locations, this site is not considered a
potential candidate source.
orphan TIER 2
DEVON ENERGY-SMITH, C
M A3
LAT: 33.34193
LONG:-97.65685
ALVORD, TX 76225
Approximately 10 mi. SW
from WISETXGW06.
No
Oil and Gas Processing operation. AST. No record of releases. BTEX sources may
exist, but because of distance to sample locations, this site is not considered a
potential candidate source.
orphan TIER 2
DEVON ENERGY-O'NEAL,
JACK 2 C
LAT: 33.32631
LONG:-97.73439
ALVORD, TX 76225
Approximately 10 mi. SW
from WISETXGW06.
No
Oil and Gas Processing operation. AST. No record of releases. BTEX sources may
exist, but because of distance to sample locations, this site is not considered a
potential candidate source.
orphan TIER 2
DEVON ENERGY-SMITH, J
M 1C
LAT: 33.34655
LONG:-97.75043
ALVORD, TX 76225
Approximately 10 mi. SW
from WISETXGW06.
No
Oil and Gas Processing operation. AST. No record of releases. BTEX sources may
exist, but because of distance to sample locations, this site is not considered a
potential candidate source.
orphan TIER 2
DEVON ENERGY-BOND,
OLIVER C 2H
LAT: 33.29968
LONG:-97.64271
ALVORD, TX 76225
Approximately 10 mi. SW
from WISETXGW06.
No
Oil and Gas Processing operation. AST. No record of releases. BTEX sources may
exist, but because of distance to sample locations, this site is not considered a
potential candidate source.
orphan TIER 2
DEVON ENERGY - HANNA,
JOE C 1
LAT: 33.35598
LONG:-97.65021
ALVORD, TX 76225
Approximately 10 mi. SW
from WISETXGW06.
No
Oil and Gas Processing operation. AST. No record of releases. BTEX sources may
exist, but because of distance to sample locations, this site is not considered a
potential candidate source.
orphan TIER 2
DEVON ENERGY -
ANDERSON, CB 1
LAT: 33.34306
LONG:-97.75997
ALVORD, TX 76225
Approximately 10 mi. SW
from WISETXGW06.
No
Oil and Gas Processing operation. AST. No record of releases. BTEX sources may
exist, but because of distance to sample locations, this site is not considered a
potential candidate source.
orphan TIER 2
DEVON ENERGY - HOWELL,
WE 1C
LAT: 33.31391
LONG:-97.749783
ALVORD, TX 76225
Approximately 10 mi. SW
from WISETXGW06.
No
Oil and Gas Processing operation. AST. BTEX sources may exist, but because of
distance to sample locations, this site is not considered a potential candidate source.
2 orphan TIER 2
LES RALEY #2 LEASE - RRC#
19934
US 81
ALVORD, TX 76225
Approximately 5 mi. SW
from WISETXGW06.
No
Oil and Gas Processing operation. AST. BTEX sources may exist, but because of
distance to sample locations, this site is not considered a potential candidate source.
orphan ICIS
DIAMOND RIDGE
SUBDIVISION
IN WISE COUNTY ALVORD TX
76225
Approximately 5 mi. SW
from WISETXGW06.
No
Site had NPDES permit. Also site in ICIS program (ICIS-06-1999-0518 FORMAL
ENFORCEMENT ACTION). However no other informatin is available. Site is
approximately 5 miles SW of the nearest sampling point. Due to distance from
sample the site is not considered a potential candidate source.
orphan UST
JERKY STATION
HWY 287 & FM 1125
BOWIE, TX 76230
Approximately 15 mi. NW
from WISETXGW06.
No
Petroleum products were stored at this site, because of distance to sample
locations, this site is not considered a potential candidate source.
2 orphan TIER 2
GIFFORD LEASE
HIGHWAY 287
BOWIE, TX 76230
Approximately 15 mi. NW
from WISETXGW06.
No
Oil and Gas Extraction/Processing operation. AST. BTEX sources may exist, but
because of distance to sample locations, this site is not considered a potential
candidate source.
orphan TIER 2
LIPSCOMB AUTO CENTER
HIGHWAY 287 NORTH
BOWIE, TX 76230
Approximately 15 mi. NW
from WISETXGW06.
No
Petroleum products were stored at this site. Because of distance to sample
locations, this site is not considered a potential candidate source.
2 orphan TIER 2
IESI BOWIE
12888 HIGHWAY 287 NORTH
BOWIE, TX 76230
Approximately 15 mi. NW
from WISETXGW06.
No
Petroleum products were stored at this site. Because of distance to sample
locations, this site is not considered a potential candidate source.
2 orphan TIER 2
PAUL DONALD LEASE
HIGHWAY 287
BOWIE, TX 76230
Approximately 15 mi. NW
from WISETXGW06.
No
Petroleum products might have been stored at this site. Because of distance to
sample locations, this site is not considered a potential candidate source.
orphan AST
POLK OPERATING
1121 HIGHWAY 59 N
BOWIE, TX 76230
Approximately 15 mi. NW
from WISETXGW06.
No
Petroleum products were stored at this site. Because of distance to sample
locations, this site is not considered a potential candidate source.
orphan TIER 2
DEATON & LONG "C" LEASE
HIGHWAY 59
BOWIE, TX 76230
Approximately 15 mi. NW
from WISETXGW06.
No
Petroleum products were stored at this site. Because of distance to sample
locations, this site is not considered a potential candidate source.
2 orphan TIER 2
BRANSFORD LEASE
HIGHWAY 59
BOWIE, TX 76230
Approximately 15 mi. NW
from WISETXGW06.
No
Petroleum products might have been stored at this site. Because of distance to
sample locations, this site is not considered a potential candidate source.
2 orphan TIER 2
J. E. MEYERS LEASE
HWY 59/W. CLAY STREET
BOWIE, TX 76230
Approximately 15 mi. NW
from WISETXGW06.
No
Petroleum products might have been stored at this site. Because of distance to
sample locations, this site is not considered a potential candidate source.
orphan TIER 2
BRITE LEASE
HIGHWAY 59
BOWIE, TX 76230
Approximately 15 mi. NW
from WISETXGW06.
No
Petroleum products might have been stored at this site. Because of distance to
sample locations, this site is not considered a potential candidate source.
orphan TIER 2
LONG "C" LEASE
HIGHWAY 59
BOWIE, TX 76230
Approximately 15 mi. NW
from WISETXGW06.
No
Petroleum products might have been stored at this site. Because of distance to
sample locations, this site is not considered a potential candidate source.
orphan TIER 2
DEATON LEASE
HIGHWAY 59
BOWIE, TX 76230
Approximately 15 mi. NW
from WISETXGW06.
No
Site in Chemical Inventory Reports (TIER 2 database). No other oinformation known.
Because of distance to sample locations, this site is not considered a potential
candidate source.
orphan RCRA-SQG
orphan site Ind. Haz
Waste
CVS PHARMACY INC-
STORE 7445
1419 HIGHWAY 59 N
BOWIE, TX 76230
Approximately 15 mi. NW
from WISETXGW06.
No
Small Small Quantity Generator for Silver. No violations found. Because of distance
to sample locations, this site is not considered a potential candidate source.
orphan UST
K-C OIL 16 (US FOOD
STORES)
1601 HIGHWAY 59 N
BOWIE, TX 76230
Approximately 15 mi. NW
from WISETXGW06.
No
Petroleum stored at this site. Leaking UST at the site. BTEX sources may exist, but
because of distance to sample locations, this site is not considered a potential
candidate source.
-------
C-35
Table C21	Environmental Database Review Summary, EPA - Wise County, Texas - Location C
Database
Name of Facility
Site Location and Address
Distance from Nearest
Sample Point
Yes/No
Potential Candidate Cause
Justification
Ground Water Wells
orphan UST,
Financial Assurance
MURPHY USA 7101
289 HIGHWAY 81 N
BOWIE, TX 76230
Approximately 15 mi. NW
from WISETXGW06.
No
Petroleum stored at this site. BTEX sources may exist, but because of distance to
sample locations, this site is not considered a potential candidate source.

orphan TIER 2
TXDOT-WICHITA FALLS-
BOWIE MAINTENANCE
905 HWY81N
BOWIE, TX 76230
Approximately 15 mi. NW
from WISETXGW06.
No
Several USTs on site. Some removed, some still inplace. One record for LUST.
Because of distance to sample locations, this site is not considered a potential
candidate source.
CERCLIS, FINDS
orphan
GOLD-BURG HIGH SCHOOL
RT. 1 BOX 35
BOWIE, TX 76230
> 20 mi. NW from
WISETXGW06.
No
This site consists of a public water supply (PWS) I.D. #1690014A at Gold burg High
School, which was reported to be contaminated with 1,1-DCE, 1,1-DCA, and 1,1,1-
TCA in 1991, during a routine sampling event. Subsequent sampling confirmed the
presence of VOCs. NFRAP-Site does not qualify for the NPL based on existing
information
These were detected in the study samples. BTEX sources may exist, but because of
distance to sample locations, this site is not considered a potential candidate source.
2 orphan TIER 2
PEMBROKE C UNIT #4H
Latitude: 33.6139
Longitude: -97.6755
BOWIE, TX
> 14 mi from
WISETXGW07
No
Oil and Gas Processing operation. AST. BTEX sources may exist, but because of
distance to sample locations, this site is not considered a potential candidate source.
orphan TIER 2
PACIFIC C#2H
Latitude: 33.5563
Longitude: -97.7563:
BOWIE, TX
> 12.7 Approximately
No
Oil and Gas Processing operation. AST. BTEX sources may exist, but because of
distance to sample locations, this site is not considered a potential candidate source.
orphan TIER 2
KRAMER C#6H
Latitude: 33.5370
Longitude: -97.6945
BOWIE, TX
> 9 mi from WISETXGW07
No
Oil and Gas Processing operation. AST. BTEX sources may exist, but because of
distance to sample locations, this site is not considered a potential candidate source.
orphan TIER 2
KNIGHT A #1H, A #2H, C
#1H
Latitude: 33.6325
Longitude: -97.5645
BOWIE, TX
Approximately 15.5 mi
from WISETXGW07
No
Oil and Gas Processing operation. AST. BTEX sources may exist, but because of
distance to sample locations, this site is not considered a potential candidate source.
orphan TIER 2
WHITESIDE C#1H,C#2H
Latitude: 33.5669
Longitude: -97.5405
BOWIE, TX
> 11 mi from
WISETXGW06
No
Oil and Gas Processing operation. AST. BTEX sources may exist, but because of
distance to sample locations, this site is not considered a potential candidate source.
orphan TIER 2
SAINT JO COMPRESSOR
SITE
Latitude: 33.6239
Longitude: -97.5497
BOWIE, TX
>14 mi from WISETXGW07
No
Oil and Gas Processing operation. AST. BTEX sources may exist, but because of
distance to sample locations, this site is not considered a potential candidate source.
orphan TIER 2
DUNN FAMILY TRUST A
#1H, B #1H, C #1H
Latitude: 33.6244
Longitude: -97.5702
BOWIE, TX
Approximately 14.mi from
WISETXGW06
No
Oil and Gas Processing operation. AST. BTEX sources may exist, but because of
distance to sample locations, this site is not considered a potential candidate source.
orphan TIER 2
PACIFIC C#1H
Latitude: 33.5564
Longitude: -97.7564
BOWIE, TX
> 12. mi from
WISETXGW07
No
Oil and Gas Processing operation. AST. BTEX sources may exist, but because of
distance to sample locations, this site is not considered a potential candidate source.
orphan TIER 2
T&T A #1H, B #2H, C #3H
Latitude: 33.5040
Longitude: -97.6543
BOWIE, TX
Approximately 6 mi from
WISETXGW06
No
Oil and Gas Processing operation. AST. BTEX sources may exist, but because of
distance to sample locations, this site is not considered a potential candidate source.
orphan TIER 2
UMBERSON B #2H, C #1H,
C#2H
Latitude: 33.6069
Longitude: -97.6152
BOWIE, TX
> 13 mi from
WISETXGW06
No
Oil and Gas Processing operation. AST. BTEX sources may exist, but because of
distance to sample locations, this site is not considered a potential candidate source.
orphan TIER 2
HUDSPETH B#1H,C#2H
Latitude: 33.5263
Longitude: -97.5552
BOWIE, TX
Approximately 8 mi from
WISETXGW07
No
Oil and Gas Processing operation. AST. BTEX sources may exist, but because of
distance to sample locations, this site is not considered a potential candidate source.
orphan TIER 2
SETTLE C #3H
Latitude: 33.5354
Longitude: -97.4616
BOWIE, TX
> 12 mi from
WISETXGW06
No
Oil and Gas Processing operation. AST. BTEX sources may exist, but because of
distance to sample locations, this site is not considered a potential candidate source.
orphan TIER 2
GREENWOOD A #2H, C #3H
Latitude: 33.5027
Longitude: -97.6035
BOWIE, TX
Approximately 6.5 miles
mi from WISETXGW06.
No
Oil and Gas Processing operation. AST. BTEX sources may exist, but because of
distance to sample locations, this site is not considered a potential candidate source.
orphan TIER 2
KRAMER C#5H
Latitude: 33.5370
Longitude: -97.6945
BOWIE, TX
> 10, mi from
WISETXGW06.
No
Oil and Gas Processing operation. AST. BTEX sources may exist, but because of
distance to sample locations, this site is not considered a potential candidate source.
orphan TIER 2
BOWIE EAST COMPRESSOR
SITE
Latitude: 33.5801
Longitude: -97.7700
BOWIE, TX
> 14 mi from
WISETXGW06.
No
Oil and Gas Processing operation. AST. BTEX sources may exist, but Because of
distance to sample locations, this site is not considered a potential candidate source.
orphan TIER 2
CAIN C#4H, D#5H
Latitude: 33.5800
Longitude: -97.5835
BOWIE, TX
Approximately 11 mi from
WISETXGW07
No
Oil and Gas Processing operation. AST. BTEX sources may exist, but because of
distance to sample locations, this site is not considered a potential candidate source.
orphan TIER 2
BROWN C #1H
Latitude: 33.5080
Longitude: -97.6227
BOWIE, TX
> 6 mi from WISETXGW07
No
Oil and Gas Processing operation. AST. BTEX sources may exist, but because of
distance to sample locations, this site is not considered a potential candidate source.
orphan TIER 2
CHRISTIAN C#2H-#4H
Latitude: 33.5138
Longitude: -97.4544
BOWIE, TX 76230
Approximately 11 mi from
WISETXGW07
No
Oil and Gas Processing operation. AST. BTEX sources may exist, but because of
distance to sample locations, this site is not considered a potential candidate source.
orphan TIER 2
CHRISTIAN C #1H
Latitude: 33.5120
Longitude: -97.4557
BOWIE, TX
Approximately 11 mi from
WISETXGW07
No
Oil and Gas Processing operation. AST. BTEX sources may exist, but because of
distance to sample locations, this site is not considered a potential candidate source.
orphan TIER 2
BILLY HENDERSON A #3H,
A #3H, B #1H, C #2H, D #3H
Latitude: 33.5879
Longitude: -97.6561
BOWIE, TX
Approximately 11 mi from
WISETXGW07
No
Oil and Gas Processing operation. AST. BTEX sources may exist, but because of
distance to sample locations, this site is not considered a potential candidate source.
orphan FINDS
UNAUTHORIZED DUMP
SITE SH 1816 MONTAGUE
FROM BOWIE ON STATE HIGHWAY
1816 ON DEER RIDGE RD.
BOWIE, TX 76230
> 12 mi from
WISETXGW07
No
Unknown contamination. Because of distance to sample locations, this site is not
considered a potential candidate source.
2 orphan TIER 2
BOWIE TRUCK (AKA
TEPPCO BOWIE)
FROM JCT. HWY 287 AND FM174
APPROX 2.25 Ml NW OF BOWIE
TURN
BOWIE, TX76230
> 15 mi. NW from
WISETXGW06.
No
Listed in TIER 2 listing (listing of facilities which store or manufacture hazardous
materials and submit a chemical inventory report). Because of distance to sample
locations, this site is not considered a potential candidate source.
orphan TIER 2
BOWIE STATION
1.2 MILES SOUTHEAST ON HWY 174
FROM HWY 287
BOWIE, TX 76230
> 15 mi. NW from
WISETXGW06.
No
Oil Processing/Transportation facility.. BTEX sources may exist, but because of
distance to sample locations, this site is not considered a potential candidate source.
2 orphan TIER 2
HINDS CLARK C
J. HARDY SVY-SEC. A-970
BOWIE, TX76230
Latitude: 33.5291
Longitude: 97.1822
Approximately 15 mi. NW
from WISETXGW06.
No
Records and coordinates indicate this is a dam. Because of distance to sample
locations, this site is not considered a potential candidate source.
orphan RCRA-CESQG
ALL AMERICAN OIL
SERVICES INC
HWY 297 AND FRUITLAND RD
BOWIE, TX 76230
Approximately 15 mi. NW
from WISETXGW06.
No
Conditionally Exempt Small Quantity Generator. No violartions found. Because of
distance to sample locations, this site is not considered a potential candidate source.
orphan TIER 2
J.C. GOSSETT # 2
RRC# 20656
BOWIE, TX 76230
Latitude: 33.47933
Longitude: 97.97260
> 20 mi. from
WISETXGW06.
No
No contaminant information is reported for this site. Storage Tank at site. Because
of distance to sample locations, this site is not considered a potential candidate
source.
orphan TIER 2
WISE PRODUCTION
COMPANY - HUTH
RRC# 14116
BOWIE, TX 76230
Latitude: 33.61573
Longitude: 97.88792
> 20 mi. from
WISETXGW07
No
Crude Petroleum and Natural Gas Extraction. BTEX sources may exist, but because of
distance to sample locations, this site is not considered a potential candidate source.
orphan TIER 2
WISE PRODUCTION
COMPANY - DENSON
RRC# 149353
BOWIE, TX 76230
Latitude: 33.57124
Longitude: 97.90881
> 20 mi. from
WISETXGW07
No
Crude Petroleum and Natural Gas Extraction. BTEX sources may exist, but because of
distance to sample locations, this site is not considered a potential candidate source.
orphan TIER 2
CHRISTIE A,B,C,D
Latitude: 33.656031
Longitude: 97.764273
BOWIE, TX
Approximately 19 mi.
from WISETXGW06.
No
Crude Petroleum and Natural Gas Extraction. BTEX sources may exist, but because of
distance to sample locations, this site is not considered a potential candidate source.
Ind. Haz Waste,
RCRA NonGen / NLR,
FINDS orphan
ARCO PIPELINE BOWIE
STATION
US HIGH WAY 287
BOWIE, TX 76230
Approximately 15 mi. NW
from WISETXGW06.
No
Pipeline operations BTEX sources may exist, but because of distance to sample
locations, this site is not considered a potential candidate source.
orphanInd. Haz
Waste
TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
US HIGH WAY 81 N
BOWIE, TX 76230
Approximately 15 mi. NW
from WISETXGW06.
No
NON INDUS, CESQG-Petroleum UST (6)- 4 removed-Possibly a LUST in 1992-BTEX
sources may exist, but because of distance to sample locations, this site is not
considered a potential candidate source.
-------
C-36
Table C21	Environmental Database Review Summary, EPA - Wise County, Texas - Location C
Database
Name of Facility
Site Location and Address
Distance from Nearest
Sample Point
Yes/No
Potential Candidate Cause
Justification
Ground Water Wells
2 TIER 2 orphan
GILMORE LEASE
NEAR US 81
BOWIE, TX 76230
USA
Latitude: 33.61257
Longitude: 97.87832
> 20 mi. from
WISETXGW07
No
Crude Petroleum and Natural Gas Extraction. BTEX sources may exist, but because of
distance to sample locations, this site is not considered a potential candidate source.

2 orphan TIER 2
MAYFIELD LEASE - RRC#
23679
NEAR US 287
BOWIE, TX 76230
Latitude: 33.60803
Longitude: 97.96200
> 24 mi. from
WISETXGW07
No
Crude Petroleum storage. BTEX sources may exist, but because of distance to sample
locations, this site is not considered a potential candidate source.
2 orphan TIER 2
MCB LEASE - RRC# 29981
NEAR US 81
BOWIE, TX 76230
Latitude: 33.65470
Longitude: 97.89083
> 23 mi. from
WISETXGW07
No
Crude Petroleum storage. BTEX sources may exist, but because of distance to sample
locations, this site is not considered a potential candidate source.
orphan FINDS, US
AIRS
TEPPCO BOWIE PIPELINE
STATION
ON U.S. HWY 287 (BUSINESS ROUTE
BOWIE, TX 76230
Approximately 15 mi. NW
from WISETXGW06.
No
Pipeline operations BTEX sources may exist, but because of distance to sample
locations, this site is not considered a potential candidate source.
orphan UST
VACANT SITE
HWY 455 & 922
FORESTBURG, TX 76239
Approximately 8 mi. NNE
from WISETXGW07
No
Petroleum products were stored at this site. USTs removed since 1974. BTEX
sources may exist, but because of distance to sample locations, this site is not
considered a potential candidate source.
orphan Ind. Haz
Waste, UST
DILLS GARAGE
HIGHWAY 455
FORESTBURG, TX 76239
Approximately 8 mi. NNE
from WISETXGW07
No
BTEX sources may exist, but because of distance to sample locations, this site is not
considered a potential candidate source.
orphan LPST, UST
RUBY FANNING EXXON
HWY 455
FORESTBURG, TX 76239
Approximately 8 mi. NNE
from WISETXGW07
No
Petroleum products were stored at this site. USTs removed since 1995. BTEX
sources may exist, but because of distance to sample locations, this site is not
considered a potential candidate source.
orphan TIER 2
DAN #1 LEASE
HIGHWAY 922
FORESTBURG, TX 76239
Latitude: 33.49792
Longitude: 97.48044
> 10 mi. from
WISETXGW07
No
BTEX sources may exist, but because of distance to sample locations, this site is not
considered a potential candidate source.
orphan AST
GRANDPAS CORNER STORE
CORNER HWY 455 & HWY 6
FORESTBURG, TX 76239
Approximately 8 mi. NNE
from WISETXGW07.
No
AST. BTEX sources may exist, but because of distance to sample locations, this site is
not considered a potential candidate source.
2 orphan TIER 2
FORESTBURG - AMERICAN
TOWER CORP SITE #89151
PT. S.D. HUGHS SURVEY
FORESTBURG, TX76239
Approximately 8 mi. NNE
from WISETXGW07.
No
BTEX sources may exist, but because of distance to sample locations, this site is not
considered a potential candidate source.
orphan ICIS
TE PRODUCTS PIPELINE
COMPANY, LP.-8" CRUDE
OIL PIPELINE F
W OF S HWY. 81, APPROX. 6.7 M S
OF S HWY 82
STONE BURG, TX 76230
> 20 mi. NW from
WISETXGW06.
No
Listed in ICIS database (ICIS-06-2002-4851 FORMAL ENFORCEMENT ACTION). No
other information found. BTEX sources may exist, but because of distance to sample
locations, this site is not considered a potential candidate source.
orphan TIER 2
KEY ENERGY SERVICES/
BANDERA SWD#1
11844 US HWY 287 N
SUNSET, TX 76230
Approximately 8 mi.
WNW from WISETXGW06.
No
Support Activities for Oil and Gas Operations. AST. BTEX sources may exist, but
because of distance to sample locations, this site is not considered a potential
candidate source.
orphan ENF
WEST WISE RURAL WSC
WATER PLANT
CORNER OF FM1658 AND FM2954
WISE COUNTY
Approximately 15 mi. SW
from WISETXGW06.
No
Several violations: Inadequate written backflow assembly prevention assembly
testing
program.
Failure to provide adequate containment facilities for all liquid
chemical storage tanks.
Failure to calibrate the flow measuring device for treated discharge
water.
Failure to conduct quarterly calibration for the online turbidimeter
for 2010.
Failed to prevent an unauthorized discharge of sewage, municipal waste, agricultural
waste, or industrial waste into or adjacent to any water in the state.
Because of distance to sample locations, this site is not considered a potential
candidate source.
orphan ENF
BIG SANDY CREEK WSSCS
SITE 44 DAM
2.5 MILES NW OF RHOME
WISE COUNTY
Approximately 20 mi. SSE
from WISETXGW06.
No
Flood control notices of violations. Because of distance to sample locations, this site
is not considered a potential candidate source.
orphan ENF
BIG SANDY CREEK WSSCS
SITE 43 DAM
3 MILES NW OF RHOME
WISE COUNTY
Approximately 20 mi. SSE
from WISETXGW06.
No
Flood control notices of violations. Because of distance to sample locations, this site
is not considered a potential candidate source.
Primary Source: Environmental records search report by Environmental Data Resources, Inc. (EDR)
Notes:
EDR Inquiry Number: 3589232.16s
EDR Search Radius: 3 miles
Center of Search:	Lat. 33.4127000 - 33° 24' 45.72", Long. 97.6189000 - 97° 37' 8.04"
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.
Key:
AST = Above ground storage tank.	NPDES = National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System.
FRDS = Federal Reporting Data System.	USGS = United States Geological Survey,
mi = Mile.
Nl= No infromation.
Databases:
AST = Aboveground Storage Tank
CERCLIS = Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Information System
CESQG = Conditionally Exempt Small Quantity Generator
EN F = Administrative
Orders issued to
Municipal Solid Waste,
Petroleum Storage Tank
and Multi-Media sites.
Multi-Media Sites
FINDS = Facility Index
System
ICIS = Integrated Compliance Information System (ICIS)
Ind. Haz Waste = Industrial Hazardous Waste
LPST = Leaking petroleum storage tank
NonGen/NLR= Non-Generator/No Longer Listed
NOV = Notice of Violation
NPL= National priority list
RCRA = Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
SQG = Small Quantity Generator
TIER 2 = A listing of facilities which store or manufacture hazardous materials and submit a
US AIRS = United States Aero metric Information Retrieval System
UST = Underground storage tank
-------
C-37
Table C22	Well Inventory Sumary for Wise County Texas - Location C
API Number
Texas RRC Well ID
Lateral Length
Well Type
Surface Well Longitude
Surface Well Latitude
Bottom Well Longitude
Bottom Well Latitude
42497
808100
0
4
-97.624324
33.371043
-97.624324
33.371043
4249731452
808106
0
3
-97.615792
33.373566
-97.615792
33.373566
4249731461
808492
0
4
-97.635240
33.372028
-97.635240
33.372028
4249731495
808516
0
10
-97.629027
33.371613
-97.629027
33.371613
4249731975
809274
0
4
-97.629190
33.430291
-97.629190
33.430291
4249731846
809275
0
4
-97.636405
33.430352
-97.636405
33.430352
4249733212
809276
0
2
-97.631914
33.430000
-97.631914
33.430000
42497
809277
0
4
-97.638617
33.428404
-97.638617
33.428404
4249731031
809278
0
2
-97.667706
33.426581
-97.667706
33.426581
4249731863
809279
0
7
-97.632966
33.432065
-97.632966
33.432065
4249731857
809280
0
7
-97.640003
33.430977
-97.640003
33.430977
4249731928
809281
0
8
-97.637409
33.427418
-97.637409
33.427418
4249731032
809282
0
3
-97.658712
33.424044
-97.658712
33.424044
42497
809283
0
3
-97.639271
33.424797
-97.639271
33.424797
42497
809284
0
3
-97.633508
33.418851
-97.633508
33.418851
4249730479
809285
0
7
-97.625815
33.412870
-97.625815
33.412870
4249731537
809288
0
7
-97.634806
33.376457
-97.634806
33.376457
4249731580
809289
0
4
-97.630761
33.377660
-97.630761
33.377660
4249731897
809290
0
7
-97.627315
33.385089
-97.627315
33.385089
4249731646
809291
0
10
-97.638851
33.376401
-97.638851
33.376401
4249731651
809292
0
7
-97.627346
33.381005
-97.627346
33.381005
4249731898
809293
0
7
-97.633258
33.385095
-97.633258
33.385095
4249731936
809294
0
9
-97.638650
33.384413
-97.638650
33.384413
42497
809295
0
8
-97.626438
33.404503
-97.626438
33.404503
4249731455
809296
0
10
-97.630642
33.397748
-97.630642
33.397748
42497
809297
0
3
-97.642108
33.406207
-97.642108
33.406207
4249731311
809298
0
3
-97.625615
33.407341
-97.625615
33.407341
4249732480
809299
0
10
-97.625212
33.405786
-97.625212
33.405786
4249731706
809300
0
3
-97.628172
33.389364
-97.628172
33.389364
42497
809301
0
3
-97.640126
33.381104
-97.640126
33.381105
4249731741
809302
0
4
-97.627325
33.376087
-97.627325
33.376087
4249731297
809344
0
7
-97.662472
33.397248
-97.662472
33.397248
42497
809349
0
3
-97.631315
33.433523
-97.631315
33.433523
4233731355
809484
0
7
-97.632012
33.436169
-97.632012
33.436169
4233731838
809485
0
9
-97.626443
33.438417
-97.626443
33.438417
4233731505
809486
0
7
-97.634931
33.434639
-97.634931
33.434639
42337
809487
0
3
-97.631951
33.434552
-97.631951
33.434552
4249731641
809504
0
7
-97.632004
33.381603
-97.632004
33.381603
4249732156
809505
0
7
-97.615777
33.383367
-97.615777
33.383367
4249732878
809506
0
7
-97.614357
33.388066
-97.614357
33.388066
4249732230
809509
0
2
-97.601079
33.433218
-97.601079
33.433218
4249732220
809510
0
2
-97.595649
33.424295
-97.595649
33.424295
4249732238
809511
0
9
-97.611598
33.386056
-97.611598
33.386056
4249732326
809512
0
9
-97.609464
33.383339
-97.609465
33.383339
4249732327
809513
0
9
-97.602522
33.382654
-97.602522
33.382654
4249731852
809515
0
9
-97.574953
33.410781
-97.574953
33.410781
4249731851
809516
0
9
-97.585147
33.408504
-97.585147
33.408504
4249731483
809517
0
9
-97.620374
33.399615
-97.620374
33.399615
4249730421
809519
0
7
-97.623096
33.421838
-97.623096
33.421839
4249730348
809520
0
7
-97.622102
33.431369
-97.622102
33.431369
4249732146
809521
0
7
-97.604370
33.431988
-97.604370
33.431988
4249732229
809522
0
7
-97.602806
33.431774
-97.602806
33.431774
4249732184
809523
0
3
-97.619471
33.433597
-97.619471
33.433597
42497
809524
0
3
-97.614091
33.425412
-97.614091
33.425412
42497
809525
0
3
-97.610431
33.428119
-97.610431
33.428119
42497
809526
0
3
-97.591402
33.427801
-97.591402
33.427801
4249730017
809527
0
7
-97.583717
33.402448
-97.583717
33.402448
42497
809528
0
3
-97.588166
33.416089
-97.588166
33.416089
4249732498
809529
0
3
-97.621426
33.402047
-97.621426
33.402047
4249731596
809530
0
3
-97.617773
33.394848
-97.617773
33.394848
4249732021
809531
0
7
-97.623224
33.386393
-97.623224
33.386393
4249732298
809532
0
3
-97.615796
33.380608
-97.615796
33.380608
4249732322
809533
0
7
-97.612717
33.381438
-97.612717
33.381438
4249732272
809534
0
3
-97.608281
33.387819
-97.608281
33.387819
4249732130
809535
0
3
-97.595078
33.381932
-97.595078
33.381932
4249732235
809536
0
10
-97.599503
33.379251
-97.599504
33.379251
4249731874
809537
0
3
-97.590697
33.388148
-97.590697
33.388148
4249731667
809538
0
7
-97.586453
33.387013
-97.586453
33.387013
4249731636
809539
0
3
-97.581251
33.386638
-97.581251
33.386638
4249731410
809540
0
8
-97.583477
33.381614
-97.583477
33.381614
4249731853
809570
0
3
-97.585779
33.411412
-97.585779
33.411412
4233731659
809584
0
9
-97.619054
33.448067
-97.619054
33.448067
4233731918
809585
0
9
-97.617861
33.447168
-97.617861
33.447168
4233731342
809586
0
3
-97.619241
33.438878
-97.619241
33.438878
4233731778
809587
0
3
-97.602806
33.433934
-97.602806
33.433934
42337
809588
0
3
-97.597266
33.447971
-97.597266
33.447971
42337
809590
0
3
-97.604420
33.452706
-97.604420
33.452706
42337
809591
0
3
-97.604438
33.444955
-97.604438
33.444955
4249734703
1071546
0
4
-97.610366
33.421786
-97.610366
33.421786
4233733425
1073749
0
4
-97.612372
33.440809
-97.612372
33.440809
4249734741
1074075
0
7
-97.583917
33.422870
-97.583917
33.422870
4249735485
1093858
0
2
0.000000
0.000000
-97.613621
33.390505
4249735486
1093859
0
2
0.000000
0.000000
-97.616714
33.388736
4249735487
1093860
0
4
0.000000
0.000000
-97.615783
33.382837

1100541
0
2
-97.613621
33.390505
0.000000
0.000000

1100542
0
2
-97.616714
33.388736
0.000000
0.000000

1100543
0
4
-97.615783
33.382837
0.000000
0.000000
4249732257
1108596
0
9
-97.599685
33.431165
-97.599685
33.431165
4249733134
1108654
0
2
-97.632170
33.430136
-97.632170
33.430136
4249735890
1125715
0
4
-97.621361
33.388499
-97.621361
33.388499
4249735898
1126651
0
4
-97.625057
33.388084
-97.625057
33.388084
-------
C-38
Table C22	Well Inventory Sumary for Wise County Texas - Location C
API Number
Texas RRC Well ID
Lateral Length
Well Type
Surface Well Longitude
Surface Well Latitude
Bottom Well Longitude
Bottom Well Latitude
4249735901
1126782
0
4
-97.601040
33.423625
-97.601040
33.423625
4249735902
1126784
0
2
-97.613117
33.416285
-97.613117
33.416285
4249735908
1127820
0
6
-97.631217
33.386186
-97.631217
33.386186
4249735921
1129192
0
4
-97.635244
33.396376
-97.635244
33.396376
4249735928
1130007
0
6
-97.631617
33.400093
-97.631617
33.400093
4249735937
1131002
0
4
-97.629585
33.394533
-97.629585
33.394533
4249735995
1136054
0
5
-97.650844
33.424078
-97.650844
33.424078
4249736008
1137190
0
5
-97.657149
33.418847
-97.657149
33.418847
4249736026
1138168
0
5
-97.661670
33.421813
-97.661670
33.421813
4249736042
1139544
0
5
-97.592681
33.401726
-97.592681
33.401726
4249736044
1139619
0
5
-97.591454
33.398524
-97.591454
33.398524
4249736103
1144010
0
4
-97.614105
33.417274
-97.614105
33.417274
4249736176
1148769
0
5
-97.655404
33.430644
-97.655404
33.430644
4249736163
1149653
0
5
-97.625776
33.407103
-97.625776
33.407103
4249736341H1
1163101
2825
86
-97.588094
33.416399
-97.578838
33.416231
4249736357H1
1164529
2317
86
-97.658240
33.428836
-97.665056
33.431646
4249736377H1
1165678
2964
86
-97.631313
33.430262
-97.628020
33.422596
4249736400H1
1167472
2486
86
-97.669621
33.417918
-97.677443
33.419835
4249736401H1
1167549
3343
86
-97.576915
33.427143
-97.587842
33.426460
4233733978H1
1169039
2090
86
-97.617147
33.444596
-97.621923
33.448717
4249736439H1
1170547
3333
86
-97.613966
33.417374
-97.603058
33.416850
4233734010H1
1172870
2546
86
-97.642601
33.439692
-97.634472
33.441275
4249736483H1
1173414
2702
86
-97.616442
33.370502
-97.624396
33.373763
4249736502H1
1174841
3147
86
-97.577777
33.431087
-97.570600
33.424875
4249736549H1
1178651
3204
86
-97.641221
33.426610
-97.631424
33.423435
4249736620H1
1178652
0
86
-97.667908
33.399725
-97.658160
33.397299
4249736592H1
1181921
2598
86
-97.618737
33.413750
-97.622410
33.420192

1184351
3103
86
0.000000
0.000000
0.000000
0.000000
4233734134
1184635
0
19
-97.595333
33.438914
-97.595333
33.438914
4233734174
1189256
0
2
-97.612787
33.455742
-97.612787
33.455742
4249737005H1
1205416
4789
86
-97.654277
33.394959
-97.666485
33.403231
4249737009H1
1205684
4361
86
-97.607415
33.402239
-97.618131
33.410170
4249737010H1
1205688
5303
86
-97.644211
33.391001
-97.656780
33.401069
4249737038H1
1207540
3218
86
-97.589620
33.412920
-97.597391
33.418901
4249737039H1
1207831
4720
86
-97.603220
33.406000
-97.614706
33.414691
4249737047H1
1208029
4815
86
-97.669648
33.418098
-97.679776
33.428249
4249737099H1
1211070
3971
86
-97.590374
33.388738
-97.599857
33.396213
4249737100H1
1211074
4338
86
-97.590409
33.388567
-97.582399
33.378716
4233734385H1
1212741
4288
86
-97.591393
33.439040
-97.583144
33.429495
4233734386H1
1212746
4315
86
-97.591355
33.439070
-97.582217
33.430016
4233734387H1
1212748
4144
86
-97.591317
33.439100
-97.581402
33.431313
4233734421H1
1215347
4306
86
-97.591387
33.439051
-97.583327
33.429335
4249737167H1
1216136
3892
86
-97.666970
33.392630
-97.658072
33.384966
4233734447H1
1216541
4131
86
-97.612755
33.454182
-97.606406
33.444152
4233734448H1
1216542
4540
86
-97.612678
33.454207
-97.604044
33.444040
4233734449H1
1216543
4722
86
-97.612648
33.454193
-97.602288
33.444549
4233734447HW
1216593
0
2
0.000000
0.000000
-97.612755
33.454182
4249737192H1
1219160
5386
86
-97.592900
33.401720
-97.605306
33.412251
4249737193H1
1219497
4519
86
-97.657942
33.428641
-97.667389
33.438210
4249737259H1
1225160
5347
86
-97.611509
33.383790
-97.597976
33.374456
4249736401HW
1225850
0
2
0.000000
0.000000
-97.576915
33.427143
4249737271H1
1226513
5352
86
-97.576600
33.411520
-97.563193
33.402034
4249737272H1
1226538
4583
86
-97.576515
33.411471
-97.568734
33.400697
4249737281H1
1226781
5507
86
-97.672289
33.414676
-97.659989
33.403597
4233734638H1
1228611
4132
86
-97.652075
33.450317
-97.643519
33.441509
4249737323H1
1230627
4083
86
-97.617492
33.379943
-97.608302
33.371787
4249737362H1
1234810
3758
86
-97.641113
33.426549
-97.632704
33.419001
4249737363H1
1234811
3798
86
-97.641093
33.426519
-97.633820
33.418044
4249737365H1
1234827
3937
86
-97.641073
33.426489
-97.634882
33.416995
4249737369H1
1235760
5182
86
-97.627189
33.407355
-97.641985
33.414346
4249737370H1
1235813
5745
86
-97.627152
33.407414
-97.614485
33.395729
4249737375H1
1236230
7617
86
-97.640596
33.400179
-97.658852
33.414459
4233734756H1
1240820
6090
86
-97.615138
33.451007
-97.627812
33.463944
4233734757H1
1240821
6201
86
-97.615101
33.450975
-97.626711
33.464968
4233734758H1
1240825
6016
86
-97.615175
33.451038
-97.628905
33.462913
4249737436H1
1246920
3988
86
-97.609819
33.423560
-97.618809
33.431517
4249737486H1
1250412
4929
86
-97.668010
33.428500
-97.659600
33.416930
4249737489H1
1250899
3986
86
-97.614245
33.432787
-97.606709
33.423836
4249737490H1
1250906
3968
86
-97.614248
33.432875
-97.604535
33.425620
4233735008H1
1261798
5269
86
-97.660140
33.453333
-97.654010
33.439791
Well Type Legend
2	Permitted Location
3	Dry Hole
4	Oil Well
5	Gas Well
6	Oil/Gas Well
7	Plugged Oil Well
8	Plugged Gas Well
9	Canceled Location
10	Plugged Oil/Gas Well
19	Shut-In Well (Oil)
86	Sidetrack Well Surface Location
-------
C-39
Table C23 Number of Oil and Gas Wells in Wise County, Texas - Location C



Total Number
Oil and Gas Wells within
Search Area
Search Area

of Oil and Gas
1 Mile of EPA Sample
Name
Radius (miles)
EPA Samples
Wells
Points
Location C
3
WISETXGW06
161
30


WISETXGW07


Table C24 Impoundments within 1 Mile of EPA Samples, Wise County,
Texas - Location C

Approximate



Date of Google

Distance from


Approximate
Earth Aerial

EPA Sample
No. of Wells
No. of
Distance from
Imagery showing

to Nearest
within 1
Impoundments
EPA Sample to
Impoundment

Well Pad and
Mile of the
within 1 Mile of
the Nearest
Nearest to the
EPA Sample
API Number
EPA Sample
the EPA sample
Impoundment
EPA Sample
WISETXGW06
0.3 miles SW
49731311
18
2
0.7 miles NE
10/8 - 4/12
WISETXGW07
0.3 NE
49736439
17
2
0.2 miles NE
10/8 - 4/12
-------
C-40
Table C25 Notable Notice of Violations Summary, Wise County, Texas
Distance From
Well	Date of	Nearest EPA Search
Operator API Permit Lease Name Number Lease ID Latitide Longitude Violation Job No.	Complaint/Violation	Corrected	Sample Area
Silver Creek
Oil and Gas,
LLC
33701437
Lynch R.S.
3
17786
33.42969
97.62985
04/08/13
2013-6235
Concerns about an abandoned well
and possible casing leak.
No leak observed, and no further
action required.
NA
1.25 mi NW
from
WISETXGW07
C
375 Energy,
LLC
49736592
Inogene
Lynch 44
2H
31122
33.4132
97.6192186
09/06/11
2011-14425
Concerns about an oil and brine spill
from a leaking valve inside the
compressor station walls. The spill
was contained inside the walls. Three
300-bbl steel tanks at the 2H well
were also inspected; the tanks were
not leaking.
The operator performed delineation
sampling to determine the extent of
the contamination. Chlorides were
detected up to 91,600 mg/kg; TPH up
to 7,630 mg/kg; and several metals all
below TCLP regulatory limits. The
operator removed the affected area
of soil. No violations were noted.
Yes
0.3 mi NE from
WISETXGW06
c
375 Energy,
LLC
49736592
Inogene
Lynch 44
2H
31122
33.4132
97.6192186
02/09/13
2013-2505
Areas at the storage facility were
found to be contaminated with
produced fluids as a result of a
storage tank overflow. The operator
was directed to immediately remove
all free-standing produced fluids form
the ground surface; repair or replace
all leaking equipment; conduct
excavation operations to vertically
and horizontally delineate all areas
affected by produced fluids; and
initiate and complete remedial
cleanup operations for all areas
affected by produced fluids to
promote aeration and natural
remediation.
The site was re-inspected on 3/1/13
and cleanup had not been performed.
Unknown
0.3 mi NE from
WISETXGW06
c
Source: Texas RailRoad Commission
Notes:
NA- Not applicable
Nl - No information
-------
Appendix C Background Data, Retrospective Case Study in Wise County, Texas	May 2015
Appendix C Figures
C-41
-------
C-42
Suntsl
OKLAHOMA
m 9 V'tk
Location^
NEW
"MF.XIC
0*11**
Sm Antonio
Location A
*Mont«n«y Bi
Terr eon
Decatur
Denton
Lake Bridgeport"^Bridgeport
Poncter
Location B
Runaway Bay
Paradise
New Fairview
Ci
Pecan Aires' Newark'
Crops
Alfalfa
Barley
Canola
Ciover/Wildflowers
Corn
Cotton	f% Oats	f%	Soybeans
Dbl Crop Barley/Sorghum ft Other Crops	Sunflower
Obi Crop WinWht/Cotton	Pasture/Hay	ft	Sweet Corn
Dbl Crop WinWht/Sorghum ft Pecans	ft	Watermelons
Fallow/Idle Cropland	ft Rye	ft	Winter Wheat
Millet	ft Sorghum
Source: Crop Data: USDA: Municipalities, ESRI. Sample Locations. EPA ORD
Other Lands
Open Water
ft Urban
ft Barren
ft Forest
, Grassland/Shrub
ft Wetlands
Municipal Boundaries
C D Search Areas
• EPA HF Sampling Locations
2012 Crop Lands
Wise County, Texas
EPA Hydraulic Fracturing Study
Figure CI 2012 Crop Lands
-------
C-43
1992-2001
Rosslon
Sunset
\
fTI
crAlvord
. "!!¦ ,
Location C
V.i
- H

r - •% v c.
% *>.
' V^'
Lake Bridgeport/^'Bridgeport
Runaway Boy
^W ^
4
•>d
Location A
Decatur
*
Location B
Paradise
New Fairview-
VV .Ag'7 •
\ Pecan Acres ^ - 'j,
Spimgtown
Pecan AcresNewark
PM 2257
Spungtown
307. m.
h
tort
"AIIib
«-,r
2001-2006
,J--'
[''llvord
Location C
rv'
^Chico! '
. / i?
y''.*7A
^ •> L < ' J ,
j	y*^ ,1
I . «{>.*
Lake BrOgeport/Bridgeport*
Runaway Bay >¦
S#1
Decatur
,-v
Location B
Jt
* . •
Paradise
V I
A
Location A
L
Mew FairviewJ
von* Stu.
1
289* £
*£f-
POdlvillt:
^"Springtown
I
¦ ,-At?
^Ajiroral RholT,ei
Briar
„
I Pecan Acres 3 t
i i n H'V	)i
Pecan AcresNewark
prioglown

/
X
—
Has lei

-V V"-'
/
	
Land Use Change
To Water
To Urban
To Barren
To Forest	ii_ ' Municipal Boundaries
To Grassland/Shrub O Search Areas
To Agriculture	• EPA HF Sampling Locations
To Wetlands
2.5
10
I Miles
Land Use Changes
1992-2001 and 2001-2006
Wise County, Texas
EPA Hydraulic Fracturing Study
Source: USGS National Land Cover Database: Municpafities, ESRI, Sampfe Locations, US EPA ORD
Figure C2 Land Use Changes, 1992-2001 and 2001-2006
-------
C-44
Figure C3: Population in Wise County, Texas, 1950-
2010
60,000
50,000
40,000
30,000
20,000
10,000
1950	1960	1970	1980	1990	2000	2010
Census Year
-------
C-45
2006

k

I
4
i
] Miles
WISE COUNTY s'
Land Use
Open Water
Developed
Barren
Forest	9 EPA HF Sampling Locations
Shrubland	o Search Area
Grass/Herbaceous
Agricultural
Land Use/Land Cover
1992 and 2006
Wise County, Texas
Location A
EPA Hydraulic Fracturing Study
Source: Landuse. USGS National Land Cover Database (1992,2006): Municipalities, ESRI:
Sampling Locations; US EPA ORD	
Figure C4 Land Use/Land Cover 1992 and 2006, Location A
-------
C-46
A
• ~ wi s
1992
2006
PHeh
Decntur^R- I
Decatur
I» ~
Paradise
Paradiseo.^^;
rn A
4
Miles
WSE COUNTYi"
Land Use	Shrubland	0 EPA HF Sampling Locations
Open Water	Grass/Herbaceous	Municipal Boundaries
££ Developed	Agricultural	C3^SearchArea
Barren	Wetlands
Forest
Source: Landtise. USGS National Land Cover Database (1592 2006): Municipalities. ESRI:
SamptlnQ Locations: US EPA ORD	
Land Use/Land Cover
1992 and 2006
Wise County, Texas
Location B
EPA Hydraulic Fracturing Study
Figure C5 Land Use/Land Cover 1992 and 2006, Location B
-------
C-47
2006
1992
&
-4
WISE COUNTY »v
0 0.S 1
2
3

Land Use
Open Water
Forest	9 EPA HF Sampling Locations
Shrubland	Cj-' Municipal Boundaries
Developed Grass/Herbaceous C—^Search Area
Barren Agricultural
Land Use/Land Cover
1992 and 2006
Wise County, Texas
Location C
EPA Hydraulic Fracturing Study
Source: Landuse. USGS National Land Cover Database (1992.2006): Municipal tiles, ESRI:
Sampling Locations: US EPA QRD	
Figure C6 Land Use/Land Cover 1992 and 2006, Location C
-------
C-48

I

Alfalfa
Canola
Cotton
4
a
* *
I
m f.
a'
0,5 1
1 Miles
WISE COUNTY X ;81
¦ J
Spring lawn	I &
Sorghum	# EPA HF Sampling Locations
#4 Soybeans	CP Municipal Boundaries
06 Winter Wheat	C" "^Search Area
Other Lands
¦4 Barren
i Dbl Crop WinWht/Sorghum fg forest
Fallow/Idle Cropland	Urban
1 Mi"eT	Grassland/Shrub
' ®ats	Open Water
Pasture/Hay
Source: Land Use, USDA: Municipalities, ESRl:
5ample Locations. EPA ORD
2012 Crop Lands
Wise County, Texas
Location A
EPA Hydraulic Fracturing Study
Figure C7 2012 Crop Lands, Location A
-------
C-49
Q
WISE COUNTY ¦ ;8i
Spr ing town
Crops	Soybeans	# EPA HF Sampling Locations
-	04 Sweet Corn	Municipal Boundaries
-	a ^	#4 Watermelons Q_^Search Area
an0a	M Winter Wheat
CI over/Wild flowers
Corn	Other Lands
4 Cotton	94 Ba(ren
4 Dbl Crop WinWht/Sorghum Forest
Fallow/Idle Cropland Urban
^ <->a's	94 Grassland/Shrub
Pasture/Hay	94 Wetlands
4 Pecans Open Water
Sorghum
fsource: LandU® us™.-Mmwpautes,£SRf EPA Hydraulic Fracturing Study
".ample Locations. EPA ORD
2012 Crop Lands
Wise County, Texas
Location B
Figure C8 2012 Crop Lands, Location B
-------
C-50
4
xw
Ift'rvtag i£e--6:©JInti^
St

Boyd
WISE COUNTY • j 81
—
Spring town
96 Soybeans	V EPA HF Sampling Locations
94 Watermelons	Municipal Boundaries
C over/Wi dflowers -j . .... .	. .
'... .5 Winter Wheat C JSearch Area
Corn
Fallow/idle Cropland Other Lands
1 Oats	Barren
Pasture/Hay	«£ forest
, Pecans	M Urban
* RVe	M Grassland/Shrub
Sorghum	Open Water	ia#* r*	m. t*
Wise County, Texas
Location C
bcrce: l»>us6, usda Municipality, esri: EPA Hydraulic Fracturing Study
Samnle Locations. EPA ORD
2012 Crop Lands
Figure C9 2012 Crop Lands, Location C
-------
C-51
N^ffpyd
WISE COUNTY
Municipalities. ESRI
Land Use Change S To Forest	• EPA HF Sampling Locations
To Water	To Grassland/Shrub I^P Municipal Boundaries
To Urban	ToA„to,.Ure	,00, ^
		1992-2001 and 2001-2006
¦ft To Barren Wm To Wetlands	.... _	_
Wise County, Texas
Location A
EPA Hydraulic Fracturing Study
Source: Landuse: USGS National Land Covet Database: Sampling Locations.EPA ORD:
1992-2001
2001-2006

*>
i 1
~
Figure C10 Land Use Change, 1992-2001 and 2001-2006, Location A
-------
C-52
Decatur
WISE COUNTY [8i
Munitipalities-
¦ fr ¦ ¦']'
Decatur
Land Use Change
To Water
To Urban
¦ To Barren
To Forest
To Grassland/Shrub
To Agriculture
To Wetlands
• EPA HF Sampling Locations
Municipal Boundaries
C>e*rchArea	Land Use Changes
1992-2001 and 2001-2006
Wise County, Texas
Location B
EPA Hydraulic Fracturing Study
Source: Landuse: USGS National Land Cover Database; Sampling Locations,EPA ORD;
2001-2006
1992-2001
Paradise
Paradise
Figure Cll Land Use Change, 1992-2001 and 2001-2006, Location B
-------
C-53
Montogue County
Wise County
COUNTY
Municipalities, ESRI
^^Montagu^County
Wise County
WISE
2001-2006
Land Use Change
To Water
To Urban
To Barren
To Forest	• EPA HF Sampling Locations
To Grassland/Shrub tp Municipal Boundaries
To Agriculture	CD Search Area
To Wetlands
Land Use Changes
1992-2001 and 2001-2006
Wise County, Texas
Location C
EPA Hydraulic Fracturing Study
Source: Landuse: USGS National Land Cover Database; Sampling Locations, EPA ORD;
1992-2001 '
Figure C12 Land Use Change, 1992-2001 and 2001-2006, Location C
-------
C-54
Ch.hu tit,*,
'Mwrmcy
Location Ci
(3-mileradius)
Ch.hu tit,*,
GW07
GW06
'Mwrmcy
Torr«jn
greenwood
Location A
(3-mile radius)
GWM ' GW09 «
wsiK'V
SW02V:J-A»__ SW01
GW12-" "Px *
, GW10 *SW03* .
.. Location. B- x :=
. *_ »¦ 		A *
(3-mile radius) D,c;w
Brine Injection ^ ^
» GW0.V*.*N4./
-------
C-55
Decatur
Bridgeport
Justin
WISE COUhJIY
Impoundments
Wise County, Texas
Location A
EPA Hydraulic Fracturing Study
# EPA HF Sampling Locations
~ Impoundment
Search Area
Source: Basemap.ESRl: Sampling Locations, EPA ORD: Impoundments, ecology and environment
Figure C14 Impoundments, Location A
-------
C-56
WISE COUNTY
Impoundments
Wise County, Texas
Location B
EPA Hydraulic Fracturing Study
• EPA HF Sampling Locations
IZ Impoundment
Search Area
Source: Basemap.ESRI: Sampling Locations. EPA ORD: Impoundments, ecology and environment
Figure C15 Impoundments, Location B
-------
C-57
Decatur
WISE COUNTY
Impoundments
Wise County, Texas
Location C
EPA Hydraulic Fracturing Study
• EPA HF Sampling Locations
~ Impoundment
Search Area
Source: Basemap.ESRI; Sampling Locations. EPA ORD; Impoundments„ ecology and environment
Figure C16 Impoundments, Location C
-------
C-58
Attachment 1 EDR Record Search
-------
C-59
GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED I 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
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 03/01/2013
Date Made Active in Reports: 03/13/2013
Number of Days to Update: 12
Source: EPA
Telephone: N/A
Last EDR Contact: 05/09/2013
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
Telephone 617-918-1143
EPA Region 3
Telephone 215-814-5418
EPA Region 4
Telephone 404-562-8033
EPA Region 5
Telephone 312-886-6686
EPA Region 10
Telephone 206-553-8665
EPA Region 6
Telephone: 214-655-6659
EPA Region 7
Telephone: 913-551-7247
EPA Region 8
Telephone: 303-312-6774
EPA Region 9
Telephone: 415-947-4246
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
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 03/01/2013
Date Made Active in Reports: 03/13/2013
Number of Days to Update: 12
Source: EPA
Telephone: N/A
Last EDR Contact: 05/09/2013
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
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 02/02/1994
Date Made Active in Reports: 03/30/1994
Number of Days to Update: 56
Source: EPA
Telephone: 202-564-4267
Last EDR Contact: 08/15/2011
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 11/28/2011
Data Release Frequency: No Update Planned
TC3602489.16s Page GR-1
-------
C-60
GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED I 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-61
GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED I 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-62
GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED I 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
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 12/26/2012
Date Made Active in Reports: 02/27/2013
Number of Days to Update: 63
Source: Environmental Protection Agency
Telephone: 703-603-0695
Last EDR Contact: 03/11/2013
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
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 12/26/2012
Date Made Active in Reports: 02/27/2013
Number of Days to Update: 63
Source: Environmental Protection Agency
Telephone: 703-603-0695
Last EDR Contact: 03/11/2013
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
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 12/11/2006
Date Made Active in Reports: 01/11/2007
Number of Days to Update: 31
Source: Department of the Navy
Telephone: 843-820-7326
Last EDR Contact: 02/18/2013
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
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 01/17/2013
Date Made Active in Reports: 02/15/2013
Number of Days to Update: 29
Source: National Response Center, United States Coast Guard
Telephone: 202-267-2180
Last EDR Contact: 04/02/2013
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
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 01/24/2013
Date Made Active in Reports: 02/19/2013
Number of Days to Update: 26
Source: Department Environmental Protection
Telephone: 717-783-7816
Last EDR Contact: 04/26/2013
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 08/05/2013
Data Release Frequency: Semi-Annually
TC3602489.16s Page GR-4
-------
C-63
GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED I 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
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 01/25/2013
Date Made Active in Reports: 02/19/2013
Number of Days to Update: 25
Source: Department of Environmental Protection
Telephone: 717-783-7816
Last EDR Contact: 04/24/2013
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
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 02/28/2013
Date Made Active in Reports: 04/17/2013
Number of Days to Update: 48
Source: Department of Environmental Protection
Telephone: 717-787-7564
Last EDR Contact: 02/26/2013
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
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 03/20/2013
Date Made Active in Reports: 04/18/2013
Number of Days to Update: 29
Source: Department of Environmental Protection
Telephone: 717-783-7509
Last EDR Contact: 05/02/2013
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
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 08/14/2003
Date Made Active in Reports: 08/29/2003
Number of Days to Update: 15
Source: Department of Environmental Protection
Telephone: 717-783-7509
Last EDR Contact: 08/14/2003
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
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 03/20/2013
Date Made Active in Reports: 04/18/2013
Number of Days to Update: 29
Source: Department of Environmental Protection
Telephone: 717-783-7509
Last EDR Contact: 05/02/2013
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
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 08/28/2012
Date Made Active in Reports: 10/16/2012
Number of Days to Update: 49
Source: EPA Region 8
Telephone: 303-312-6271
Last EDR Contact: 04/29/2013
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 08/12/2013
Data Release Frequency: Quarterly
TC3602489.16s Page GR-5
-------
C-64
GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED I 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-65
GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED I 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-66
GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED I 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-67
GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED I DATA CURRENCY TRACKING
AUL: Environmental Covenants Listing
A listing of sites with environmental covenants.
Date of Government Version: 01/22/2013
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 01/24/2013
Date Made Active in Reports: 02/19/2013
Number of Days to Update: 26
Source: Department of Environmental Protection
Telephone: 717-783-7509
Last EDR Contact: 04/23/2013
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
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 05/16/2008
Date Made Active in Reports: 06/12/2008
Number of Days to Update: 27
Source: Department of Environmental Protection
Telephone: 717-783-9470
Last EDR Contact: 04/24/2013
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 08/05/2013
Data Release Frequency: Varies
State and tribal voluntary cleanup sites
INDIAN VCP R7: Voluntary Cleanup Priority Li:
A listing of voluntary cleanup priority sites
Date of Government Version: 03/20/2008
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 04/22/2008
Date Made Active in Reports: 05/19/2008
Number of Days to Update: 27
located on Indian Land located in Region 7.
Source: EPA, Region 7
Telephone: 913-551-7365
Last EDR Contact: 04/20/2009
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 07/20/2009
Data Release Frequency: Varies
INDIAN VCP R1: Voluntary Cleanup Priority Li:
A listing of voluntary cleanup priority sites
Date of Government Version: 09/28/2012
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 10/02/2012
Date Made Active in Reports: 10/16/2012
Number of Days to Update: 14
located on Indian Land located in Region 1.
Source: EPA, Region 1
Telephone: 617-918-1102
Last EDR Contact: 04/05/2013
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
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 01/16/2013
Date Made Active in Reports: 02/19/2013
Number of Days to Update: 34
Source: Department of Environmental Protection
Telephone: 717-783-2388
Last EDR Contact: 04/17/2013
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-68
GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED I 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-69
GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED I 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-1
-------
C-70
GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED I 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
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 03/21/2013
Date Made Active in Reports: 04/18/2013
Number of Days to Update: 28
Source: Department of Environmental Protection
Telephone: 717-772-5599
Last EDR Contact: 05/02/2013
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
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 03/21/2013
Date Made Active in Reports: 04/18/2013
Number of Days to Update: 28
Local Land Records
Source: Department of Environmental Protection
Telephone: 717-772-5599
Last EDR Contact: 05/02/2013
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 07/01/2013
Data Release Frequency: Varies
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
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 03/26/2012
Date Made Active in Reports: 06/14/2012
Number of Days to Update: 80
Source: Environmental Protection Agency
Telephone: 202-564-6023
Last EDR Contact: 04/29/2013
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
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 04/28/2010
Date Made Active in Reports: 04/30/2010
Number of Days to Update: 2
Records of Emergency Release Reports
Source: Department of Environmental Protection
Telephone: 717-783-9470
Last EDR Contact: 07/22/2011
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 11/07/2011
Data Release Frequency: Varies
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
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 01/03/2013
Date Made Active in Reports: 02/27/2013
Number of Days to Update: 55
Source: U.S. Department of Transportation
Telephone: 202-366-4555
Last EDR Contact: 04/02/2013
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 07/15/2013
Data Release Frequency: Annually
TC3602489.16s Page GR-1
-------
C-71
GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED I DATA CURRENCY TRACKING
SPILLS: State spills
A listing of hazardous material incidents.
Date of Government Version: 01 /16/2013
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 01/24/2013
Date Made Active in Reports: 02/19/2013
Number of Days to Update: 26
Source: DEP, Emergency Response
Telephone: 717-787-5715
Last EDR Contact: 04/29/2013
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
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 02/15/2013
Date Made Active in Reports: 02/27/2013
Number of Days to Update: 12
Source: Environmental Protection Agency
Telephone: 800-438-2474
Last EDR Contact: 05/02/2013
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
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 08/07/2012
Date Made Active in Reports: 09/18/2012
Number of Days to Update: 42
Source: Department of Transporation, Office of Pipeline Safety
Telephone: 202-366-4595
Last EDR Contact: 05/07/2013
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
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 11/10/2006
Date Made Active in Reports: 01/11/2007
Number of Days to Update: 62
Source: USGS
Telephone: 888-275-8747
Last EDR Contact: 04/19/2013
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
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 02/26/2013
Date Made Active in Reports: 03/13/2013
Number of Days to Update: 15
Source: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Telephone: 202-528-4285
Last EDR Contact: 03/11/2013
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
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 01/15/2013
Date Made Active in Reports: 03/13/2013
Number of Days to Update: 57
Source: Department of Justice, Consent Decree Library
Telephone: Varies
Last EDR Contact: 04/01/2013
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 07/15/2013
Data Release Frequency: Varies
TC3602489.16s Page GR-1
-------
C-72
GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED I 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.
Source: EPA
Telephone: 703-416-0223
Last EDR Contact: 03/13/2013
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 06/24/2013
Data Release Frequency: Annually
Date of Government Version: 12/18/2012
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 03/13/2013
Date Made Active in Reports: 04/12/2013
Number of Days to Update: 30
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
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 10/07/2011
Date Made Active in Reports: 03/01/2012
Number of Days to Update: 146
Source: Department of Energy
Telephone: 505-845-0011
Last EDR Contact: 02/25/2013
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
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 09/08/2011
Date Made Active in Reports: 09/29/2011
Number of Days to Update: 21
Source: Department of Labor, Mine Safety and Health Administration
Telephone: 303-231-5959
Last EDR Contact: 03/06/2013
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
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 09/01/2011
Date Made Active in Reports: 01/10/2012
Number of Days to Update: 131
Source: EPA
Telephone: 202-566-0250
Last EDR Contact: 02/26/2013
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
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 09/29/2010
Date Made Active in Reports: 12/02/2010
Number of Days to Update: 64
Source: EPA
Telephone: 202-260-5521
Last EDR Contact: 03/28/2013
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
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 04/16/2009
Date Made Active in Reports: 05/11/2009
Number of Days to Update: 25
Source: EPA/Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances
Telephone: 202-566-1667
Last EDR Contact: 02/25/2013
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 06/10/2013
Data Release Frequency: Quarterly
TC3602489.16s Page GR-14
-------
C-73
GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED I 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-74
GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED I 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-1
-------
C-75
GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED I 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 (LQG)
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
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
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
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
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
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
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: 717-787-9702
Last EDR Contact: 03/25/2013
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 07/08/2013
Data Release Frequency: Varies
TC3602489.16s Page GR-17
-------
C-76
GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED I DATA CURRENCY TRACKING
AIRS: Permit and Emissions Inventory Data
Permit and emissions inventory data.
Date of Government Version: 12/31/2011
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 01/04/2013
Date Made Active in Reports: 02/15/2013
Number of Days to Update: 42
Source: Department of Environmental Protection
Telephone: 717-787-9702
Last EDR Contact: 04/01/2013
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
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 03/09/2011
Date Made Active in Reports: 05/02/2011
Number of Days to Update: 54
Source: Environmental Protection Agency
Telephone: 615-532-8599
Last EDR Contact: 05/06/2013
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
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 10/19/2011
Date Made Active in Reports: 01/10/2012
Number of Days to Update: 83
Source: Environmental Protection Agency
Telephone: 202-566-0517
Last EDR Contact: 05/03/2013
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-1
-------
C-77
GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED I DATA CURRENCY TRACKING
Date of Government Version: 07/31/2012
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 08/13/2012
Date Made Active in Reports: 09/18/2012
Number of Days to Update: 36
US AIRS MINOR: Air Facility System Data
A listing of minor source facilities.
Date of Government Version: 11 /15/2012
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 11/16/2012
Date Made Active in Reports: 02/15/2013
Number of Days to Update: 91
Source: Environmental Protection Agency
Telephone: 617-520-3000
Last EDR Contact: 02/12/2013
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 05/27/2013
Data Release Frequency: Quarterly
Source: EPA
Telephone: 202-564-5962
Last EDR Contact: 04/01/2013
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
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 02/06/2006
Date Made Active in Reports: 01/11/2007
Number of Days to Update: 339
Source: U.S. Geological Survey
Telephone: 888-275-8747
Last EDR Contact: 04/19/2013
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 07/29/2013
Data Release Frequency: N/A
PRP: Potentially Responsible Parties
A listing of verified Potentially Responsible
Date of Government Version: 12/02/2012
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 01/03/2013
Date Made Active in Reports: 03/13/2013
Number of Days to Update: 69
Parties
Source: EPA
Telephone: 202-564-6023
Last EDR Contact: 04/04/2013
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 07/15/2013
Data Release Frequency: Quarterly
TC3602489.16s Page GR-1
-------
C-78
GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED I 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
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 10/27/2010
Date Made Active in Reports: 12/02/2010
Number of Days to Update: 36
Source: American Journal of Public Health
Telephone: 703-305-6451
Last EDR Contact: 12/02/2009
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
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 02/14/2013
Date Made Active in Reports: 02/27/2013
Number of Days to Update: 13
Source: Environmental Protection Agency
Telephone: 703-603-8787
Last EDR Contact: 04/08/2013
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
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 01/03/2011
Date Made Active in Reports: 03/21/2011
Number of Days to Update: 77
Source: Environmental Protection Agency
Telephone: N/A
Last EDR Contact: 03/15/2013
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
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 08/07/2009
Date Made Active in Reports: 10/22/2009
Number of Days to Update: 76
EDR HIGH RISK HISTORICAL RECORDS
Source: Department of Energy
Telephone: 202-586-8719
Last EDR Contact: 04/18/2013
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 07/29/2013
Data Release Frequency: Varies
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 ofwaste. 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-79
GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED I 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
Date Data Arrived at EDR: N/A
Date Made Active in Reports: N/A
Number of Days to Update: N/A
Source: N/A
Telephone: N/A
Last EDR Contact: 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
Date Data Arrived at EDR: N/A
Date Made Active in Reports: N/A
Number of Days to Update: N/A
Source: N/A
Telephone: N/A
Last EDR Contact: 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-80
GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED I 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.
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
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 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
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
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
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
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
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
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 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-81
GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED I 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
-------
Appendix D Supporting Information, Retrospective Case Study in Wise County, Texas
May 2015
Appendix D
Supporting Information
Retrospective Case Study in Wise County, Texas
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Research and Development
Washington, DC
May 2015
EPA/600/R-14/090
D-l
-------
Appendix D Supporting Information, Retrospective Case Study in Wise County, Texas	May 2015
Table of Contents
Table of Contents	D-2
List of Figures	D-3
Example Homeowner Letter from the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality is shown below... D-4
Detailed Geological Description	D-7
Detailed Hydrogeology	D-10
Gas Production	D-12
References	D-14
D-2
-------
Appendix D Supporting Information, Retrospective Case Study in Wise County, Texas	May 2015
List of Figures
Figure D1 A generalized stratigraphy column for the Fort Worth Basin	D-17
Figure D2 A generalized geologic cross section of the Bend Arch, Fort Worth Basin and
Muenster Arch	D-18
Figure D3 Bend Arch-Fort Worth Basin Province within the boundary outlined in red (after
USGS)	D-19
D-3
-------
Appendix D Supporting Information, Retrospective Case Study in Wise County, Texas	May 2015
Example Homeowner Letter from the Texas Commission
on Environmental Quality is shown below
D-4
-------
Appendix D Supporting Information, Retrospective Case Study in Wise County, Texas
May 2015
Bryan W. Shaw, Ph.D., Chairman
Carlos Rubinstein, Commissioner
Toby Baker, Commissioner
Zak Covar, Executive Director
Texas Commission on Environmental Quality
Protecting Texas by Reducing and Preventing Pollution
January 18,2013
ir contamination at GPS coordinates;
Wise County, TX 76234
The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) received information from
the Railroad Commission of Texas that you own or rent property with a private well
used for drinking water consumption or other household purposes. The purpose of this
letter is to notify you that chloride was detected in a groundwater well within Va mile of
your property.
We understand that your private well(s) has been sampled and you have received the
analytical results. This separate notification letter is being sent in accordance with the
requirements of Section 26.408 of the Texas Water Code, which requires the TCEQ to
provide notification to drinking water well owners who may be affected by groundwater
contamination.
Please see the table below for a list showing the maximum detected value of chloride
and its associated comparison levels.
1 Chloride	1 1620 | 300 j	250
8 TCEQ Secondary Constituent Level,
b United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEFA) Secondary Maximum Contaminant Level (SMCL).
Chloride is not considered to present a risk to human health at the comparison values, but can affect the taste of the
water, ppm = parte per million.
The TCEQ is uncertain of the source of the measured elevated concentrations of chloride
in groundwater. Chloride occurs naturally in groundwater but elevated concentrations
may be due to a number of human sources. Chloride in drinking water at levels above its
comparison level is not a risk to human health but may cause the water to have a salty
taste.
P.O. Box 13087 « Austin. Texas 78711-3087 * 512-239-1000 » tceq.texas.gov
How is our customer service? tceq.texss.gov/custometsutvey
printed on recycled p»p?r
D-5
-------
Appendix D Supporting Information, Retrospective Case Study in Wise County, Texas
May 2015
Page 2
•January 18, 2013
If you have any questions about this notification, please contact Heidi Bojes at the Texas
Railroad Commission at 512-475-3089 or by email at Heidi.Bojes@rrc.state.bc.us. If you
have questions for the TCEQ, please call me at 877-992-8370.
Allison Jenkins, MPH
lexicologist
Texas Commission on Environmental Qualify
cc: Heidi Bojes, Railroad Commission of Texas
Sid Slocum, Water Section Manager, TCEQ Region 4
Sam Barrett, Waste Section Manager, TCEQ Region 4
Keith Sheedy, TCEQ, Office of Air
Sincerely,
D-6
-------
Appendix D Supporting Information, Retrospective Case Study in Wise County, Texas
May 2015
Detailed Geological Description
Wise County is located in the Bend Arch-Fort Worth Basin, which was formed during the late paleozoic
Ouachita Orogeny by the convergence of Laurussia and Gondwana in a narrow, restricted, inland seaway
(Bruner and Smosna, 2011). The stratigraphy (Figure Dl) of the Bend Arch-Fort Worth Basin is
characterized by sedimentary sequence and includes limestones, sandstones, and shales. The Barnett
shale is of Mississippian age (320 to 360 million years ago) and extends throughout the Bend Arch-Fort
Worth Basin: south from the Muenster Arch, near the Oklahoma border, to the Llano Uplift in Burnet
County and west from the Ouachita Thrust Front, near Dallas, to Taylor County (see Figure D2) (Bruner
and Smosna, 2011). In the northeastern portion of the Fort Worth Basin, the Barnett Shale is divided by
the Forestburg Limestone, but this formation tapers out towards the southern edge of Wise County
(Bruner and Smosna, 2011). The Barnett Shale is bounded by the Chappel Limestone below it and the
Marble Falls Limestone above it (Bruner and Smosna, 2011).
Stratigraphic units that supply fresh to slightly saline water to wells in the study region range in age from
Paleozoic to recent. However, the most important water-bearing formations in north-central Texas are
of Cretaceous age. The Cretaceous System is composed of two series, Gulf and Comanche, and each is
divided into groups. The Gulf Series is divided into the following five groups: Navarro, Taylor, Austin,
Eagle Ford, and Woodbine. The Comanche Series is divided into the following three groups: Washita,
Fredericksburg, and Trinity. The Trinity Group is the principal water-bearing group of rocks in the study
area and, based on the information obtained from the site visits, all the domestic wells included in this
case study are screened in the groundwater-bearing formations of the Trinity Group. According to the
Texas Railroad Commission (TRRC), the base of the Cretaceous formations in Wise County vary from 700
to 1, 050 feet below ground surface (bgs); the Barnett Shale, occurring in the Pennsylvanian system
occurs between 7,000 to 8,000 feet bgs NETL, 2013).
The Trinity Group crops out through most of the Wise County study area, dips eastward and south
eastward, and is underlain and confined by low-permeability rocks that range in age from Precambrian
to Jurassic and, where it does not outcrop, is confined by the Walnut Formation (Renken, 1998). The
aquifer dips to the south and southeast and has a large amount of vertical anisotropy (Renken, 1998).
The Trinity Group is divided into the following formations (youngest to oldest): Paluxy, Glen Rose,
Antlers, and the Twin Mountains. In the southern part of the county, the Trinity Group is composed of
the Paluxy, Glen Rose, and Twin Mountains formations (Nordstrom, 1982; Renken, 1998). In the
northern portion of the county the Glen Rose formation pinches out and the Paluxy and Twin Mountains
formations coalesce to form one unit, the Antlers formation (Nordstrom, 1982; Renken, 1998).
The Paluxy Formation is the upper member of the Trinity Group south of the Glen Rose pinch-out. It
crops out in Hood, Parker, Tarrant, and Wise counties. The dip is easterly at an average rate of 30 feet
per mile (5.7 meters per kilometer [m/km]) near the outcrop, increasing to 80 feet per mile (15.2 m/km)
near the downdip limit of fresh to slightly saline water. The Paluxy is composed predominantly of fine-
to coarse-grained, friable, homogeneous, white quartz sand interbedded with sandy, silty, calcareous, or
waxy clay and shale. In general, coarse-grained sand is in the lower part. The Paluxy grades upward into
D-7
-------
Appendix D Supporting Information, Retrospective Case Study in Wise County, Texas
May 2015
fine-grained sand with variable amounts of shale and clay. The sands are usually well-sorted, poorly
cemented, and crossbedded. Pyrite and iron nodules are often associated with the sands and contribute
to the high iron concentrations in the groundwater (Nordstrom, 1982).
Thickness of the Paluxy varies considerably throughout the study region. From a maximum thickness
nearing 400 feet (122 m) in the northern part of the study area, the Paluxy thins to the south and
southeast to less than 100 feet (30 m) with a net sand thickness of less than 40 feet (12 m). The
maximum thickness 122 meters (400 feet) is in the northern part of the formation and thins to less than
12 meters (40 feet) as you move south.
The Glen Rose formation consists of hard limestone strata alternating with marl or marly limestone
(Nordstrom, 1982). The Glen Rose formation in Wise County consists of only three or four thin ledges of
limestone interstratified with clays, sandy clays, and sands, and the total thickness is never more than 25
feet, with a reported thickness ranging from 22 to a thickness of 25 feet (Scott and Armstrong, 1932).
The Antlers formation crops out mainly in Cooke, Montague, and Wise counties. The Antlers dips to the
southeast at an average rate of 20 feet per mile (3.8 m/km) near its outcrop to 70 feet per mile (13.3
m/km) near its southeastern limit. The Antlers consists of a basal conglomerate and gravel overlain by a
fine white to gray, poorly consolidated sand in massive-crossbedded layers interbedded with layers of
red, purple, or gray clay in discontinuous lenses scattered throughout the formation, with a middle
section containing considerably more clay beds than the upper or lower sections (Nordstrom, 1982).
Fine white to yellow pack sand with thin beds of multicolored clay resting on a basal layer of gravel
characterize a section on the outcrop (Nordstrom, 1982). The thickness of the Antlers formation varies
from about 122 meters (400 feet) near the outcrops to 274 meters (900 feet) near the pinch-out of the
Glen Rose formation (Nordstrom, 1982).
The Twin Mountains formation crops out in the western part of the study region in Hood, Parker, and
Wise counties. The Twin Mountains overlies Paleozoic rocks throughout the study region and is the
lower member of the Trinity Group. The Twin Mountains underlies the Glen Rose formation where the
Glen Rose is present. In Wise, Denton, Cooke, and Grayson counties, where the Glen Rose is absent, the
Twin Mountains is equivalent to the lower unit of the Antlers formation. Originally the basal Cretaceous
bed was named the Travis Peak formation, but the name was changed to the Twin Mountains formation
in north-central Texas (Fisher and Rodda, 1966). The Travis Peak contains conglomerates of pebble-size
and cobble-size limestone and dolomite, calcareous sands and silts, and impure limestones in central
Texas. In contrast, the Twin Mountains sequence in north-central Texas consists mainly of medium- to
coarse-grained sands, red and gray silty clays, and siliceous conglomerates of chert, quartzite, and
quartz pebbles (Nordstrom, 1982).
The Twin Mountains consists of a basal conglomerate of chert and quartz, grading upward into coarse-
to fine-grained sand interspersed with varicolored shale. The sand strata are more thickly bedded in the
lower part of the formation than in the upper and middle, and it is in this lower massive sand that the
majority of wells are completed. The upper part of the Twin Mountains also contains a considerable
percentage of sand and sandstone strata but less than the lower part due to the increased interbedding
D-8
-------
Appendix D Supporting Information, Retrospective Case Study in Wise County, Texas	May 2015
of shale and clay. Few wells are developed in the upper part of the formation. The thickness varies
from 61 meters (200 feet) near the outcrop to a maximum thickness of 305 meters (1,000 feet)
downdip, which is a considerable distance away from Wise County (Nordstrom, 1982).
D-9
-------
Appendix D Supporting Information, Retrospective Case Study in Wise County, Texas
May 2015
Detailed Hydrogeology
Historical water quality data have been reported (Nordstrom, 1982; Reutter and Dunn, 2000; TXWDB,
2013b; USGS, 2013a; USGS, 2013b). In general water quality data from both Nordstorm and Reutter and
Dunn are consistent with each other. The historical data can be used as a reference point for water
quality changes that may have taken place since 2000.
The Paluxy formation yields small to moderate amounts of fresh to slightly saline water. The primary
source of recharge to the Paluxy is precipitation on the outcrop. Secondary sources include recharge
from streams flowing across the outcrop and surface-water seepage from lakes, natural discharge
through springs and evapotranspiration, and artificial discharge through pumping of wells (Nordstrom,
1982). Water in the outcrop area is under water table conditions, and water levels remain fairly
constant with only normal seasonal fluctuations. In downdip areas, water is under artesian conditions
and is confined under hydrostatic pressure by overlying formations; it discharges naturally through
springs, evapotranspiration, and through pumping of wells (Nordstrom, 1982). The transmissibility
ranges from 15,680 to 171,400 L/d m (1,263 to 13,806 gal/d ft); permeability ranges from 244 to 6,110
L/ d m2 (6 to 150 gal/d ft2); specific capacity ranges from 8.7 to 37 L/min m (0.7 to 3.0 gal/min ft); and
yield 300 to 3,230 L/min (79 to 853 gal/min) (Nordstrom, 1982).
The Glen Rose formation yields small quantities of water to shallow wells in localized areas, and is of
poor quality (Nordstrom, 1982).
The primary source of ground water in the Antlers formation is precipitation on the outcrop; streams on
the outcrop are a source of recharge. The average annual precipitation on the outcrop is about 32
inches. Water in the outcrop area is unconfined and therefore under water table conditions. Downdip
from the outcrop, the water is confined under hydrostatic pressure and is under artesian conditions.
(Baker et al., 1990). The transmissibility ranges from 13,656 to 71,492 L/d m (1,100 to 5,800 gal/d ft);
permeability ranges from 62 to 435 L/d m2 (5 to 35 gal/d ft2); specific capacity ranges from 7.4 to 52
L/min m (0.6 to 4.2 gal/min ft); and yield 416 to 2301 L/min (110 to 608 gal/min) (Nordstrom, 1982).
The Twin Mountains formation is the most important source of ground water for a large part of the
northern Texas (Baker et al., 1990) and yields moderate to large quantities of fresh to slightly saline
water to municipal and industrial wells. The primary source of recharge to the Twin Mountains
formation is precipitation falling on the outcrop and other minor sources such as surface water seepage
from ponds, lakes, and streams cutting the outcrop. Downdip, however, the ground water is confined
by impermeable strata and discharges via springs, evapotranspiration, and pumping of wells
(Nordstrom, 1982; Baker et al., 1990). Ground water in this formation usually occurs under water table
conditions in or near the outcrop but can be artesian conditions downdip; the rate of flow is
approximately 1 m/yr (2 ft/y) easterly down dip (Nordstrom 1982). The transmissibility ranges from
51,500 to 369,000 L/d m (4,150 to 29,724 gal/ft d); permeability ranges from 774 to 4073 L/d m (19 to
100 gal/d ft); specific capacity ranges from 21 to 140 L/min m (1.7 to 11.3 gal/min ft); and yields 606 to
7343 L/min (160 to 1,940 gal/min) (Nordstrom, 1982).
D-10
-------
Appendix D Supporting Information, Retrospective Case Study in Wise County, Texas
May 2015
The average rate of movement of ground water in the Antlers, Twin Mountains, and Paluxy formations
of the Trinity Group is about 1 to 2 feet per year (Nordstrom, 1982). Ground water moves generally in
an east-southeast direction. However, as reported by the TXWDB in 1990, extensive cones of depression
have developed in the piezometric surface of each of the region's principal aquifers, coinciding with
areas of large ground water withdrawals. For example, from 1976 to 1989, water level declines of 25
feet (1.9 ft/yr) were common in the aquifers throughout the TXWBD's northern Texas aquifer study
area. Declines have been especially severe in the Antlers and Twin Mountains aquifers, where declines
of 100 to 250 feet (7.6 to 19.2 ft/yr) occurred over extensive areas. Water-level declines in the Paluxy
and the Woodbine aquifers (another regional aquifer overlying the Trinity, but not outcropping in Wise
County) of up to 150 feet (11.5 ft/yr) were reported in some locations (Baker et al., 1990).
Results of pumping tests reported for Paluxy public supply wells showed that transmissibility values
ranged from 1,263 to 13,808 gal/d ft., with an overall average of 3,700 gal/d ft., with coefficients of
permeability ranging from 6 to 150 gal/d ft2, with an overall average of 50 gal/d ft2 (Nordstrom, 1982).
D-ll
-------
Appendix D Supporting Information, Retrospective Case Study in Wise County, Texas
May 2015
Gas Production
Since the 1950s, Wise County has been a focus of extensive oil and gas production as a result of being
located in the north central portion of the Bend Arch-Fort Worth Basin. The comprehensive National
Assessment of Oil and Gas Project completed by the USGS (Ball and Perry, 1996) in 1995 assessed the
potential for undiscovered oil and natural gas resources of the onshore United States, identified the
Bend Arch-Fort Worth Basin as a major petroleum-producing geological system, and was officially
designated by the USGS as Province 045 and classified as the Barnett-Paleozoic total petroleum system
(TPS). Oil and gas production in the TPS comes from carbonate and clastic rock reservoirs ranging in age
from the Ordovician to the Permian (Figure D3). The first indications of hydrocarbons in the province
were shows of oil and gas in wells drilled for water during the mid-nineteenth century. Sporadic
exploration for petroleum began at the conclusion of the Civil War, and the first commercial oil
accumulations were found in the early 1900s. The province reached a mature stage of exploration and
development in the 1960s (Ball and Perry, 1996). In 2003, the USGS conducted a new assessment of
the TPS and estimated a mean of 26.7 trillion cubic feet (tcf) of undiscovered natural gas, a mean of 98.5
million barrels (bbl) of undiscovered oil, and a mean of 1.1 billion bbls of undiscovered natural gas
liquids, with more than 98%, or 26.2 tcf, of the undiscovered natural gas resource in the Mississippian-
age Barnett Shale (USGS, 2004).
According to the USGS, there is extensive stratigraphic accumulation of natural gas in the numerous
lenticular sandstone and conglomerate bodies of Early Pennsylvanian age in Jack, Parker, and Wise
counties, Texas. These sandstone and conglomerate lenses, locally known as "Bend Conglomerates,"
deposited during the Atoka Stage of the Middle Pennsylvanian period, are characterized by extreme
variability in lateral extent. Conglomerate bodies present in one well commonly are not present in the
offset well. Some wells contain as many as eight separate lenses with a combined pay thickness of more
than 100 feet. The Boonsville (Bend Conglomerate) gas field and the Toto (lower Bend Conglomerate)
gas field cover an area of approximately 450 sq. mi in Jack, Parker, and Wise counties, and at one point
in the 1950s it was the largest gas-producing area of North Texas. Reported depths for these Bend
Conglomerates are from 5,000 to 7,000 feet below the ground. As of January 2011, the lower Atoka
reservoirs, collectively, produced more than 3.2 tcf of natural gas and more than 36.3 million bbl of oil
from more than 5,700 wells (Alhakeem, 2013).
The East Newark Field (i.e., the Barnett Shale) first became a TRRC-recognized field in early 1981 when
Mitchell Energy Corp. made the first economic completion in the formation with its C.W. Slay #1, located
4 miles east of Newark, Texas. This truly could not be considered a "discovery" since the Barnett Shale
was known to exist in the TPS for some time, as many wells had been drilled for years in the area to the
shallower Boonsville Field or to deeper Viola Limestone intervals, while penetrating the Barnett Shale.
However, Mitchell Energy Corp. achieved the first highly economic fracture completion of the Barnett
Shale in 1998 by using slick-water fracturing (Miller et al, 2012). By 2005, the majority of new Barnett
Shale wells drilled were horizontal; by 2008, 94% of the Barnett wells drilled were horizontal (Wang and
Krupnick, 2013). According to the TRRC, as of January 2012, there were 16,530 gas wells in the Barnett
Shale entered on TRRC records. In addition, there were 2,457 permitted locations. (These represent
D-12
-------
Appendix D Supporting Information, Retrospective Case Study in Wise County, Texas
May 2015
pending oil or gas wells, where either the operator has not yet filed completion paperwork with the
TRRC or the completed well has not yet been set up with a TRCC identification number.) In June 2013,
Powell Shale Digest reported the following well statistics for the Barnett Shale field:
•	Total No. Wells: 18,920
•	No. Horizontal Wells: 14,103
•	No. Directional Wells: 528
•	No. Vertical Wells: 4,289.
According to the TRRC the number of permits issued in the Barnett Shale peaked in 2008 with more than
4,000 permits being issued. In contrast, in 2012 approximately 1,182 permits were issued, no doubt a
reflection of the low price of natural gas. Similarly, the number of drilling permits issued in Wise County
peaked in the 2001 to 2002 period with more than 390 permits being issued, while in 2013, fewer than
70 permits had been issued by the TRRC. From January 2012 through November 2012 production in the
Barnett shale accounted for 31% of Texas gas well gas production, with a cumulative production (2004
to 2012) of 11,715 billion cubic feet (bcf). There are approximately 492 oil and gas operators in Wise
County, and approximately 11,410 wells, with a cumulative gas production of 2,808,866,540 cubic feet
(http://www.oginfo.com/texas_production_data/TEXAS/WISE). As of February 2013, the TRRC reported
a total of 4,362 regular gas-producing wells in Wise County. According to information presented by
Powell Shale Digest in June 2013, gas production statistics for Wise County were as follows:
•	No. of Horizontal Wells: 1,052
•	Gas Peak Monthly Daily Average: 1,711 MCFPD
•	Gas Total to April 1, 2013: 860,120 MCF
It was not until 1919 that the TRRC was given authority by the Texas legislature to regulate well plugging
and enact general requirements designed to protect the loss of oil and gas to other strata, not to protect
the environment. The TRRC continued to update plugging regulations by issuing specific cementing
instructions in 1934 and then requiring the plugging of fresh water strata in 1957. In 1966, the TRRC
promulgated Rule 14, which required setting cement plugs to protect fresh water sands to protect
drinkable quality water from pollution and to isolate each productive horizon. In recent developments,
the TRRC adopted regulations requiring the oil and gas industry to disclose the materials used in all
hydraulic fracturing wells in Texas completed after February 1, 2012. Under these regulations the
operator must disclose this information on the well completion report and complete the Chemical
Disclosure Registry form and upload it to the FracFocus database. Additionally, on May 2013, the TRRC
issued new regulations to strengthen the construction of oil and gas wells. The rule, known as the "well-
integrity rule," will take effect next January 2014 and will update the commission's requirements for the
process of drilling wells, installing pipe down the well and cementing the pipe in place.
D-13
-------
Appendix D Supporting Information, Retrospective Case Study in Wise County, Texas
May 2015
References
Alhakeem, A.A. 2013. 3D Seismic Data Interpretation of the Boonesville Field, Texas. A Thesis
Presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School of the Missouri University of Science and Technology, In
Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Master Of Science In Geology and Geophysics.
Baker, B.; Duffin, G.; Flores, R.; and Lynch, T. 1990. Evaluation of Water Resources in Part of North-
Central Texas. Texas Water Development Board, Report 318.
Ball M. M., and W. J. Perry, 1996, Bend Arch-Fort Worth Basin Province (045), in D. L. Gautier, G. L.
Dolton, K. I. Takahashi, and K. L. Varnes, eds., 1995 National assessment of United States oil and gas
resources - Results, methodology, and supporting data.
Bruner, K.R. and Smosna, R. 2011. A Comparative Study of the Mississippian Barnett Shale, Fort Worth
Basin, and Devonian Marcellus Shale, Appalachian Basin. Report submitted to the U.S. Department of
Energy, National Energy Technology Laboratory. DOE/NETL-2011-1478.
Fisher, W.L. and Rodda, P.U. 1966. Nomenclature Revision of Basal Cretaceous Rocks Between the
Colorado and Red Rivers, Texas, No. 58. Bureau of Economic Geology, The University of Texas, Austin.
Miller, R.; Loder, A.; Poison, J. 6 February 2012. "Americans Gaining Energy Independence".
Bloomberg. Retrieved October 2013.
Nordstrom, P.L. 1982. Occurrence, Availability, and Chemical Quality of Ground Water in the
Cretaceous Aquifers of North-Central Texas, Volume 1. Texas Department Of Water Resources, Report
269.
Powell Shale Digest: Texas Oil and Gas Production Is Hot In The Shales 2, Michael E. (Gene) Powell, Jr.,
Publisher/Editor Powell Shale Digest© www.shaledigest.com, Texas Alliance of Energy Producers 2013
Fort Worth Membership Meeting, Fort Worth Petroleum Club, Fort Worth, Texas, June 20, 2013.
Renken, Robert A. 1998. Ground water atlas of the United States: Oklahoma, Texas, Edwards Trinity
Aquifer System. U.S. Geologic Survey Hydrologic Atlas HA 730-E.
Scott, G. and Armstrong, J. M. 1930. The Stratigraphy of the Trinity Division as Exhibited in Parker
County, Tex. The University Of Texas Bulletin 3001, pp. 37-52.
Texas Water Development Board. 2013b. Ground water Database Reports.
http://www.twdb.state.tx. us/groundwater/data/gwdbrpt.asp#W.
U.S. Geological Survey (2013a). National Water Information System: accessed July 11, 2013, at
http://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis.
U.S. Geological Survey (2013b). National Uranium Resource Evaluation: accessed July 24, 2013, at
http://mrdata.usgs.gov/nure/water/.
D-14
-------
Appendix D Supporting Information, Retrospective Case Study in Wise County, Texas	May 2015
Wang, Z.; and Krupnick, A. 2013. A Retrospective Review of Shale Gas Development in the United
States. Resources for the Futures.
D-15
-------
Appendix D Supporting Information, Retrospective Case Study in Wise County, Texas	May 2015
Appendix D Figures
D-16
-------
D-17
System
and Series
Stage
Group or Formation
Comanchean
Ochoan-Guadalupian
Leonard ian
Wolfcampian
Cisco Group
Virginian
Missourian
Canyon Group
SW
NE
Lower Marble Falls
Desmoinesian
Strawn Group
Upper Barnett
Atokan
Barnett Indifference
Bend Group
Marble Falls
Limestone
Marrowan
Lower Barnett
Chester ian-Meramecian
Barnett Shale
Ellenburger
Osagean
V-S
Chappel Limestone
Viola Limestone
Simpson Group
£ Ellenburger Group
Wilberns - Riley - Hickory
Formations
Granite - Diorite - Metasediments
£ Oil reservoir	Gas
Source: American Association of Petroleum Geologists
Figure D1 A generalized stratigraphy column for the Fort Worth Basin
-------
D-18
WEST
Kent
EAST
Throckmorton
Haskell
Stonewall
Young
Jack
Wise
Denton
Canyon
Strawn
Facies .
Change
Lower Penn,
Foreslburg
-w / Lime
Bend Arch
Chappel
Reefs
Fort Worth
Basin
Figure D2 A generalized geologic cross section of the Bend Arch, Fort Worth
Basin and Muenster Arch
-------
D-19
OKLAHOMA
Broken Bone
Grahen/—
Basin
Province
Fort Worth
vBaStn

i r<
Austin '¦
50 Miles
102
-------
EPA 600/R-14/090 ! May 2015 ! www.epa.gov/hfstudy
oEPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
PRESORTED STANDARD
POSTAGE & FEES PAID
EPA
PERMIT NO. G-35
Office of Research and Development (8101R)
Washington, DC 20460
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use
$300
-------